March 12, 2026 · Energy & Environment · 12,759 words · 11 speakers · 114 segments
. Committee will come to order. Ms. Falco, please call the roll. Representatives Barone.
Here.
Mr. Graff. Late. Excuse. Goldstein.
Late.
Excuse. Jackson.
Here.
Joseph. Late and excused. Pascal.
Here.
Brutinell. Late and excused. Flav. Late and excused. Smith.
I am here.
Wilford.
Here and on time.
I like it. Wug.
late and excused
I'm here let's get going representative
tell us about 1279 thank you Mr. Chair 1279 is a bill that came out of a conversation I had with a former constituent so when I first ran for office I ran for house district 47 then we redistricted and I now serve House District 60, but a former constituent called me up and said, we have a problem. Would you try and help provide a solution? And I think it's worth a solution. So as you likely know, I represent rural Colorado. And in rural Colorado, we are big on being good neighbors and being considerate. And part of being good neighbors and considerate is just the function of letting people know what you're up to. For instance, every New Year's Day, we have our Wagon Masters group do a New Year's Day ride throughout Penrose. And they will take over streets and make it very difficult in certain areas to get through because of the number of horses and wagons that are on the street. And it's a wonderful celebration and everyone loves it, but they always provide notice, which is especially helpful for new folks who have moved into the area so that they're not shocked by what otherwise are clear roads being congested. Notice helps to prevent any sort of conflict. When you have notice of something that's going on, even if you don't particularly like what's going on, you tend to respond better to it than when you don't have any notice and it blindsides you. And so this bill is just a bill about being good neighbors as government actors towards our private property owners. Basically what it is doing is ensuring that before a public utility can, before a public utility begins to construct or extend a new facility, a new line, a new plant or a new system when that particular project will require that public utility to use private property real private property that they have to provide a degree of notice They have to contact those particular private property owners with a letter. They have to put a notice in the local paper. And they also will have to, a short time later, hold a public meeting, just so that everyone can have an understanding of what's going on and to be able to give feedback and ask questions, etc. It doesn't do anything other than that. You might ask yourself, well, we already have this kind of thing in law, and actually we don't, really. There is one section that was added in related to notice in Senate Bill 19-107, which under Section 4015-602-2A does require electric utilities or its designated commercial broadband supplier to send notice to property owners in the event of broadband-related utilities. But there's nothing else in statute that requires the notification of property owners when public utilities are creating, constructing, or extending new facilities, lines, plants, or systems. So basically, just wanting to ensure that we as government, our public utilities, are doing what is necessary to be good neighbors. I ask for your support.
Thank you, Representative Luck. Any questions for the sponsor? All right, seeing none, we'll move to witness testimony. Did you have a preference for and against? There's a few against. Let's take the opposition first. Okay, that sounds good. We will have Claire Valentine, Carolyn Elam, and we do have a neutral, so we'll bring them up with this group. Travis Fisher. Ms. Valentine, welcome. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for testimony today. And please begin whenever you're ready. Ms. Valentine, if you can hear me. There was a bit of a mistake. So we will have Andy Hill and Andrew Holder. And that is Sam's bad. We'll be back to the other bill soon. Sir, welcome. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. My name is Andy Hill. I'm the Government Affairs Manager for Denver Water, and I am here in opposition of House Bill 1279. Although well-intentioned, this bill would be redundant to the existing outreach efforts that we do and likely conflict with other obligations and existing easement agreements between Denver Water and property owners. generally for all denver water construction projects we have a voluntary good neighbor commitment for planned construction activities which details our commitment to construction hours safety requirements water interruption notifications restoration commitments and ongoing communication methods This is for all work but with a limited amount of time here I focus on two types of work we do main replacement and lead service line replacement For main replacement, Denver Water is the oldest and largest water utility in the state. We supply drinking water to 1.5 million people. This is about a quarter of all Coloradans. To do so, we move water through about 3,000 miles of water mains located throughout Denver and the surrounding suburbs. And as such, we're continuously replacing these water mains throughout our distribution system. Some of them are over 100 years old. During a main replacement project, we work diligently to directly communicate with nearby customers before, during, and after construction. We send notices to impacted property owners approximately one month prior to construction. We provide door hanger notices to individual properties two to three before the direct impacts. For projects along commercial corridors like Colfax or Sheridan, outreach begins months in advance and often includes public meetings. And for sensitive customers like medical facilities or water-dependent businesses, we begin targeted outreach two to three weeks in advance. Of course, pipe replacement also isn't always planned, and we try to provide notice as soon as practical during emergency breaks and subsequent work. for lead service line replacement. After the water leaves the main, it enters a customer's service line. The customer owns the service line where it connects the Denver Water Main all the way to the property. And since 2020, Denver Water has been operating under a federal lead and copper rule variance, which requires that we remove all privately owned lead service lines in our service area. To date, we've removed about 37,000 out of 60,000 lead service lines. It's about 20 a day. And we hope to continue this project through 2031. excuse me when it's completed uh denver water will have spent approximately 680 million dollars this work is extremely important to permanently remove the threat of lead but by adding new notice requirements it would slow this work down the customer outreach work is already very significant the variance requires that we notify new customers if there's a change in ownership provide annual notice reach out a minimum of three times two weeks before the plan replacement but but this often occurs months in advance. And we offer virtual community meetings in bilingual languages. So to close, we appreciate the intent of this bill and we certainly do not oppose the goal. Quite the opposite, we wholeheartedly agree that private property owners should be notified, but this bill would not help our efforts. It would be costly, redundant, and burdensome to the ongoing work we're doing. So for these reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote no. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Holder, if you can hear me, please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for your testimony today. begin whenever you're ready.
Having a couple computer issues here today. Can you guys hear me okay?
I can see and hear you just fine.
Perfect. Well, thank you, everyone, and good afternoon, Chairman Valdez and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on House Bill 26-1279. My name is Andrew Holder. I serve as the Director of our Community Relations and Local Government Affairs here at Xcel Energy. and I'm here to testify in opposition of the bill as is proposed here this afternoon. Xcel Energy is committed to ensuring projects are done efficiently and prudently, adhering to all permitting requirements and applicable governance over such projects. This includes working closely with planning departments, public works offices, and other key stakeholders to ensure appropriate communication and notice is given depending on the size and scale of the work being conducted As introduced this bill resulted in increased costs for customers and of our infrastructure potentially in a material manner as well as potentially slow the time it takes to complete needed new infrastructure Customers will bear this cost and timeline negative implications based on the bill drafted. There's a couple of specific concerns that I want to just highlight here real briefly. The certified mail and newspaper publication requirement, this bill requires sufficient notice to include certified mail to each affected property owner, as well as newspaper publication. This approach does not reflect how local governments generally prefer to communicate about the smaller type of work that is done in the right-of-way. Those updates typically flow through the public works and city management, not direct mailings from the utility. Layering these type of statutory requirements on top of existing coordinated processes risk confusing our residents, and it also confuses our residents about who's leading communication and potentially duplicating established municipal workflows. Additionally, mandatory in-person public meetings. Requiring an in-person public meeting for every qualifying project does not match the scale or the community impact of most distribution-level work. Many of these projects are routine, such as pole replacements or transmission or arrestor replacements. These are generally short duration and are already fully coordinated with public work staff before construction begins through the permitting process. Mandated meetings for low-impact work would add costs with little demonstrated value and often do not generate meaningful attendance or engagement from the community. And then additionally, the broad definition of projects requiring notice. This bill applies to any project that will require use of real property, even when a utility easement already exists. This could unintentionally sweep in smaller routine distribution jobs that are already handled through longstanding communication channels with local governments. This could also impact when we have significant weather events and accessing our equipment to ensure that we restore power, given that we see more of these frequent events here in Colorado. Lastly, there's detailed technical information required in notices. This bill requires notices to include easement recording numbers, existing infrastructure descriptions, and approximate easement locations. Residents typically seek information about schedule, traffic, and community impacts, not technical easement documentation. These requirements may confuse recipients and do not align with what local governments or community organizations view as relative information for their constituents. I appreciate the time to talk through some of the thoughts that Accel Energy has here today. This completes my testimony. Again, thank you for listening and your time here this afternoon. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, sir. Questions from the committee? Representative Wug.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Holder, you mentioned customers will bear the cost. Can you just maybe give an example of what costs they might be having to take care of?
Mr. Arnold?
Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate the question. Generally, the type of costs we're talking about is the logistics and the communication efforts that would be embedded into that project work cost. So, for example, if we have a pole replacement, those type of requirements and the permitting costs are paid for by ratepayers. So any additional communication or engagement that's required on that would be embedded in the work order cost and eventually recovered from from ratepayers So this is just an undue burdensome cost out of that would just add up to some of these more routine Infrastructure projects that we do on a day-to-day basis Representative to graph
Thank you, mr. Chair and Mr. Holder is that from Excel? Um, I Just curious on this because, I mean, there's obviously a lot of moving parts before you send out a truck to do any of these infrastructure projects. And this kind of conversation reminds me of a bill we heard just a couple days ago on 1278 and the absolute affirmation that Excel was working as a good partner and a good neighbor, etc. And then we heard from the neighbors that talked about how Excel at the behest of the PUC and the governor were basically raising through their property and communities with eminent domain and that, you know, that there are years worth of. So I'm curious how the communication with the actual property owners, which seems to be the thing here, that they can – I mean, if there's an emergency, certainly, but maybe you have to go out and deal with it. But on routine things, it seems like integrating the property owners into the communication process itself, because these aren't typically done in a vacuum or in a short period of time. So can you just explain a little bit more why including the customers with a little bit more lead time is not viable? And that it would add significantly to the cost. When we're talking about billions of dollars of infrastructure, When we're talking about, you know, I'm not, you know, like five to seven million dollars per mile for a high voltage line. You know, it seems like the communication process is not going to be a significant aspect of that. So if you can just do a little bit more detail on why this communication is going to be so onerous.
Mr. Holder.
Yeah, I really appreciate the question. And let me just kind of expand on this. The way that the bill is kind of drafted as it speaks right now, it lumps in all projects under kind of the same umbrella. And there's different variations of levels of infrastructure. What you mentioned in regards to some of those transmission level projects, there is a significant amount of outreach. You know, I'll use one great example of our Colorado Pathways project where we had over 76 open houses and over 25,000 letters that were sent out to individual property owners and community members to ensure that they were aware of the type of project scale that this was. Keep in mind, Colorado Pathways is a double circuit 345 kV transmission line that spans nearly 600 miles. That size and scope of a project absolutely necessitates that type of level of engagement, communication, and partnership with our local communities and individual private landowners. What I'm specifically talking about is the routine day-to-day projects where potentially we have an outage due to a windstorm and a pole breaks. we need to be able to access that equipment to ensure that the community stays safe from a public safety perspective, but also ensuring that we are expeditiously restoring power to our customers. We're trying to make sure that we're continuing to work around the clock to ensure that we're getting power restored safely and efficiently as possible when outages do occur. And this type of advanced notification on all types of infrastructure in a broad manner will impact what that type of response looks like. Also for those routine you know day to day type of projects you know the grid is a very complex situation in regards to how much load we have on that day depending on the weather what time of day it is depending on what kind of appliances are being used at that time which makes it extremely complicated to ensure that we are turning off power in the right spot so that it safe for our crews to operate and maintain on that equipment Because of that complex rubric that I just kind of mentioned we are always trying to narrow down when we can do those type of smaller projects that we can give those private landowners that advance notification. There's also requirements from the right-of-way team and our public works teams that require a certain amount of communication, And we want to ensure that we adhere to that type of local governments and ensure that we're partnering with our local communities. So we're committed to, you know, ensuring that we do that. My concern is just what we're looking at storm work or some of these day-to-day processes, building in that additional communication on top of what's already required is going to be, you know, an exponential cost depending on how many projects we do on a given day that will be borne by our ratepayers. I hope that answers your question. I'm happy to expand on it further if it didn't.
Representative DeGraff?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And from my understanding of the bill, my read of the bill, that this is more about routine projects. And so I appreciate the notice. I'm not sure where the disconnect was with the individuals that were here for 1278. Obviously, maybe they just thought since they didn't approve it that they didn't authorize it, they didn't understand that the PUC would be authorizing eminent domain to rip across their property. But this looks to me more like, you know, that we're talking about, you know, not emergency projects, but, you know, projects in general. So is there some wording in this bill that, you know, that, you know, to, because obviously the sponsor is, you know, has an intent to make sure that property owners are notified and are in the actual loop. So I'd say they're definitely feeling they're not sufficiently in the loop. So I think that's a good indication that maybe there's a disconnect here. So, I mean, do you have any amendments, wordings that you would be able to bring forward that would basically address the emergent type issues that you're talking about and ensuring that the projects that are more of a scheduled nature have the level of communication that the sponsor is looking for as brought to the sponsor by the citizens of Colorado who clearly don't feel they're in a loop. So I just feel like there's a disconnect here between you and the citizens, and like how can we address that and close that up to to their satisfaction not simply the pucs
mr holder would you like to respond to that last part there yeah it's a great question look we are
no by no means at a final destination of how we can communicate with our customers and we're striving to communicate all levels of projects in a better fashion to ensure our customers are up to date on what type of infrastructure we are installing in their communities we want to be great stewards and we want to be great partners, not only of the utility, you know, the public utility easements that we own or the right of way, or as we're accessing private property. So we're always striving to ensure that we're communicating and bringing down that communications gap. With that being said, there's still a couple of things that are as drafted, you know, potentially mandating public meetings for all types of projects, depending on what those look like. You know, I think we've all attended different public meetings and open houses, depending on the size and scope and impact to a community depends on what type of attendance you hear So the cost reward perspective doesn always necessarily balance given the scope of some of these more routine projects But look, we have a, you know, we work with our local governments very closely. They have stringent rules in regards to what their requirements look like. We're always happy to partner and make sure that we are adhering to those local governments permits that they issue so that we keep our communities informed.
all right thank you very much for your testimony today we appreciate it thanks for staying up late with us all right next up we'll have carrie fros jenny rush julie worley and donna labelle Hi, Ms. Rose.
I'm sorry.
I'm bad with your last name. I'm probably mispronouncing it, but introduce yourself to the committee. You'll have three minutes for your testimony today. Yeah, if the green light comes on, that's when you're good to go. Just press the little gray button there. There you go. Can you hear me?
Okay, thanks. Good afternoon, Chairman Valdez, Vice Chair Velasco, and members of the committee. Thank you kindly for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Carrie Fraze, and I am a fourth-generation Coloradan. I reside with my husband and three children on a farm near the small town of Shara and have a cow-calf ranch operation in southern Bent County, far into southeast Colorado. I support House Bill 26-1279 that establishes notification to the public and each real property owner that has been mapped in for the construction or extension of a public utility project. As public utility infrastructure is being planned, it is crucial that the real property owners for the real property that will be used and the public receive notification. Today, there are many public utility projects in the works across Colorado, including but not limited to the Three Corners Connector Project in my area that connects the electric grid from Guymon, Oklahoma to Pueblo, Colorado. a 300-mile project, as well as the Department of Energy's southwestern grid connector national interest electric transmission corridor that, as proposed, will encompass over 300,000 acres in eastern Colorado and all of eastern New Mexico from the north to the south. Not one landowner in this area received notification. Now is the time to establish notification standards to real property owners and the public regarding public utility projects that are moving forward to the construction phase. Included in this bill is a requirement for the public utility to not only send a written, excuse me, written certified mail notification to each real property owner, but also host at least one in-person public meeting in the county where the construction or extension will occur, as well as submit public notice in the newspaper within the area. These are important details within the bill that provides an opportunity for the public and the real property owners to communicate with the public utility company. In 2019, Senate Bill 19-107 that was signed into law established written notification requirements for broadband infrastructure installation. That concludes 30 days prior to entering real property or beginning construction the electric utility or its designated commercial broadband supplier must provide written notice to each property owner Improving communication through notification is the goal and I fully believe the more communication the better for all parties involved Thank you for your time and hearing my testimony. I look forward to your yes vote. Thank you very much.
Please stand by for any questions the committee may have. Ms. Rush, please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes today. Please begin whenever you're ready. I also believe you're done. I'm sorry, I was just going to say I also believe you are known as
Granny Sparkle They call me Gammy Sparkles
Gammy Sparkles Welcome back Well, welcome back Thank you very much We heard it through the grapevine That song was for Mr. Andrew at Excel You know, I know you think you might
Come get me if I get too nasty But come and get you some I got words for you all. Here's the deal. I'm joking, of course. I'm trying to have some levity here. Listen, I've been in real estate, commercial, residential leases for 36 years. And so I know about something to do with of record, everything that is recorded, easements, etc. And in my opinion, what's an ad in the paper, 20 bucks, 40 bucks, 50 bucks? What is it to get a small rural community together to listen to a pitch or a reason for why somebody has to tread on their land other than a pole fell down? I was a witness and a testifier to the bill last week where Excel and PUC and the state of Colorado energy policy bulldozed the living tar out of innocent citizens. And this has to stop. We are not the World Economic Forum. We are not globalists. You can't just run over us and with impunity do eminent domain before you even got permission. And even if you got permission from the PUC, but not the locals figured, well, we'll get them later. These are all unelected positions. And it's an attack on oil, gas, natural gas and coal and energy policy in light in lieu of the clean garbage junk, renewable, unsustainable, costly to the trillions that everybody is dumping on the people. I personally object. And if a simple request of send us a notice and turn around and give us a little bit of time to make sure that the owner of the property on which you're treading has a right to properly respond, that doesn't cost that much. That's respect, because that's what this country was built on. Life, liberty and land, the right to own land, not just the pursuit of happiness. And I'm so sick of all this garbage in the legislature everywhere, taking it on themselves. It's like a communist gulag. We're listening to the communist manifesto, not the U.S. Constitution. This bill has every right to live as does every owner. And Excel, you owe apologies to every person that testified last week. So does the PUC. So does the governor. And you need to make them whole and right. This is treason to America. I'm angry at it. I'm not blaming you personally, Andrew. You know, I don't want to single you out. But you guys need clean up your act because we, the people, own the country and we pay your bills. And if we're not here, you're going to not get any money. So tell the World Economic Force to go pound sand, because if they kill all of us, you've got no paychecks. And the legislature doesn't have any money either. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Rush. Please stand by for questions. Ms. Worley, welcome. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for testimony today. Gosh, I don't know whether I can follow that or not. Give it a try.
