Documents obtained by Fieldnotes and first reported on by Canary Media detail a coordinated and comprehensive effort by some of the largest oil & gas companies in the United States to pressure Ohio lawmakers to clear the way for the corporations to profit from carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the state.

The effort, which lays the groundwork to transfer oversight of CCS projects in Ohio from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to state regulators—most likely speeding approval and weakening environmental protections—is being led by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Ohio Oil & Gas Association (OOGA). Together, the trade groups represent a wide swath of oil & gas power​ players, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum, Energy Transfer, and Halliburton.

Communications obtained via public records requests show API and OOGA working on several fronts to orchestrate passage of legislation needed to give Ohio the authority to regulate CCS wells. The documents show the trade groups drafting the bill in question; hand-picking state lawmakers to introduce it; lining up witnesses to testify in support of it; providing lawmakers with talking points and other materials to advocate for it; and offering to coordinate “earned media opportunities” as part of a press strategy to amplify their message.

Throughout the process, API and OOGA have been in regular contact with their chosen lawmakers. Records show they have met with the bill’s sponsors in person or on Zoom on at least a dozen separate occasions since late 2023, and exchanged more than a hundred emails with the sponsors’ staff during that time. The lobbying blitz has not been confined to normal work hours or settings, either. This past January, for example, API organized a white tablecloth dinner for one of the sponsors and a handful of executives from its member companies.

The legislative push remains ongoing. The Ohio legislature held four committee hearings on the bill during the first half of this year, and the Republican majority in each chamber could bring the bill to the floor as soon as this September when lawmakers return from summer recess.

API, OOGA, and the state lawmakers who sponsored the CCS legislation did not respond to a list of emailed questions from Fieldnotes about the groups' involvement in the legislative process. In a statement to Canary Media, Christina Polesovsky, an associate director in API’s Ohio office, said that her group “regularly engages with policy makers on both sides of the aisle to educate on the critical role of American energy and to share our industry’s priorities.”

Under pressure to address the industry’s role in the climate crisis, many oil & gas companies have in recent years embraced CCS as a way to maintain their social license without actually curtailing production—and to make money in the process. The industry has successfully lobbied the federal government to back the technology by funding R&D and subsidizing projects through tax credits. In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set aside $12.1 billion for CCS development, and in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act boosted the main CCS tax credit (known technically as 45Q) from $50 per metric ton to $85 for CO2 that is captured from point sources, like ethanol plants, and sequestered underground. (The recent reconciliation bill left the CCS tax credits in place, but added foreign-entity-of-concern requirements.)

To put it more plainly: After spending the past century making a fortune pumping carbon out of the ground, the oil & gas industry is now hoping to make a fortune pumping carbon back into the ground. Companies are so excited about the financial potential that API has talked about CCS in the same breath as some of the industry's most lucrative milestones. As Jennifer Stewart, API’s director of climate and ESG policy, put it during a spring 2024 Ohio Senate committee hearing: “Carbon capture has become… the new wild west, the new Spindletop in Texas, the new Colonel Drake well in Pennsylvania, where there is a lot of money to be made.”

But before industry can start making money, there’s one problem: permitting. Right now, only four states—North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, and West Virginia—have what is called “primacy" over CCS wells, which are classified as Class VI injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In states with primacy, state regulators can grant permits. In states without primacy, companies must apply for permits through the EPA, where the wait time is two-plus years.

Industry would prefer to work with states, as opposed to the EPA, because it’s typically faster and cheaper to get a state permit. To that end, API is pushing states to apply for Class VI primacy, and many are heeding the call. Roughly 20, including Ohio, have passed or proposed the legislation required to formally request the EPA grant them the authority to green-light CCS projects.

Easing the ultimate path to primacy is President Trump’s EPA. In May of this year, an EPA official told oil & gas regulators that Administrator Lee Zeldin has directed staff to “fast-track” states’ Class VI primacy applications. The agency, the official added, is actively looking for “opportunities to shave off components of that process to make sure that we’re moving things forward as quickly as we can.”

An industry-designed CCS regime offers oil & gas companies the chance to not only make money from carbon capture projects—but also to save money by handing off their eventual cleanup responsibilities to taxpayers. That’s because most state CCS laws, including the one proposed in Ohio, contain liability transfer provisions, which shift the financial liability for CCS projects from private corporations to state governments after a certain number of years or after certain conditions have been met.

The idea is that companies pay into a state trust fund for each ton of CO2 they inject into the ground. Then, after the state assumes liability for the CCS project, it uses the trust fund to pay for monitoring and remediation. But what happens if the trust fund doesn’t cover all the expenses? The state is left holding the bag.

These provisions are explicitly modeled on the frameworks that states use to manage orphaned and abandoned wells, which have allowed oil & gas companies to walk away from their responsibilities and transfer more than $150 billion in cleanup costs to taxpayers.

Here’s what often happens under those frameworks: Companies are legally required to plug their wells once they stop producing, but sometimes they go bankrupt or are otherwise unable to fulfill these responsibilities, leaving the wells “orphaned.” When this happens, states have to plug the wells to prevent them from leaking contaminants into the air, ground, and water. States require oil & gas companies to post bonds to help cover potential cleanup costs, but these bonds are woefully inadequate. Ohio, for example, requires just a $15,000 blanket bond to cover an unlimited number of wells, yet it costs the state an average of $78,774 to plug a single one, according to the Ohio River Valley Institute. (The state also generates funds for orphaned-well plugging through a severance tax on oil & gas production, but it’s not enough; Ohio has more than 20,000 known orphaned wells, according to a 2024 report.)

Instead of plugging their wells, an oil & gas company often sells those that are nearing the end of their lives to a smaller company, which then sells them to an even smaller company, and so on down the line until the final owner goes bankrupt and dumps the cleanup costs onto taxpayers. This series of events is so common, those who track it closely have dubbed it “the playbook.” States could update their laws to prevent it, but the oil & gas industry has resisted reform efforts across the country.

If state laws similarly allow private corporations to transfer liability for CCS projects to the state, it’s easy to see how taxpayers could once again be on the hook for cleaning up industry’s mess.

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)—a quasi-governmental agency made up of state regulators and oil & gas industry representatives—laid the groundwork for liability provisions in state CCS laws back in 2007. More recently, API Gulf Coast Regional Director Gifford Briggs underscored the corporate logic at an industry conference last year, summing up oil & gas companies’ thinking like so: “We’re gonna operate this for 25 years. I don’t want it to be on my books indefinitely as a liability. How do we transfer that liability over to the state, much in the way that somewhat happens through a plug and abandonment program?”

Communications between API, OOGA, and Ohio officials make clear that the oil & gas industry is driving the effort to pass a CCS law there. The effort began in earnest in 2023, when an API lobbyist invited senior staffers working for Gov. Mike DeWine to a CCS briefing co-led by Shell and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

A few months later, API and OOGA went looking for Ohio lawmakers to carry out their CSS plan. On the recommendation of House Republican senior staffers, API selected Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel, who they vetted with other industry allies. And on the Senate side, API successfully convinced GOP Sens. Tim Schaffer and Al Landis to sign on to the effort. In December 2023, Robb Blasdel, Schaffer, and Landis introduced one-page placeholder bills declaring their intent to regulate CCS.

Meanwhile, API and OOGA also began working with Ohio DNR. In November 2023, API's Christina Polesovsky sent a draft bill to Ohio’s chief oil & gas regulator. “Please find the draft bill OOGA and API Ohio have compiled with feedback from our members and technical consultants,” she wrote. “We thought it might be helpful to walk you through the bill, the process we’ve undertaken in crafting the draft, and the strategy we are taking as it relates to CCS in Ohio.”

API and OOGA continued to shepherd their bill as it moved through both chambers in 2024. When a committee chair asked Landis’ office if the senator wanted to do sponsor testimony, his aide deferred to API, asking Polesovsky “if we’re ready to do sponsor testimony or if you guys are still getting the final pieces of the full legislation.” When the Senate and House committees eventually held hearings on the bill, API lined up the expert witnesses who testified in support, and provided related handouts to lawmakers.

Likewise, when the Legislative Service Commission (LSC), a nonpartisan agency tasked with analyzing legislation for lawmakers, had questions about a substitute bill, aides again turned around and forwarded those questions to API and OOGA. And when the LSC ultimately recommended changes, aides sent those changes to the lobbying groups for feedback.

Emails from API’s Polesovsky show that every new iteration of the bill has been written or carefully reviewed by oil & gas companies. In a March 2024 email to CCS stakeholders, she wrote, “The collective industry … will convene this Friday to further refine our draft bill for consideration by the members of API Ohio and OOGA. Once the industry has reached consensus, we will share with this group.” A month later, Polesovsky updated the Senate sponsors’ aides: “Once we have a new revised draft from LSC we will distribute to our collective membership for sign off and at that point we will have language for a substitute bill to begin the public discussion.” Later, when API passed along edits from Encino Energy, the largest oil producer in Ohio, legislative aides incorporated the corporate edits verbatim.

Despite those efforts, the industry-backed CCS bill stalled in committee in 2024. This year, however, the push continues. API’s allies have re-introduced an updated version in both chambers. Rep. Bob Peterson—whose district includes a Valero ethanol plant with a financial interest in CCS—joined Robb Blasdel as a co-sponsor in the House, while Sen. Brian Chavez replaced Sen. Landis as a co-sponsor in the Senate.

The oil & gas industry has continued to enjoy extraordinary access to these lawmakers as they push their bill toward the finish line. For example, executives from API and some of the group’s member companies dined with Chavez at a white tablecloth restaurant in January. Chavez similarly discussed the CCS legislation over dinner at another upscale restaurant with executives from Tenaska—a company pursuing its own CCS project spanning 80,000 acres in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—in March. Later that same month, Chavez and his cosponsors introduced the latest version of API’s CCS bill.

