The Carbon Resource Innovation Act amends Internal Revenue Code section 45Q to extend federal carbon oxide sequestration tax credits to facilities that capture carbon in solid or liquid form. The bill inserts new statutory language that defines a ‘‘solid or liquid carbon capture facility,’’ requires measurement at the source of capture and verification at the point of disposal, injection, or utilization, and specifies how to compute the creditable amount in CO2‑equivalent terms.
Why this matters: the change opens 45Q incentives beyond gaseous capture and direct air capture, creating a tax-driven market signal for mineralization, solidified carbon products, and liquid carbon streams. It also builds explicit measurement and permanence hooks into the tax code, which will shift costs and compliance requirements onto facility operators and the IRS — and will require follow‑on regulation to operationalize the verification and comparison‑system concepts the bill references.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends multiple subsections of Section 45Q: it adds a new qualifying category for carbon captured in solid or liquid form, requires that such carbon be measured at the capture source and verified at disposal/injection/utilization, and sets the taxable‑year minimum capture floor for these facilities. It also authorizes underground storage chambers for captured solid/liquid carbon under regulatory conditions and specifies that creditable amounts equal the metric tons (converted to CO2e) that are measured and verified.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers and operators that capture carbon into solids or liquids (including facilities that use carbon capture equipment to create durable carbon products), taxpaying entities claiming 45Q credits, third‑party verifiers and measurement providers, and Treasury/IRS administrators responsible for enforcing and issuing the credits.
Why It Matters
By making 45Q explicitly available for non‑gaseous capture pathways, the bill broadens where investment dollars flow — potentially accelerating industrial sequestration and carbon‑utilization markets. It also inserts technical measurement and permanence requirements into the tax code, raising administrative and compliance questions that will shape whether the statutory incentives translate into durable greenhouse‑gas removals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At a statutory level, the bill does three things that change how the federal carbon sequestration credit can be claimed. First, it adds a new qualifying category for carbon that is captured in solid or liquid form, bringing non‑gaseous capture pathways under the Section 45Q umbrella.
Second, it builds a measurement and verification chain into eligibility: captured carbon must be measured at the capture source and verified at the disposal, injection, or utilization point. Third, it defines key terminology — what counts as a ‘‘solid or liquid carbon capture facility’’ and what constitutes ‘‘carbon capture equipment’’ — and aligns creditable volumes to CO2‑equivalent metric tons that are measured and verified.
Operationally, the statute ties eligibility to two technical tests borrowed from existing regulation: (1) the captured carbon must either be carbon that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere or must show a net reduction when compared to a ‘‘comparison system’’ language that tracks to Treasury Regulation 1.45Q–4(c)(2); and (2) the facility must meet an annual capture floor before it can claim the credit. The bill adds specific language requiring verification at the point of disposal, injection, or utilization, which shifts the compliance burden toward facilities that handle the captured solids/liquids or the third parties that process them.From an accounting and tax administration perspective the statute sets the amount of creditable carbon equal to the CO2e of metric tons measured at source and verified at disposition.
The bill also carves out underground storage chambers as an acceptable disposal option for solid/liquid capture if those chambers meet non‑escape conditions set by regulation. Finally, the statute takes effect immediately for carbon captured after enactment, meaning projects that can meet the measurement and verification requirements quickly will be first to claim newly available credits.Taken together, the measure expands the tax credit beyond traditional gaseous CO2 pipelines and injection projects into mineralization, solid products, and liquid carbon media, but it does so by embedding technical verification and permanence language directly in tax law.
That design will require Treasury and the IRS to supply implementing rules and create a role for independent verifiers, measurement protocols, and potentially new data reporting systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new subparagraph D into section 45Q(c)(1) that makes carbon captured in liquid or solid form eligible provided it would otherwise be emitted or results in a net reduction versus a comparison system and is measured at the source and verified at disposal/injection/utilization.
It amends section 45Q(d) to explicitly list ‘‘solid or liquid carbon capture facility’’ alongside direct air capture and to require such facilities to capture at least 1,000 metric tons of qualified carbon in the taxable year to claim the credit.
The bill adds a new definitional paragraph to 45Q(e) identifying a ‘‘solid or liquid carbon capture facility’’ as any facility that uses carbon capture equipment to capture carbon in solid or liquid form and clarifies that ‘capture’ enables disposal, injection, or utilization.
Section 45Q(f) is changed to state that eligible disposal can include underground storage chambers for solid/liquid carbon where the carbon does not escape, and a new paragraph (11) makes the taxpayer’s creditable amount equal to the CO2‑equivalent of the metric tons measured and verified.
The amendments apply to carbon captured after the date of enactment — there is no grandfathering delay.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the public name "Carbon Resource Innovation Act." This is a standard drafting provision without operational effect on the tax changes that follow.