Well, good afternoon, Chairman Valdez and Vice Chair Valesco and members of the House Energy and Environment Committee. I thank you for allowing me to testify. I'm Julie Worley. I reside in La Hanna, Colorado, in Otero County in rural southeast Colorado. And I'm here today representing the Colorado Women in Farm Economics, or commonly known as the WIFE organization. I'm here to express my support of HB 26-1279, the bill that you're considering today that establishes notification to the public and to every property owner if there is to be construction or extension of a public utility project across the property owner's land. As public utility projects are being planned across our state, it's vitally important that the property owner know of these projects. The property owner needs to know the proposed area where the project will go across the property, the timeline for construction of such a project, and the anticipated completion date of the project. It's also important that the public be made aware of the projects also, and that there be a public time for comment on the project. And this proposed bill allows for those procedures to be followed. This bill, HB 2679, establishes very basic requirements for written notification of each owner of private real property. And it provides public notification in newspapers in our local regional areas. areas, and it provides for at least one public meeting where rural people could make comments regarding the planned construction or extension of any new facility, line, plant, or system. We have two examples that I know of in Otero County of a routine project to replace electric poles. It was planned and implemented by Southeast Colorado Power Association, and there was no notification given to the property owner when those poles would be replaced. They entered the property which had just been plowed and was ready for planting, tearing and uprooting the ground, and if the property owner had been given notification, he could have planted at a later date and saved himself time and money. In my opinion, this is really a no-brainer bill. If I own property, I want to know if someone's going to come on to it. Would you want someone to enter your home without letting you know it? I'm therefore asking for your yes vote on HB 26-1279. Thank you.
Thank you very much, ma'am. Ms. LaBelle, please unmute yourself. Turn on your camera if you're able. You'll have three minutes today for testimony.
Tara Valdez and committee members, my name is Donna LaBelle. I would like to take a short, brief moment of personal privilege and say thank you publicly to Gammy Sparkles, Jeannie Rush, for the dedication and the effort, the blood, sweat, and tears that she puts into researching and standing up for what is right. So I just wanted to say thank you and to wish Stephanie Locke a happy birthday. And I represent myself, but I am testifying in support of HB 261279 for the sake of the rural citizens of Colorado, where transmission corridors have become an increasingly common topic of discussion. I heard that testimony that Rep DeGraff talked about given in response to a bill put forth by Representative Richardson earlier this month along with the stories of landowners that showed the need for this bill at the very least When new transmission lines are proposed, the impacts are permanent, and it is important that information be clearly given in order that landowners can best prepare. economic development is important but we hope it does not come at the expense of people who have lived on and cared for their land for decades we appreciate our farmers and ranchers and i hope that we can pass this bill to show our respect for all constituents in colorado and i ask
for a yes vote thank you thank you ma'am all right committee questions for the panel Representative DeGraff.
Mr. Fraser, I just wondered, do you have any other examples of problems like you cited, or is that a one of, or because generally the communication is solid, or do your neighbors also feel that maybe there could be better communication? I guess, do you have any other examples of the problem that you talked about?
Ms. Fros.