“The real problem is that the communities that are impacted by the activity of these organizations’ wells have a very minimal presence and limited input,” Rep. Tristan Rader, a Democrat who says he hasn't yet decided whether he supports the CCS bill, told Canary. “And it’s not for lack of trying.”

Emails, calendar invites, and other records obtained by Fieldnotes show API and OOGA working on multiple fronts to orchestrate passage of CSS legislation in Ohio. The industry groups have met with the bill’s sponsors in person or virtually on at least a dozen occasions since late 2023, and exchanged more than a hundred emails with the sponsors’ staff during that time. They also drafted the bill in question, found lawmakers to introduce it, and lined up witnesses to testify in support.

2023

• July 12, 2023: API’s lobbyist, Bricker Graydon, invites Governor DeWine’s staff to a CCS discussion led by Shell and Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
  • Invitees include DeWine’s Chief of Staff, Policy Director, Director of Legislative Affairs, and Assistant Policy Director for Natural Resources. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 7, 2023: API reaches out to the Ohio House Majority Policy Director to ask for a meeting about the CCS bill.
  • Claire Linkhart (API) to Devin Babcock (Ohio House Majority Policy Director): “As we look to next steps including identifying a sponsor and potential committee for the bill, Brittney [Colvin, Ohio House Chief of Staff] told us to reach out to you.” (DocumentCloud)
  • In a Mar. 27, 2025 email, API provides additional information. Christina Polesovsky (API): “We met with the previous House Chief of Staff and House Policy Director and they thought Representative Robb-Blasdel would be a good fit as a sponsor.” (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 9, 2023: API emails Ohio DNR a draft CCS bill.
  • Polesovsky (API) to Eric Vendel (Ohio DNR’s Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management): “Please find attached a draft bill seeking to establish some CCS regulations in Ohio. We have worked with our members and technical consultants, which include legal experts from the University of Wyoming.” (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 13, 2023: API emails Ohio DNR and industry stakeholders the draft CCS bill. 
  • Polesovsky (API): “Please find the draft bill OOGA and API Ohio have compiled with feedback from our members and technical consultants. We thought it might be helpful to walk you through the bill, the process we’ve undertaken in crafting the draft, and the strategy we are taking as it relates to CCS in Ohio.” (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 14, 2023: API and OOGA meet with Ohio DNR to discuss the draft CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 22, 2023: API tells Babcock (Ohio House Majority Policy Director) that the trade association reached out to Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel to ask her to sponsor the CCS bill after vetting her with industry stakeholders. 
  • Polesovsky (API): “I had mentioned Rep. Robb-Blasdel to Brittney [Colvin, Ohio House Chief of Staff] and she thought very highly of her. We’ve also floated her to other stakeholders like Matt Carle, who is heading up the hydrogen coalition, who agree that she might be ideal… Having a freshman legislator who could work on this issue for many years is very appealing.” (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 28, 2023: API and OOGA meet with Robb Blasdel to discuss the CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• Nov. 30, 2023: API emails Robb Blasdel’s aide language for a one-page placeholder CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• Dec. 1, 2023: API and OOGA email Sen. Al Landis’ and Sen. Tim Schaffer’s aides language for a one-page placeholder CCS bill. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Dec. 5, 2023: API, OOGA, and API lobbyist Bricker Graydon meet with Landis to discuss draft CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• Dec. 6, 2023: Landis and Schaffer introduce a one-page placeholder bill in the Senate declaring intent to regulate CCS. (SB 200) Robb Blasdel introduces an identical bill in the House. (HB 358)
  • Aides for Landis, Schaffer, and Robb Blasdel coordinated closely with API and OOGA before filing both bills. (DocumentCloud)