New qualifying category for solid/liquid captured carbon
The bill adds a new subparagraph to 45Q(c)(1) creating a discrete path to eligibility for carbon captured in solid or liquid form. The new text mirrors the existing criterion for gaseous capture by requiring that the captured carbon either would have been emitted to the atmosphere or produces a net reduction when judged against a comparison system. Practically, this inserts non‑gaseous capture into the statutory list of qualifying capture outcomes and binds eligibility to measurement at the point of capture and verification at the point of disposition.
Facility categories and minimum annual capture
Subsection (d) is amended to name solid or liquid carbon capture facilities alongside direct air capture and to add a specific minimum capture threshold of 1,000 metric tons per taxable year for these facilities. That floor will be an eligibility gate: projects below it cannot claim the credit under this statutory category. The threshold is a design choice that funnels credits to larger‑scale operations and has implications for project sizing and aggregation strategies.
Definitions: facility, capture, and equipment
The bill inserts a new definition of ‘‘solid or liquid carbon capture facility’’ and defines ‘capture’ and ‘carbon capture equipment’ for these facilities. Putting these definitions in the statute narrows future interpretive space but also requires downstream rulemaking to define terms such as what processes count as capture, which devices qualify as capture equipment, and how to treat hybrid systems that produce both gaseous and non‑gaseous carbon products.
Measurement, permanence language, and CO2e accounting
The bill amends subsection (f) to extend existing regulatory hooks to solid/liquid capture by permitting underground storage chambers where carbon does not escape, and it adds a new paragraph specifying that the taxpayer’s quantified capture equals the CO2‑equivalent of metric tons measured at the source and verified at disposal, injection, or utilization. This ties credit quantity to measurable, verifiable outcomes but leaves the technical detail (acceptable measurement methods, verification standards, and permanence criteria) to regulation and guidance.
Effective date
The amendments take effect for carbon captured after enactment. There is no phase‑in period in the text, so Treasury/IRS guidance will determine how quickly projects can claim credits once implementing rules are published.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Developers of solid/liquid carbon capture and utilization technologies — the statute creates a clear tax incentive for systems that mineralize carbon or produce durable solid/liquid carbon products, improving project finance prospects.
- Industrial emitters with solid or liquid carbon streams (e.g., certain chemical, cement, and waste processing operations) — these facilities can potentially monetize capture that previously fell outside 45Q’s gaseous focus.
- Carbon‑utilization firms and downstream product makers — companies that accept, process, or integrate captured solids/liquids into durable products gain new demand signals tied to federal tax credits.
- Taxpayers able to claim 45Q credits, including project owners and eligible assignees — expanding the creditable pathways broadens who can qualify for tax benefits and how credits can be structured.
Who Bears the Cost
- Capture facility operators — they must install measurement systems, maintain records, and obtain verification at disposal/injection/utilization points, raising capital and operating costs.
- Third‑party verifiers and measurement providers — demand and technical liability will increase as independent verification becomes a statutory gate to credits, requiring investment in methodologies and insurance.
- Treasury/IRS — the agency will face new administrative workloads to interpret, audit, and enforce credit claims tied to technical measurement and permanence judgments.
- Entities providing disposal or utilization services (storage operators, product manufacturers) — they may shoulder legal and operational responsibilities to assure permanence and verification, including potential infrastructure upgrades.
- Taxpayers at large (federal budget) — expanding the universe of creditable projects enlarges potential tax expenditures, with implications for federal revenues.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: incentivize a broader set of carbon removal and utilization technologies to mobilize private capital and industrial-scale sequestration, while simultaneously ensuring that the carbon the tax code rewards is measured reliably and stored durably — a trade‑off between rapid market expansion and the credibility of the emissions accounting the credit is supposed to enforce.
The bill embeds technical verification and permanence concepts directly into tax statute but leaves critical operational detail to Treasury regulation and implementing guidance. That design accelerates policy direction but raises several implementation questions: how to standardize measurement methods across diverse solid and liquid matrices, what counts as adequate verification at utilization points (especially where products move through commercial supply chains), and how regulators will interpret the reference to a comparison system under Treasury Regulation 1.45Q–4(c)(2).
Those unresolved choices will determine whether credits reflect durable removals or create perverse incentives to shift carbon into forms that are easy to measure but not permanent.
A second tension concerns permanence and leakage. The statute permits underground storage chambers where carbon ‘‘does not escape into the atmosphere,’’ but permanence standards for solids and liquids differ materially from gaseous CO2 injection.
Utilization pathways (e.g., incorporation into products) present particular accounting challenges around product life‑cycle emissions and potential future release. The bill’s verification trigger at ‘‘disposal, injection, or utilization’’ creates a technical and legal nexus that will require new protocols, third‑party verification markets, and likely contentious IRS audits over time.
Finally, the statute increases opportunities for stacking or double‑counting credits across programs unless coordination rules are developed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.