House passes bill creating enterprise for carbon sequestration stewardship and updating geothermal permitting; members debate liability and cost

The Colorado House adopted House Bill 11-65 after a day-long floor debate that produced several committee amendments and a series of floor amendment votes. The bill has two major parts: creating a state enterprise to provide long-term stewardship for carbon sequestration projects and changing the regulatory framework for geothermal operations and notice protections for historic hot springs.

Sponsor Representative Paschal (co-prime sponsor Representative Soper) described the bill as creating an enterprise and board to “oversee those projects and make sure that there isn't any problems with them ongoing after the project team has left the site.” She said the enterprise would be funded through fees charged to carbon sequestration operators. Representative Soper presented and the House adopted an amendment to the committee report (amendment L11) that requires the state commission to notify nearby commercial and noncommercial hot‑springs owners within a quarter-mile by email and that clarifies how the state would consider “material injury” to prior geothermal operations when issuing permits.

Representative Schoffer and other supporters noted the bill also streamlines certain permitting steps for geothermal operations by consolidating permitting authority through the Department of Natural Resources and the applicable state commission and said geothermal projects can reduce energy costs for institutions such as Colorado Mesa University.

Representative De Graaf mounted the bill’s most sustained floor opposition, saying he could not support the geothermal provisions because the enterprise, by design, creates an off‑budget funding vehicle that he characterized as an “end run” around the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. De Graaf argued that the enterprise would shift costs to Colorado residents indirectly and criticized the projected climate benefits and cost effectiveness of carbon‑capture projects in an extended floor speech.

Representative Froehlich and others debated several written substitute amendments; Representative Weinberg offered a substitute (L14) addressing a typographical error and was defeated; amendment L13 also failed. The House voice-voted to adopt the committee report as amended, then later adopted the bill on the floor. Several amendments and motions were the subject of sustained colloquy, and some votes were voice votes; recorded roll-call tallies for the individual amendments were not specified in the transcript. The bill passed on the floor following the committee report adoption.