2024

• Jan. 12, 2024: Landis’ aide reaches out to API about sponsor testimony.
  • Matthew Houk (Landis’ aide) to Polesovsky (API): “... Chairman Reineke asked if we would like to do sponsor testimony for the bill… Senator Landis wanted to ask if we’re ready to do sponsor testimony or if you guys are still getting the final pieces of the full legislation since he knew you wanted this to be more of a placeholder.” (DocumentCloud)
• Late Jan. 2024: API begins hosting biweekly update calls for CCS stakeholders. (DocumentCloud)
  • Participants include:
    • API
    • OOGA
    • Robb Blasdel’s aide
    • Tenaska (gas/power generation corporation planning a CCS project that will span 80,000 acres in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and include 20 injection wells)
    • Shell (oil & gas corporation)
    • TC Energy (oil & gas corporation)
    • Williams (gas/pipeline corporation)
    • Bricker Graydon (lobbying firm representing API)
    • Strategic Public Partners (public/government affairs firm representing Tenaska)
    • Batelle (company leading the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, or ARCH2)
    • CHW Advisors (government/public affairs firm involved with ARCH2) 
    • Holcim (world’s largest cement manufacturer)
• Feb. 6, 2024: API emails Robb Blasdel’s aide a substitute bill for HB 358. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 27, 2024: API and OOGA meet with Robb Blasdel. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 28, 2024: API emails Robb Blasdel’s aide Ohio DNR’s Class VI enabling legislation “provided in response to the industry draft bill.” (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 28, 2024: Landis meets with Tenaska. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. - May, 2024: API and OOGA go back and forth with Landis, Schaffer, and Robb Blasdel’s aides on a substitute bill for SB 200/HB 358.
  • Mar. 4, 2024: When the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) has questions about the substitute bill, Schaffer’s aide sends the questions to OOGA. OOGA provides the answers the next day. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • Mar. 19, 2024: API emails Robb Blasdel’s aide a chart comparing different versions of the CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
    • Key differences between “Industry Draft” and “ODNR Draft”:
      • Industry’s draft sets application fee at $10,000, Ohio DNR’s sets it at $100,000.
      • Industry’s draft does not contain any bonding provisions; Ohio DNR’s would require industry to put up a bond for cleanup costs in case the company goes out of business.
      • Industry’s draft requires consent from owners of 65% of pore space, Ohio DNR’s requires consent from owners of 80%.
      • Industry’s draft would allow liability to be transferred to the state after 10 years, Ohio DNR’s would allow it at 50 years.
  • Mar. 22, 2024: After the LSC restructures the bill, Schaffer’s aide sends it to API and OOGA for feedback. (DocumentCloud)
  • Apr. 15, 2024: API responds with feedback.
    • Polesovsky (API): “Once we have a new revised draft from LSC we will distribute to our collective membership for sign off and at that point we will have language for a substitute bill to begin the public discussion…” (DocumentCloud)
  • May 1, 2024: API sends along feedback from Encino Energy (largest oil producer in Ohio). 
    • Polesovsky (API): “We received the attached this morning which seeks to tighten up existing language in the original draft bill to prevent any potential CCS impacts to oil and gas assets. These changes were proposed by Encino Energy…” (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • May 29, 2024: Robb Blasdel’s aide incorporates the comments from Encino Energy and sends questions from LSC to API and OOGA. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 7, 2024: Landis and Schaffer speak on a public policy panel at OOGA’s annual meeting. (DocumentCloud)
  • OOGA provided Landis with talking points championing CCS as a way to lower the carbon footprint of hard-to-decarbonize industries and to support “domestic energy security.” (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 25, 2024: API talks with Ohio DNR about draft CCS bills. 
  • Polesovsky (API) to CCS stakeholders: “I spoke with ODNR after our call [API’s biweekly CCS stakeholder call] and they indicated that the language was not intended to be a poison pill for CCS development, but their optimal scenario for CCS in Ohio. Honestly, that made me feel better about the wide discrepancies seen between the two drafts, as I’m confident we will find common ground on our own or with help from our legislative supporters.” (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 29. 2024: API holds an industry meeting to discuss the CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky (API) to CCS stakeholders: “The collective industry through the trade organizations, our technical experts, as well as Encino Energy (Ohio largest producer and non-trade org member) will convene this Friday to further refine our draft bill for consideration by the members of API Ohio and OOGA. Once the industry has reached consensus, we will share with this group.” (DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 9, 2024: Ohio’s Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee holds a hearing/ educational panel on CCS and hydrogen. (Hearing Recording)
  • API lined up the expert witnesses, which included API’s Director of Climate and ESG Policy, a representative from Batelle (company leading ARCH2) and a cement manufacturer (Holcim). (DocumentCloud)
• May 2, 2024: API and OOGA meet with Ohio DNR to discuss differences between API and OOGA’s draft bill and Ohio DNR’s Class VI enabling legislation. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • API created a matrix showing the differences between the draft bills. (DocumentCloud)
• May 14, 2024: Ohio DNR meets with Landis and Schaffer’s aides about what is needed for Ohio to get Class VI primacy. (DocumentCloud)
• May 31, 2024: Industry convenes to discuss the latest draft CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• June 12, 2024: Ohio’s House Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a hearing/educational panel on CCS. (Hearing Recording)
  • API also lined up expert witnesses for this hearing, which included API’s Director of Climate and ESG Policy and a representative from Battelle (company leading ARCH 2). (DocumentCloud)
  • API handout provided to representatives: DocumentCloud
  • During the hearing, Robb Blasdel said, “We are working closely with ODNR and gathering feedback at this point,” but in an email about an “Interested Party Meeting” held by Robb Blasdel on Oct. 8, 2024—four months after the hearing—Benjamin Bruns (Ohio DNR’s Director of Legislative Affairs) wrote: “This will be our first convo with Rep. Blasdel about the subject.” API and OOGA had been working with Ohio DNR; Robb Blasdel’s office had not.
• June 20, 2024: Ohio DNR Director Mary Mertz speaks at OOGA’s quarterly Board of Trustees meeting. (DocumentCloud)
  • CCS is listed as one of the “most pressing” topics of discussion.
• Oct. 2, 2024: API sends the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) latest draft of CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky to Evan Callicoat (OFBF): “The document reflects where we are currently, not permanently, but I think you will find the industry has accepted all or nearly all of the suggestions put forward by OFBF that are applicable to the elements of this bill which is focused on CCS storage.”
• Oct. 8, 2024: Rep. Robb Blasdel holds an “Interested Party Meeting” to discuss HB 358. (DocumentCloud)
  • Bruns (Ohio DNR Director of Legislative Affairs) to Gretchen Craycraft (Governor’s Deputy Director of Government Affairs) and Anna Perry (Governor’s Assistant Policy Director for Natural Resources): “This will be our first convo with Rep. Blasdel about the subject.” (DocumentCloud)
  • According to API, the following entities participated: (DocumentCloud)
    • Affected Parties:
      • API
      • OOGA
      • Ohio DNR
      • Arch2 Hydrogen Hub
      • Ohio Farm Bureau
      • Encino Energy
      • Ohio Coal Association
    • Interested Parties:
      • Ohio Manufacturers’ Association
      • Ohio Chamber of Commerce
      • Manufacturers’ Policy Alliance
      • Ohio Electric Co-ops
      • Independent Power Producers
      • Ohio Energy Group
      • Ohio Energy Leadership Council
      • American Municipal Power
    • Additional organizations:
      • Growth Energy
      • Ohio Chemistry and Technology Council
• Dec. 2024 (exact date unknown): Valero meets with Rep. Bob Peterson, co-sponsor of the 2025 CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Craig Schoenfeld (Valero Director of Regional Government Affairs) in a March 18, 2025 email to Peterson: “During my visit with you in December last year, I highlighted the importance of CCS to Valero’s ethanol plant operations in Bloomingburg, OH.”

2025

• Jan. 7, 2025: Schaffer’s aide sends a draft CCS bill to API and OOGA for feedback.
  • Travis Brock (Schaffer’s aide): “The attached bill draft is nearly identical to the substitute bill that was adopted for HB 358 late last year.” (DocumentCloud)
  • A day later, Polesovsky (API) responds: “I’m going to have our technical consultant review to ensure everything is in good order.” (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 8, 2025: Sen. Brian Chavez, co-sponsor of the 2025 CCS bill, meets with OOGA over Zoom. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 9, 2025: Tenaska lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, asks Robb Blasdel’s office for a meeting to discuss the CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 17, 2025: Schaffer’s aide emails Chavez’s aide the draft CCS bill for Chavez’s consideration. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 21, 2025: Schaffer meets with API and OOGA in his office. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 22, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, shares the most recent version of the bill with Ohio DNR. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 22, 2025: Chavez meets with OOGA in his office. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 22, 2025: Chavez has dinner with API and member companies.
  • The dinner took place at Lindey’s, a fine dining restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. (DocumentCloud)
  • Attendees: (DocumentCloud)
    • Chris Zeigler  — API Ohio’s Executive Director
    • Christina Polesovsky  — API Ohio’s Associate Director
    • Claire Linkhart — API Ohio’s Associate Director
    • “Some API member company representatives”
• Jan. 22, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide shares updated CCS bill with API, OOGA, and Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 23, 2025: API responds to an email from Robb Blasdel’s aide noting changes in language between the 2024 bill and the 2025 bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky: “We’ll take a look and get back to you on bill language.”
• Jan. 24, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, emails Robb Blasdel’s aide with Tenaska’s concerns with the bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Tenaska’s chief concern is the liability transfer provision.
    • At the time, the draft bill read:

(2) Primary responsibility and liability for the stored or injected carbon dioxide shall be transferred to the state… except under any of the following circumstances:

(b) After notice and a hearing, the chief determines either of the following:

(ii) There is carbon dioxide migration that threatens public health or safety or the environment of underground sources of drinking water.

