California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules
The Elk Hills oil field is burying carbon 19 months after a legal deadline for state oversight passed
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules
Photograph: WCBI TV | Your News Leader (embedded from source)
What this story says
- California lawmakers ordered state regulators to prepare carbon-storage rules in 2022, with a January 2025 deadline for financial and permitting rules.
- The state has not adopted any carbon-storage rules, 19 months after the deadline passed.
- California Resources Corp. began burying carbon at Elk Hills in May, the first project of its kind in the U.S. to store carbon without enhanced oil recovery.
- The project could earn billions in public incentives, including federal tax credits and state funds paid partly by drivers.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 17 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 5 of the 22 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
74/100
Craft
58/100
Hype
22/100
22 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
Only 1 of the 17 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
In May 2026, California Resources Corp. began injecting carbon dioxide underground at Elk Hills, a century-old oil field in Kern County. The project is the first commercial carbon-storage operation in California and the only one in the U.S. approved solely for permanent storage, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Nearly four years earlier, in 2022, California lawmakers ordered state regulators to prepare rules for the industry. The law set a January 2025 deadline for regulations on financial responsibility, cleanup costs and a single permitting process. The state has not adopted any carbon-storage rules, missing the deadline by 19 months.
The California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible for writing the rules, cited staffing issues as the reason for the delay. Without state rules, California cannot impose stricter standards than federal regulations, which govern the Elk Hills project through the EPA’s injection-well permit.
The project could collect billions in public funding. Federal tax credits could yield up to $3.2 billion for the first phase alone if the company scales up injections. California drivers may also fund part of the project through the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and cap-and-invest programs, though the exact distribution of those funds remains unclear.
What the reports disagree on
The reports agree that California has not adopted carbon-storage rules but differ on the potential public cost. The Associated Press and CalMatters, both left-rated, report that the project could earn billions in public incentives. The right-rated Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer digest does not mention the financial incentives.
What the coverage left out
None of the right-rated digests mention the $4 billion state incentive pool or the four public funding streams detailed in CalMatters. None of the centre-rated digests quote environmental advocates or climate experts, though the full reports they republished do. The right-rated digest does not name any environmental groups or state officials beyond the company and the EPA.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 5 times, most recently on 11 Aug 2026, 04:00, and will add the sides that appear.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
7 rated outlets
- The seven left-rated digests and two full reports led on the absence of state rules and the potential risks of carbon storage. The Associated Press and CalMatters, the only left-rated outlets with full reports, both quoted Michelle Ghafar, an Earthjustice attorney, who said, “If something does go wrong, there are a lot of really important questions about who would actually address those concerns and impacts.”
- The left-rated reports also emphasised the financial stakes. CalMatters detailed four public funding streams, including a $4 billion state incentive pool for manufacturing decarbonisation. The Associated Press quoted climate expert Danny Cullenward, who said, “You are also paying a lot of money for very large oil companies to experiment with these technologies in the absence of a regulatory framework.”
- The left-rated reports named the environmental groups involved in legal challenges, including Earthjustice and FracTracker Alliance. They also quoted state officials, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the Elk Hills injections “proof that innovation and ambition are the California way.”
Centre
9 rated outlets
- The nine centre-rated digests and two full reports focused on the regulatory delay and the project’s status as a first-of-its-kind test. The Associated Press and CalMatters full reports, republished by centre-rated outlets, carried the same details as the left-rated versions, including the 19-month delay and the potential for billions in public incentives.
- The centre-rated digests did not quote environmental advocates or climate experts. They did not mention the $4 billion state incentive pool or the specific funding streams detailed in CalMatters. The KPBS digest noted that environmentalists and oil companies disagree on how far the rules should go but did not elaborate.
Right
1 rated outlet
- The single right-rated digest, from the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, carried the basic facts: the 2022 law, the missed deadline and the start of injections at Elk Hills. It did not mention the potential public cost, the environmental groups suing to stop the project or the specific risks of carbon storage.
Read it at the source
22 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
7- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens The Toronto Star in a new tab)
The Toronto Star — is The Toronto Star biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Goshen News in a new tab)
Goshen News — is Goshen News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens The Daily Star in a new tab)
The Daily Star — is The Daily Star biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Associated Press News in a new tab)
Associated Press News — is Associated Press News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens NiagaraFallsReview.ca in a new tab)
NiagaraFallsReview.ca — is NiagaraFallsReview.ca biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens The Hamilton Spectator in a new tab)
The Hamilton Spectator — is The Hamilton Spectator biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who's responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Cal Matters in a new tab)
Cal Matters — is Cal Matters biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
9- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens WCBI TV in a new tab)
- An oil field became California's first carbon vault. Who's responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Newsday in a new tab)
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens GazetteXtra in a new tab)
GazetteXtra — is GazetteXtra biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens The Northern Virginia Daily in a new tab)
The Northern Virginia Daily — is The Northern Virginia Daily biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens The Standard-Journal in a new tab)
The Standard-Journal — is The Standard-Journal biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens KPBS in a new tab)
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Winnipeg Free Press in a new tab)
Winnipeg Free Press — is Winnipeg Free Press biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Danville San Ramon in a new tab)
Danville San Ramon — is Danville San Ramon biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
1Not rated
5- CalMatters: An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? – Consumer Watchdog (opens consumerwatchdog.org in a new tab)
consumerwatchdog.org
- California’s carbon storage began before rules were written (opens ecotopical.com in a new tab)
ecotopical.com — is ecotopical.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? - The Business Journal California carbon storage project begins before state adopts safety rules (opens The Business Journal in a new tab)
The Business Journal
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens livermorevine.com in a new tab)
livermorevine.com — is livermorevine.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- An oil field became California’s first carbon vault. Who’s responsible if something goes wrong? (opens Redwood City Pulse in a new tab)
Redwood City Pulse — is Redwood City Pulse biased? Our profile of this outlet
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules?
- Of the 17 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 41% are rated left, 53% are rated centre, 6% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 22. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules left or right?
- Neither side dominates it. Of the 17 rated outlets on this story, 41% are rated left, 53% are rated centre, 6% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
- Is the coverage of California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules biased?
- California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules is one event reported by 22 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered California’s first carbon-storage project begins without state rules?
- 22 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- Why has California not adopted carbon-storage rules?
- The California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible, cited staffing issues for the delay. The state missed a January 2025 deadline set by a 2022 law to establish rules on financial responsibility and permitting. The rules remain unwritten 19 months later.
- How much public money could the Elk Hills project receive?
- The project could earn billions in public incentives. Federal tax credits alone could yield $3.2 billion for the first phase if injections scale up. State funds, including a $4 billion pool for manufacturing decarbonisation, may also contribute, though the exact distribution is unclear.
- What risks does the Elk Hills project pose?
- Environmental groups warn that old oil wells at Elk Hills could provide a path for carbon dioxide to escape. The gas can suffocate people in high concentrations and drives climate change. Without state rules, California cannot impose stricter standards than federal regulations.
- Which outlets reported on the public cost of the project?
- The Associated Press and CalMatters, both left-rated, detailed the potential billions in public incentives. The right-rated Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer digest did not mention the financial stakes. Centre-rated digests carried the basic facts but did not elaborate on funding streams.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
More in Climate
All Climate →
Elsewhere on the site
Conflict & Security•5 min readHouthi missile and drone attacks hit Mokha port and Saudi Aramco refinery
Conflict & Security•5 min readOvernight strikes kill seven in Ukraine and Russia as drone and missile attacks continue
Politics•4 min readTrump faces final popular vote in November midterms amid policy criticism