Framing the Long-Term In Situ Liability Issue for Geologic Carbon Storage in the United States

  • M. A. de Figueiredo
  • D. M. Reiner
  • H. J. Herzog


This paper examines how legal standards of liability may apply to geologic carbon storage. The liability regime governing geologic carbon storage will shape the technology's cost-effectiveness and overall attractiveness. We classify potential sources of liability into operational, in situ, and climate liability. As a first step, we explore in situ liability in the United States. After summarizing legal standards of liability including negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and product liability, we discuss how liability may be addressed at the level of the federal government, state government, industry, and the firm. Finally, we address the implications of judicial treatment of liability for carbon storage, including the apportionment of liability and the adequacy of current regulations.


carbon dioxide geologic law liability regulation risk storage 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Law Institute: 1965, Restatement of the Law, Torts 2d, St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. American Law Institute: 1998, Restatement of the Law, Torts 3d—Product Liability, St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. American Law Institute: 2003, Uniform Commercial Code, St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Auriemme v. Bridgeport Gas Company, 144 A.2d 701 (Conn.Super. 1958).Google Scholar
  5. Benedi v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 66 F.3d 1378 (4th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
  6. Benson, S.: 2002, Lessons Learned from Natural and Industrial Analogues for Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Deep Geological Formations, Report No. LBNL-51170, Berkeley, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.Google Scholar
  7. Buckeye Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Detroit Edison Co., 38 Mich. App. 325 (1972).Google Scholar
  8. Calabresi, G.: 1970, The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deutch, J. and Moniz, E.J. (co-chairs): 2003, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Dunphy v. Yankee Gas Services Company, 1995 WL 631006 (Conn.Super. 1995).Google Scholar
  11. Guttman, D.: 2002, ‘,Price-Anderson act reauthorization: Due diligence is in order’, Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 32, 10594–10602.Google Scholar
  12. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4th Dist. 1981).Google Scholar
  13. Heinrich, J.J., Herzog, H.J. and Reiner, D.M.: 2003, ‘,Environmental Assessment of Geologic Storage of CO2’, The Second Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria, VA, United States Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  14. Herzog, J., Caldeira, K. and Reilly, J.: 2003, ‘,An issue of permanence: Assessing the effectiveness of ocean carbon sequestration’, Climatic Change 59(3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman v. Misericordia Hospital of Philadelphia, 439 Pa. 501 (1970).Google Scholar
  16. Lenstra, W.J. and van Engelenburg, B.C.W.: 2003, ‘,Legal and Policy Aspects: Impact on the Development of CO2 Storage’, Prepared for Workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage, Regina, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  17. McGaha, F.: 1986, ‘,Underground gas storage: Opposing rights and interests’, Louisiana Law Review 46, 871–890.Google Scholar
  18. MDU Resources Group v. W.R. Grace & Co., 14 F.3d 1274 (8th Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
  19. Murray, P. and Spence, D.: 2003, ‘,Fair weather federalism and America's waste disposal crisis’, Harvard Environmental Law Review 27, 71–103.Google Scholar
  20. New Meadows Holding Company v. Washington Water Power Company, 102 Wash.2d 495 (1984).Google Scholar
  21. Prussman, J.: 1991, ‘,The Radon riddle: Landlord liability for a natural hazard’, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 18, 715–750.Google Scholar
  22. Rybarsyk v. R.I. Marketing, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18063 (1981).Google Scholar
  23. Shuko, C.M.: 1986, ‘,Radon gas: Contractor liability for an indoor health hazard’, American Journal of Law and Medicine 12, 241–272.Google Scholar
  24. Theurer, K.M.: 2001, ‘,Sharing the burden: Allocating the risk of CERCLA clean-up costs’, The Environmental Lawyer 7(3), 477–554.Google Scholar
  25. Thomas v. Ford Motor Credit Company, 48 Md. App. 617 (1981).Google Scholar
  26. United States Department of Energy: 1999, Carbon Sequestration Research and Development, Report DOE/SC/FE-1, Washington, DC, United States Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  27. United States Environmental Protection Agency: 1990, Federal Financial Responsibility Demonstrations for Owners and Operators of Class II Oil- and Gas-Related Injection Wells, Report EPA 570/9-90-003, Washington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  28. United States Environmental Protection Agency: 2003a, Superfund Liability, Available online at: [last updated June 30, 2003]
  29. United States Environmental Protection Agency: 2003b, RCRA Financial Assurance for Closure and Post-Closure, Report No. 2001-P-007.Google Scholar
  30. United States General Accounting Office: 2003, Deep Injection Wells: EPA Needs to Involve Communities Earlier and Ensure that Financial Assurance Requirements Are Adequate, Report to the Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, House of Representatives, Report GAO-03-761, Washington, DC, United States General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, E.J., Johnson, T.L. and Keith, D.W.: 2003, Regulating the ultimate sink: Managing the risks of geologic CO2 Sstorage, Environmental Science and Technology 37, 3476–3483.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. de Figueiredo
    • 1
  • D. M. Reiner
    • 2
  • H. J. Herzog
    • 3
  1. 1.Technology, Management and Policy ProgramMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeU.S.A.
  2. 2.Judge Institute of ManagementUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeU.K.
  3. 3.Laboratory for Energy and the EnvironmentMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations