A Kern County judge has dealt a significant setback to California’s first operating carbon capture and storage project, ruling that county officials violated state environmental law when they approved the facility in 2024.
Kern County Superior Court Judge Marcos Camacho found that the environmental review behind California Resources Corp.’s Carbon TerraVault 1 project failed to meet the standards required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Among the shortcomings cited in his ruling: the review never examined the industries that could eventually funnel carbon dioxide to the facility for underground storage.
The decision is not yet final, so it remains unclear exactly when, or if, CRC will be required to halt injections at the site. According to a live tracker on the company’s website, carbon dioxide continues to be pumped into the ground at the project.
Carbon TerraVault 1, located in the depleted Elk Hills oil field, is designed to eventually store up to 46 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. It is the first of at least nine such storage projects CRC has proposed statewide, and it began operating earlier this year following a contentious and closely watched approval process.
For Kern County, long reliant on oil production, the project represented a potential economic lifeline as California pushes to phase out fossil fuels. County leaders have hoped that TerraVault and similar ventures could attract new industries willing to pay to store their carbon emissions underground, creating jobs to replace those lost in the declining oil sector.
But the project has also drawn sharp criticism from environmental and community groups, who argue that carbon capture technology remains unproven at scale and that nearby residents could be exposed to new risks, including air pollution and the possibility of carbon dioxide leaks from pipelines or underground reservoirs. More than 15 similar carbon capture projects are currently in development across California, according to tracking data from the Clean Air Task Force, and many face similar public resistance.
In his ruling, Camacho agreed with several arguments raised by the environmental groups that sued over the project in 2024. Chief among them was the finding that CRC’s environmental impact report identified eight industries — including hydrogen, cement and steel production — that could one day send carbon dioxide to the Elk Hills reservoirs, but never evaluated how those operations might affect surrounding communities. Currently, the facility processes only carbon dioxide extracted from CRC’s own oil and gas operations.
Camacho wrote that omitting an analysis of those likely future contributors “infects the informational foundation for the whole project.”
Michelle Ghafar, a senior attorney with Earthjustice, which represented two of the plaintiffs, called the decision a major victory for opponents of the project. “I was really struck by the decision, which basically said that there are errors running throughout the entire document,” she said.
CRC did not respond to questions about whether it intends to appeal the ruling, how long a renewed environmental review might take, or whether operations will be paused in the meantime. In a public statement, company president and CEO Francisco Leon criticized the ruling, saying it represented “a step in the wrong direction for addressing the impacts of climate change” and accused opponents of “weaponizing” the state’s environmental law. Leon said the company intends to “aggressively pursue all available options to protect and advance this important project.”
Groups behind the lawsuit — including the Central California Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a Better Shafter and the Center for Biological Diversity — are now preparing a proposed judgment for the court to finalize. They argue that CRC should be required to halt operations while the company redoes its environmental analysis and county officials reconsider the project’s approval. According to Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, that process could take anywhere from several months to several years.
In a filing with regulators, CRC noted that the ruling is not final and that its practical impact on current operations remains unclear. A spokesperson for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees federal permitting for carbon injection wells in California, said the court’s decision does not affect the project’s existing federal permits. Kern County’s planning department did not respond to requests for comment.
Ileana Navarro, a policy associate with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, welcomed the ruling as reassurance for residents living near the project. “It’s a breath of fresh air, both figuratively and literally,” she said.
Elkind noted that projects like TerraVault often ask nearby communities to accept significant risk in exchange for uncertain benefits. “You’re asking community members to gamble their communities, neighborhoods, health and safety on projects that don’t really have a track record,” he said. “That’s always difficult.”
The ruling arrived amid a statewide vote on Proposition 45, a ballot measure that would impose strict deadlines on environmental reviews and related lawsuits for certain “essential” infrastructure projects — including carbon capture facilities — while also preventing courts from rescinding project approvals. Supporters argued the measure would accelerate badly needed housing and infrastructure development, while critics warned it would erode long-standing environmental safeguards. Early returns showed the measure trailing.
Ghafar said the Kern County ruling underscores the continued importance of California’s environmental review requirements, even as some lawmakers and industry groups push to limit them. “We need the law now more than ever,” she said.
Original source: CalMatters
