House committee advances bill letting Colorado seek primacy over underground injection wells

The Colorado House Energy & Environment Committee on Thursday advanced House Bill 11-12 as amended to the Finance Committee, a measure that would give the state authority to seek EPA primacy over underground injection control (UIC) wells covering all six federally defined classes.

"This important legislation grants Colorado the authority to seek full primacy over UIC wells," Representative Pasco, a sponsor, told the committee as lawmakers opened debate. Sponsors said primacy would allow a single, state-led permitting process administered by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) and, for Class 3 wells, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS).

Supporters said state control would streamline permitting for projects such as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), geothermal reinjection and carbon sequestration, and allow Colorado to tailor rules to local geology and water‑management needs. "We believe the ongoing uncertainty regarding federal capacity and priorities illustrates the value of the state having authority to regulate these activities," Aaron Ray, director of policy at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said in testimony and noted Colorado has held Class 2 primacy since 1984 and expects Class 6 primacy in 2026.

ECMC witness Michael Rigby said the primacy process is multi‑year and that ECMC would add particular staff expertise as needed: "There are certain portions of expertise within the ECMC that would play a role in this program," he said, adding the agency expects to recover implementation costs through operator fees once the program is operating.

Committee members pressed witnesses on whether state primacy would speed permitting and how the state would measure improvements. Rigby and Ray said timing would be project‑dependent but argued state administration could eliminate duplicative state and federal filings, creating a more seamless process for some projects. On timelines, industry witnesses said EPA aims for two‑year permits but many applications take two to three years or more under current federal processes.

Opponents and stakeholders urged statutory guardrails. Bill Wambacher, representing municipal water providers, testified in an "amend" position that the bill as drafted lacked specific limits on permit costs, processing time and monitoring requirements and warned higher compliance costs could be passed to utility customers. The Colorado Water Congress urged that any state rules stricter than federal standards be supported by technical and scientific evidence.

Agriculture groups raised the potential for unintended impacts on farm operations. Travis Grant, CEO of Carter Livestock Association, said Class 5 wells include agricultural drainage systems used for manure lagoon management and said his members worry about transferring oversight away from the agencies that have long managed CAFO-related controls.

The hearing also included an allegation about ECMC data integrity. A witness identified as Miss Rose asked the committee to postpone the bill, citing testimony from a SMART Act hearing that ECMC had acknowledged data‑falsification issues first noted in 2024 and that auditors reported roughly 11,000 unsubmitted production reports; she said the agency’s information‑technology overhaul would not be complete until late 2027 and argued the state should not seek primacy until reporting reliability is resolved. That allegation was presented as public testimony and was not substantiated or resolved during the committee hearing.

Sponsors offered and the committee adopted a package of amendments intended to address several stakeholder concerns. Amendment L002 and related measures require that state rules be at least as stringent as federal standards, direct ECMC and DRMS to establish timely and efficient permitting processes, and limit the commission’s ability to impose more stringent requirements unless supported at public hearing and in a documented statement of basis and purpose. Sponsors framed those changes as statutory guardrails to ensure primacy does not produce additional burdens for operators or communities.

Representative Joseph asked about the fiscal note, citing estimated initial state expenditures of roughly $247,000 to $430,000 for the first two years and projected regulatory costs later in the program of about $1.8 million and $1.0 million with roughly nine full‑time equivalent staff; Director Ray said early rule development would be covered by existing ECMC and DRMS funds and that operator fees set in rule would be intended to cover implementation costs.

After opening statements, dozens of witnesses provided two‑minute remarks in support, opposition or to request amendments. Supporters included geothermal developers, conservation groups, Charm Industrial (a company that uses Class 5 permits for bio‑oil storage), and the Clean Air Task Force, all arguing state primacy would provide predictable permitting and support climate and water‑management goals.

On a motion by Representative Pasco, seconded by Representative Smith, the committee voted to send House Bill 11-12 as amended to the Finance Committee with a favorable recommendation. The roll call returned a 9‑3 vote in favor. The committee then adjourned.

What’s next: the bill will be considered by the Finance Committee for fiscal review and additional deliberation.