Thank you. Yes, excellent question. I do have examples. So in my area, there's a public utility proposed. And for us, it is in the bar ditch. So we live on a county road. And on the bar ditch, the public utility is supposed to be in the opposite side bar ditch. So there's our side, their side, the bar ditch. And the public utility has requested authorization to access our land, which includes a cultural study, several different backgrounds where they come in and look at your water and they record all of that information. And so far, my husband and I, we have refused to negotiate with them because the first thing they send you is, please give your consent. Please authorize us to access your property. Well, what is our compensation? We have lots of questions and we have sought an attorney. I'm very blessed to have a sister that's an attorney, so I can call her pretty quickly. And so she had lots of questions. You know, what's their insurance policy? What are they willing to compensate you? How many days are they going to come on your property? Will they call you when they come on your property? We have three small children, and they ride bikes and their children on our farm, and they're everywhere. And so are we going to be constantly worrying about these people coming on our farm? So we just have a lot of questions for them. And we received a letter back saying, well, you have failed to respond, so we are going to move forward with accessing your property. The project hasn't made it to us yet, but we feel that that is by no means good business. And then our neighbor to the west of us, they will be also going through her property because it goes at an angle. So it goes through her farm and she has beautiful cedar trees. These are huge trees as tall as the ceiling, and they're absolutely beautiful, and she as well has small children. And so they want to rip out her trees, and she has continued to refuse to provide consent. And I asked her if I could share this, and she texted me. She said she continues to refuse. Let me find it here. and she wants you to know, she says, share the fact they've been sending eminent domain pamphlets for years now because I won't sign their paperwork, LOL. So it just very hard that they have sent their notification but they refuse to work with us And it's their way or no way. And yes, they have provided notification on this public utility, but also on our land in Bent County, which is close to the transmission corridors they're putting through. There has been no notification on those. We found out the NEATSE corridor, the southwestern grid corridor from the Department of Energy, there has been no notification, and it's now in phase three. What happened in phase one? They had us mapped in there, but we didn't receive notification. So there is definitely a lack of notification between landowners and public utilities. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am.
Representative DeGraff? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So they could have solved the problem easily by just going on the other side of the road. Is that what I understood? They already had an easement on the other side of the road of your property?
Ms. Rose.
Thank you. Yes. So it's not on our property, but they want to access our property. That's correct. But they could have just gone on the other side of the property and foregone all the issue with your property.
On the other side of the road. They could have just, I guess, why didn't XL just cross the road?
Ms. Rose, did you want to partake in the question of why they didn't cross the road?
We have not received any reasoning of why they continue to want our side of the road, and we have failed to ask them that question of just stick to that side. We haven't talked about that.
And Reptograph has a final question, I see. I don't know about final question, but I have lots of questions, especially when it's talking about, you know, Excel on behalf of the ESG goals of their investors, going through and ripping up a farm full of cedar trees. Is there an easier way, like maybe a path that doesn't include cutting a 150-foot swath through these cedar trees that maybe they could use? or is it like, boy, that is the only place that they can go?
Ms. Froese, would you like to reply to that?
Thank you. Yes. My understanding through talking to my neighbor is that they refuse to move the pipeline any direction, north or south, that they're dead set that that's the way they want it to be, and that they have now said that they're threatening imminent domain on her. All right.
We're up to graph one more. so does that sound like the uh the the good neighborly the excel gentleman from excel kind of described what he would what you'd think was a really good neighborly process to uh before going through somebody's property does that does that sound like it's got the uh the landowners in uh mind or just that they have eminent domain in their back pocket from the governor and they're not afraid to use it. Ms. Rose? Thank you. Yes, it seems that even though we are the landowners and
we make our living on the land, that public utilities hold that eminent domain card all
the time on us, and it's very hard. Thank you. All right. I don't see any additional questions, so thank you very much for your time today, everybody. Thank you. All right. Let me actually
just make one final call for anybody who has yet to testify who would like to testify on the bill who here with us in the room Seeing none please return We have just a minor point of order before proceeding Committee, I'm going to need to call the committee choir to celebrate Representative Luck's birthday. No! It's too late. They're called. So, Republicans, we're going to sing happy birthday to Representative Luck. if that's okay with you. Please join us. Please join us. Oh, you did it already? Well, we're going to do it again because it's her birthday. All right. Help me out. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear love. Happy birthday to you.
Thank you.
Yes.
I expect multiple times on my birthday if it were to ever happen during session.
But on with the show. Let me put it close to the witness testimony phase. Is that how you do that? And do you have any amendments for us today, Representative Leck?
So actually I did have one drafted up really quickly so that I can clarify so you can vote on the bill as it is intended. Because it appears that there is a bit of confusion about what this bill is actually supposed to cover. So if you look on page two in the section heading on line four, it says new construction. This is not supposed to be a bill about replacing old lines or a pole that goes down in a storm. It's not about that at all. It's about in the event that a public utility wants to create something new that's never existed before, that they need to give some notice to the landowners before they proceed with that. It sounds like some of the folks who testified, they already have that practice in place, and I'd be willing, though I didn't have time to create the second set of language in the time allotted, but if this were to go to seconds, I'd be willing to clarify, too, that if they already have a notice mechanism in place, that that is fine and this becomes a default in the event that they don't. But the amendment that I'm having drafted just basically says nothing in this section should be construed to say that any notice is required in the event of replacement or routine maintenance. That's not what this bill is about. This bill is simply about whether or not they're trying to create something brand new that's never existed and that they have to give the property owners time.
