The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 6-1 to recommend a "do not pass" on Senate Bill 23-22, a bill that would remove common-carrier status (and the attendant eminent-domain authority) for CO2 pipelines. Senator Gerhardt moved the do-not-pass motion and Senator Cassidy seconded; the clerk recorded 6 ayes and 1 nay.

Committee members framed the bill as part of a broader debate about property rights, energy development and whether singling out CO2 pipelines creates inconsistent precedent for other infrastructure. "To take that one tool away, I think would create a huge challenge as we move forward with these other opportunities," Chairman Patton said, arguing that common-carrier authority has enabled large infrastructure projects and that pipeline companies generally negotiate easements to avoid eminent domain.

Other senators emphasized local opposition and property-rights concerns. One senator said she was "really struggling with this one" because of constituent opposition and the tension between protecting property rights and allowing projects with wider benefits. Senator Gerhardt, who offered the motion, said he could not support the bill in its current form and expressed concern that it "takes the right of eminent domain away from not just ... solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen energy," potentially affecting multiple energy sectors.

Supporters of maintaining CO2 pipeline common-carrier status argued the infrastructure underpins ethanol and agricultural markets and future enhanced oil recovery (EOR) opportunities. Committee discussion referenced the state’s research on EOR and a separate $60 million research request in the appropriations process for enhanced oil recovery efforts. Chairman Patton noted maps showing thousands of miles of existing pipelines and said there are "over 30,000 miles of pipelines in the state right now," reflecting the scope of existing infrastructure.

After debate the committee adopted the do-not-pass recommendation, which means the committee will not advance the bill in its current form. The committee selected a sponsor to carry the measure off the floor and members signaled the issue may continue to be discussed in other forums; no amendments were adopted during the committee vote.

The committee record does not list individual roll-call names for the vote in the transcript; the clerk announced a 6-1 tally.