• Tenaska’s concern: “This defeats the purpose of transferring the liability to the state if after the certificate of completion, the operator is still liable for any reason outside of falsifying data/criminal actions… PA defines this better but [sic] adding in the phrase ‘for which the operator is responsible’ to the component.”
• Jan. 28, 2025: Schaffer meets with Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, to discuss CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 29, 2025: API meets with Robb Blasdel. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 29, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide emails API a change suggested to the latest version of the bill, which incorporates Tenaska’s suggested language around operator liability. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 30, 2025: Vault, a CCS company, meets with Ohio DNR. (DocumentCloud)
• Jan. 31, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, emails Schaffer’s aide with Tenaska’s concerns with the bill. (DocumentCloud)
  • Tenaska shares the same concerns around the liability transfer provision that they had previously shared with Robb Blasdel’s aide on Jan. 24, 2025.
  • Tenaska is eager to get the bill passed.
    • Abigail “Abby” Benjamin (Strategic Public Partners lobbyist representing Tenaska) to Brock (Schaffer’s aide): “They [Tenaska] had some concerns (below) however we really would like this bill to get done so having the bill pass is better than nothing.”
• Feb. 4, 2025: Tenaska has a meeting with Ohio DNR. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 5, 2025: Robb Blasdel meets with Trillium, a company planning to open a hydrogen plant and CCS project in southern Ohio. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • Trillium Piketon handout: DocumentCloud
• Feb. 10, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, asks for a call with Robb Blasdel on CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
  • Benjamin: “We are in full support of the legislation being dropped but wanted to see when she is thinking about dropping it.”
• Feb. 10, 2025: API emails Robb Blasdel’s aide to express concerns about the change to the liability transfer provision suggested by Tenaska. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky: “Per our conversation, we think the suggested revision is worth consideration, but it is a significant change and one I would need to vet further with our members.
  • “CCS operators may argue or interpret that they are only at fault for things they do that violate the permit or the law, and that the State is responsible for any unexpected problems with the CCS injection. I think Rep. Robb-Blasdel should anticipate that ODNR will have an issue with this language because it places a majority of the liability on the state. I could also see a scenario where landowners and oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) companies could have concerns should litigation arise.
  • “Given various stakeholders have reviewed the draft without these changes, it would be my suggestion to introduce without the revision, give all stakeholders time to review and have this language be something that is discussed as part of the interested party meetings with ODNR, other stakeholders in the room.
  • “I’ll keep you posted on discussions with the Senate, but please feel free to reach out to Travis in Senator Schaffer’s office as we asked them to hold introduction until we talked with all the previous bill sponsors.”
• Feb. 11, 2025: Robb Blasdel speaks on an Ohio Chamber of Commerce Energy Symposium legislative panel. (DocumentCloud)
  • CCS legislation is listed as a topic of discussion.
• Feb. 13, 2025: The Buckeye Environmental Network and allies send Ohio legislators a letter expressing concerns about CCS. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 13, 2025: Chavez becomes a joint sponsor on the CCS bill. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 13, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, asks if Robb Blasdel is available for a meeting, dinner, or drinks in conjunction with an energy conference on Mar. 5-8. (DocumentCloud)
  • It’s unclear whether Robb Blasdel accepted the invitation.
• Around Feb. 21, 2025 (exact date unknown): President of the Carroll County Farm Bureau thanks Robb Blasdel for meeting with him and voices concerns about CCS transparency and safety. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 24, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, emails Schaffer’s aide pushing for CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
  • Kevin Schmidt (Strategic Public Partners) to Brock (Schaffer’s aide): “I know the Senator had mentioned to Abby [Benjamin — SPP lobbyist] before he was going to drop the legislation this week. Is that still the plan? Tenaska would LOVE it if so and stands ready to help getting [sic] it across the finish line.”
• Feb. 26, 2025: Schaffer’s aide emails Chavez’s aide a draft co-sponsor request for the CCS bill. A few hours later, Chavez’s aide responded with edits. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 26, 2025: Robb Blasdel meets with Vault, a CCS company. (DocumentCloud)
• Feb. 26, 2025: Schaffer meets with Vault and Vault’s lobbyists. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 4, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network asks for an update from Robb Blasdel’s office on CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 6, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide sends API the House CCS bill, which Robb Blasdel introduces as HB 170 on Mar. 12, 2025. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 6, 2025: Schaffer’s aide sends API the Senate CCS bill, which Schaffer introduces as SB 136 on Mar. 11. (DocumentCloud)
• Around Mar. 5-6, 2025 (exact date unknown): Chavez has dinner with Tenaska.
  • Feb. 13, 2025: A Tenaska lobbyist asks to set up a dinner with Chavez in conjunction with an OOGA conference on Mar. 5-8. (DocumentCloud)
  • Unknown date: The dinner takes place at Cooper’s Hawk Winery & Restaurant, an upscale restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. (DocumentCloud)
  • Mar. 7, 2025: The Tenaska lobbyist sends a follow-up email to Chavez’s office.