So, Representative Luck, are you intending to bring that amendment today?
Yes, it's my understanding that it's like being printed.
Okay. It's in box now. It's in box. So let's just give the committee two minutes to look at that amendment and then we will come back.
Perfect. Sorry about that.
All right. Representative, let's get someone to move the amendment first. who would like to move the amendment? Representative
The graph. I move what I assume is L001 to HB26-1279. That's with a favorable recommendation.
Second. All right. That is seconded by Representative Slav. Representative Luck, tell us about L1.
So if it is not in front of you, I just want to read the most salient part. Adds in a section that says, nothing in this subsection 5 requires a public utility to provide notice of or host a public meeting for a project involving replacement of or routine maintenance for an existing facility line plant or system it also strikes the the term uh or extension from the two other places in a and b where you will or in a i guess where you'll see that just because there may also be some confusion about what that is. And I just don't want there to be confusion. It's really only about new construction.
Okay, thank you, Representative Luck. Committee, do you have any questions about Amendment 1? Representative DeGraff?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, maybe not so much a question, just an observation. I'm really disappointed that some of the witnesses brought up that acted like this bill was about routine maintenance when Section 1 is pretty clear, new construction. that this is about new construction, not all the noise about downed power lines or emergency repairs and all the critical nature, trying to basically giving reason for voting down this bill when it's very clear that in Section 1, that this is about new construction, especially when you go down to Section 2 being the petition clause. So very disappointed in the witnesses trying to sway the committee in that manner.
Thank you, Representative DeGraff. Committee, any objection to adoption of L1? Seeing none, L1 is adopted. Did you have any additional amendments? Committee, do we have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Representative Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as I mentioned, I am happy if this bill goes to seconds to restructure such that it would say, if the committee thinks this is a proper way to go, to say that if you have an existing notice process, that that is fine. But that if you don't have a notice process, that this needs to be your default notice process so that people can indeed have the opportunity to know before there is construction on their properties. As was testified to, we don't need people planting alfalfa fields at the tune of thousands of dollars and then having utility companies come through and take that up. I know that there was a lot of other stuff testified to. I don't envy you guys on this committee. I love judiciary. Most people don't. I don't think I would suit this committee well. But it sounds like there's a lot of things going on in this space and issues. but this bill is simply related to new construction and just being good neighbors and letting people know what is coming down the line. No pun intended.
Thank you very much, Representative Luck. And a proper motion is to the cow. Representative DeGraff.
I move House Bill 26-1279 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
As amended.
As amended with a favorable recommendation.
Second. All right, seconded by representatives of the law committee. Any closing comments? Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this definitely needs to have a broader conversation Actually I just think it needs to pass through the house I be happy to put my name on this bill There is a definite disconnect with our utilities and the citizens of Colorado and the wielding of eminent domain basically on behalf of the governor The PUC authorizes it, the XL uses it, but the PUC is ultimately the governor's appointees. And so I look at this as an abuse that comes straight out of the governor's office. So there's definitely a disconnect between the citizen's expectations of their right to life, liberty, and property, that that property should not be deprived without due process of the law, and that should not be just mowed over with the governor's free and easy wielding of eminent domain via the puck, via XL. for the purpose of benefiting record high profits on the behalf of their esg goal so i'm i'm a very i'm very uh in favor of this very simple bill asking the utilities asking the uh asking the utilities and basically asking the governor to treat the citizens of colorado like citizens of colorado instead of subjects all right representative saw thank you mr chair i um i
I believe that reliable, affordable, and sufficient electricity supply is vital to economic growth and public welfare. However, I don't see any reason why a large utility corporation or even a small utility corporation or anybody would have any need to do any new construction on anybody's private property without giving them notice. I know, being a little bit involved in construction, that you start planning these things well before the 90 days that this bill requests. And I don't see why that isn't a reasonable request to make sure that property rights are maintained. And I think that this is a great bill, very straightforward. I mean, it seems obvious to me, and if it wasn't completely obvious, I think that the amendment even adds to the absolute obviousness of this being the right thing to do by people. And I will be happily a yes vote.
All right. Seeing no further comments, Ms. Falco, please call the roll. Representatives Barone.
No.