    • Abby Benjamin (Strategic Public Partners lobbyist representing Tenaska): “Thank you so much for setting up the dinner. It went really well and he [Chavez] mentioned he had blue lined the CCS legislation. I asked if we could see it so we could address his concerns. He said yes, get on his calendar asap…” (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 10, 2025: Duane Kienzle, a farmer and landowner in Carroll County who was approached by Tenaska to lease his pore space, emails Robb Blasdel to express support for CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 11, 2025: SB 136 introduced.
• Mar. 11, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide has a phone call w/ Kienzle. (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 12, 2025: HB 170 introduced.
• Mar. 13, 2025: Ohio DNR emails its comments on the CCS bill to Robb Blasdel and Schaffer’s aides. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • Ohio DNR’s comments included:
    • The need to add a penalty provision. (DocumentCloud)
    • Concern about provisions requiring the Ohio DNR to adopt rules to protect oil & gas interests that include “spacing, setback, and other provisions to prevent storage facilities from impacting the ability of owners of oil and gas interests to develop those interests” and requiring the chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management to ensure that “the interests of the owners of the oil and gas will not be adversely affected.” (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
    • Concern about timeframes for public comment being too tight. (DocumentCloud)
    • Concern that “a standard of posing no threat may be difficult to achieve” in response to the requirement that, before a certificate of project completion can be issued, the operator must establish that “[the carbon dioxide that has been injected underground] is not expected to extend or migrate outside of the storage facility and poses no threat to public health or safety.” (DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 18, 2025: Valero reaches out to Peterson and Sen. Shane Wilkin (a co-sponsor on SB 136) to thank them for their leadership in sponsoring CCS legislation and to offer input. (DocumentCloud)
  • Craig Schoenfeld (Valero Director of Regional Government Affairs): “Valero is currently exploring various opportunities for CCS at our Bloomingburg facility. As both House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136 work their way through the legislative process, Valero would welcome the opportunity to provide input and discuss the impact the legislation may have on a prospective CCS project.”
• Mar. 21, 2025: Tenaska’s lobbyist, Strategic Public Partners, emails Robb Blasdel and Peterson’s aides to ask about sponsor testimony. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • Benjamin (Strategic Public Partners): “Tenaska is excited to help support this legislation and is ready and rearing to go.”
• Mar. 26, 2025: API emails Chavez’s aide summarizing API and OOGA’s efforts on the CCS bill last legislative session and requesting a meeting. The meeting is scheduled for Apr. 7. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky (API) to Kyle Jamison (Chavez’s aide): “... at the request of our collective members, API Ohio and OOGA, came to the General Assembly last session to begin the process of establishing state regulations for carbon capture storage in the Ohio Revised Code. Current President McColley met with our organizations a number of times on this issue during the last GA and suggested we have Senator Schaffer carry the bill (this was prior to Senator Chavez joining the Senate). Senator Schaffer was joined last GA by Senator Landis and given Senator Chavez’s unique perspective, he was asked by Senator Schaffer to jointly co-sponsor the bill this GA…
  • “API Ohio and OOGA worked not only with our members, but a variety of affected parties including, but not limited to the ODNR, Ohio Farm Bureau, Battelle, Cleveland State, Arch2 Hydrogen Hub, and the Ohio Coal Association to find common ground on the bill provisions. We have also done outreach with potential interested parties, including but not limited to, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Manufacturing Association, the large industrial energy groups, the Electric Co-ops, etc. along with discussions with members serving on the relevant committees in both Chambers this GA and last GA.”
• Mar. 27, 2025: API sends similar email to Peterson’s office, summarizing API and OOGA’s efforts and asking for a meeting. The meeting is scheduled for Apr. 2. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Mar. 27, 2025: Former Ohio House Chief of Staff/Hicks Partners lobbyist coordinates meeting with Chavez to discuss SB 136. (DocumentCloud)
  • Brittney Colvin (former Ohio Senate Chief of Staff/Hicks Partners lobbyist) to Jamison (Chavez’s aide): “I chatted with Sen. Chavez earlier this week and he requested to get together with me to discuss, in part, SB 136 and other energy related issues in general.”
  • Colvin is a registered lobbyist representing several gas- and coal-fired power generation companies. (Ohio Lobbying Activity Center)
• Mar. 31, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide sends Ohio DNR’s comments on the bill to API. Polesovsky responds: “Thank you! Surprisingly they have not sent their comments to us, despite our efforts to obtain their feedback.” (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 1, 2025: API forwards Ohio DNR’s comments to Schaffer, Chavez, Robb Blasdel, and Peterson’s aides. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky (API): “The bill introduction is having the intended effect-feedback. It’s been a long time coming.”
• Apr. 2, 2025: API, OOGA, and API’s lobbyist, Bricker Graydon, meet with Robb Blasdel, Peterson, and the Ohio Senate President’s Executive Assistant/Policy Advisor. (DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 2, 2025: API sends Robb Blasdel and Peterson’s offices a CCS fact sheet and a link to a Ohio Natural Energy Institute YouTube video (“which API helped pull together”) on CCS. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky notes that “the CCS Factsheet (attached) we handed out today (which I received one more change from our legal team this afternoon) so it is slightly different from the one I handed out.”
  • The fact sheet is very similar to a handout that API distributed to the Ohio House Energy and Natural Resources Committee during the June 12, 2024 hearing, but there are a few key differences:

• Apr. 4, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide asks the Press Secretary for the Ohio House Majority Caucus for help answering questions from Canary Media reporter K.M. Kowalski. The House Majority Policy Director and his staff aren’t able to help, so the press secretary recommends that Robb Blasdel’s aide coordinate with industry. Robb Blasdel ultimately declines to answer the reporter’s questions, citing a “quick deadline.” (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud) 
  • Olivia Wile (Press Secretary): “I just went to policy and they aren’t able to help either as these are very industry-focused questions. They suggested coordinating with the folks in the industry who have been helping you all with the bill.”
• Apr. 7, 2025: API, OOGA, and API’s lobbyist, Bricker Graydon, meet with Chavez to discuss SB 136. (DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 7, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network invites Peterson to a webinar on Ohio’s CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 9, 2025: First hearing on HB 170 (sponsors). (House Bill 170 Committee Activity, Hearing Recording)
• Apr. 10, 2025: Lobbyist for Holcim (cement manufacturer/proponent of SB 136) asks to meet with Schaffer. Schaffer’s aide responds that he is not available on the requested day. (DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 15, 2025: Ohio DNR requests meetings with Robb Blasdel and Schaffer to discuss Ohio DNR’s comments on HB 170 and SB 136. Meetings with Robb Blasdel and Schaffer are scheduled for May 13. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 17, 2025: Tenaska meets with Ohio DNR. (DocumentCloud)
  • Notes from that meeting: DocumentCloud
• Apr. 17, 2025: Robb Blasdel attends the Columbiana County Farm Bureau Breakfast. (DocumentCloud)
  • HB 170 and farmers’ concerns around unitization provisions are listed as topics of discussion.
• Apr. 23, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network invites Schaffer, Peterson, and Robb Blasdel to a webinar on CCS in Ohio, which takes place on Apr. 29, 2025. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• Apr. 30, 2025: Second hearing on HB 170 (proponents). (House Bill 170 Committee Activity, Hearing Recording)
• Apr. 30 - May 3, 2025: Four Ohio residents email Robb Blasdel opposing HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
• May 5, 2025: Alliance for the Great Lakes requests meeting with Robb Blasdel to discuss HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
  • It’s unclear whether this meeting was ever scheduled or if anyone from Robb Blasdel’s office responded.
• May 7, 2025: Third hearing on HB 170 (opponents). (House Bill 170 Committee Activity, Hearing Recording)
• May 8, 2025: API and OOGA send a “Myth vs. Fact” info sheet to legislators following the committee hearings. (DocumentCloud)
• May 8, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network sends a report on oil and gas incidents to Robb Blasdel’s aide. (DocumentCloud)
• May 12, 2025: API, OOGA, Tenaska, Vault, Trillium, and Advanced Resources International have a four hour meeting w/ Ohio DNR to go through the legislation. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• May 12, 2025: A public and government affairs firm representing Trillium, a company planning to open a hydrogen plant and CCS project in Southern Ohio, reaches out to Peterson. (DocumentCloud)
  • John Haseley: “I’m copying Trillium VP Caitlin Holley who is an expert on CCS. I know Caitlin would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss HB 170 and its significance, not just for Trillium, but for the energy industry in Ohio.”
• May 13, 2025: Ohio DNR meets with Schaffer to discuss Ohio DNR’s comments on SB 136. (DocumentCloud)
• May 13, 2025: API acts as a go-between for the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and Robb Blasdel’s aide, passing along a proposed amendment from the OFBF. (DocumentCloud)
• May 15, 2025: The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation sends Peterson suggested changes to HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
• May 20, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network asks Robb Blasdel for another hearing before HB 170 is voted out of committee. (DocumentCloud)
  • Another hearing is scheduled for June 18. (House Bill 170 Committee Activity)
• May 22, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide reaches out to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to discuss environmental considerations. (DocumentCloud)
• May 22, 2025: Robb Blasdel’s aide shares a memo to LSC listing desired updates to HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
• May 27, 2025: A lobbyist representing The Nature Conservancy reaches out to Robb Blasdel’s aide to ask about the status of HB 170 and to request a meeting. She mentions a meeting with API.
  • Mara White (lobbyist for The Nature Conservancy): “TNC had a meeting with API where we discussed some potential amendments. These amendments would just confirm that the bill is in line with what other states are doing.” (DocumentCloud)
• May 28, 2025: Buckeye Environmental Network asks for a meeting with Robb Blasdel to discuss HB 170 and sends a report on safety concerns related to CCS. A meeting is scheduled for June 4. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• June 2, 2025: API sends Robb Blasdel’s aide suggested revisions to HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
  • Polesovsky (API) to Gillespie (Robb Blasdel’s aide): “Per your request, please find attached suggested revisions from our association for HB 170 based on feedback from the committee process, discussions with ODNR, and discussions with other interested parties.”
  • Tenaska’s suggested language re: the liability transfer provision is not included in API’s suggested revisions. (DocumentCloud)
• June 3, 2025: Tenaska meets with Robb Blasdel, Peterson, and Chavez to discuss CCS legislation. (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud)
• June 4, 2025: Robb Blasdel discusses HB 170 with the Ohio House Republican caucus. (DocumentCloud)
• June 4, 2025: Robb Blasdel has a Zoom call about HB 170 with a lobbyist representing The Nature Conservancy. (DocumentCloud)
• June 4, 2025: Robb Blasdel has a Teams call with the Buckeye Environmental Network. (DocumentCloud)
• June 5, 2025: Robb Blasdel and Peterson hold an interested party meeting on HB 170. (DocumentCloud)
  • Invited:
    • OOGA
    • Vault
    • Tenaska
    • Strategic Public Partners (lobbyist for Tenaska)
    • Trillium
    • Advanced Resources International
    • Bricker Graydon (lobbyist for API)
    • API
    • Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
    • Byers, Minton & Associates (lobbyist for The Nature Conservancy)
  • Not Invited:
    • Buckeye Environmental Network
• June 10, 2025: OOGA and API hold a legislative reception. Schaffer is invited. (DocumentCloud)
• June 18, 2025: Fourth hearing on HB 170. (House Bill 170 Committee Activity, Hearing Recording)