DeGraf. Enthusiastically, yes. Goldstein. Excused. Jackson. Respectfully, no. Joseph. No, thank you. Pascal. Respectfully, no. Brutonow. No. Slott. Yes. Smith. No. Wilford. Respectfully, no. Woog. Respectfully, no. Velasco. Respectfully, no. That fails on a vote of 10 to 2. And Madam Vice Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1279 to be postponed indefinitely with a reverse roll call. Second. Seconded by Rep. Smith. Is there any objection? Seeing none, the bill is PI'd by a reverse roll call Thank you Representative Luck Thank you committee Have a great afternoon You too All right next up we going have 1246 our own representative to the graph We give you just a moment to get up there and get situated. . Tell us about 1246. I thought there was an echo or something. Welcome Representative DeGraff. Tell us about 1246.
You're like I walked into a movie or something like that.
Okay, thank you.
Kind of on the, well on the theme. So Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present House Bill 26-1246, and you already should have seen the amendment in the box, and that is to correct in oversight on my part, which is there's a safety clause at the end of the bill, and it should be a petition clause just on process. So that is what the amendment is. If you want to vote on that now, I would be okay with that. Colorado is entering a new era of electricity demand. Artificial intelligence, computing, advanced manufacturing, and large-scale data centers are creating power requirements far beyond what our existing grid was designed to accommodate quickly. But the warning signs that our system is under strain are already visible. Across the West, public safety power shutoffs, PSPS events, have become increasingly normalized. Utilities are now deliberately shutting off entire electricity to entire communities to prevent wildfire risk when grid conditions become unsafe. That reality should serve as a loud warning. When the solution to grid vulnerability becomes turning the grid off, it suggests that the system has not kept pace with the risks it is supposed to manage. The normalization of PSPS events is a clear signal that the regulatory framework overseeing our electrical system is struggling to deliver the reliability that Coloradans expect. At the same time, we have heard serious concerns from communities across the state about how we are expanding energy infrastructure. Transmission corridors proposed to meet growing demand can cut across farms, ranches, private property, permanently altering landscape and communities. And transmission infrastructure is not something that appears overnight. Designing, siting, permitting, and constructing major high-voltage transmission corridors can take a decade or more, and often longer once litigation and land acquisitions are factored in. large load facilities make the multi-million dollar investment decisions simply cannot wait that long they need reliable electricity immediately without another option those facilities will locate wherever excess grid capacity already exists even when that land might otherwise be better suited for housing community development or farming house bill 26 1246 offers a practical alternative. The bill establishes a framework for consumer-regulated electric utilities, privately financed power systems built specifically to serve large new industrial loads. These systems operate independently from the traditional grid and are not treated as public utilities so long as they remain physically separate and do not serve the public This concept is new but gaining momentum across the country In 2025 New Hampshire enacted legislation allowing off-grid power providers to serve large non-residential users. Several other states are now exploring similar frameworks as they compete to attract energy-intensive industries. But even more importantly, projects based on this model are already being built today. Across the country, major technology companies are constructing private microgrids and behind-the-meter generation systems to power new facilities rather than waiting years for utilities to expand the grid. This is happening even in Wyoming. I just talked about it a few minutes ago. So the question before us today is not whether large-load users will build their own power. They already are. The real question is whether Colorado wants those investments here or whether we are comfortable watching them move to other states that allow it. House Bill 26-1246 allows Colorado to compete while protecting existing electricity customers. It ensures that large new electricity users finance power systems required for their operations rather than shifting those costs onto households and small businesses. It reduces pressure to build new transmission corridors across private land and rural communities. Today we heard about the problems with that a couple days ago with House Bill 261278. We heard about the devastating community stories from what our power companies are doing to stretch these transmission lines. It improves resilience by enabling islanded systems that can operate independently when the grid is under stress. And importantly for Colorado, it allows modern generation technologies that rely on air cooling rather than water intensive evaporative cooling system, conserving one of our state's most precious resources. History shows that early adoption of new policy frameworks often determines which states capture emerging industries. States that move first attract investment, innovation and economic growth. States that wait often find themselves years or decades behind. House Bill 26-1246 gives Colorado the opportunity to lead rather than follow. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for the committee's support. And one thing I looked up earlier today is the transmission losses are probably around upwards of 5%. So that means we have to, just to get the power to a station from across the transmission lines, means at least 5% extra generation is required. That generation, of course, would be better served in terms of serving the large load user as opposed to being strung across from a centralized location. So looking forward to hearing from the witnesses and ready for your questions.
All right. Thank you, Representative DeGraph Committee. Do we have questions? All right. Representative Slough.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, do you expect that this would have any significant implications to rate payers, one way or the other?
Representative Graff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I think there is the argument that the utilities would like to have the larger baseload centralized and then act on that economy of scale. And so some of them might say that this will increase the rates. I don't really know how, because what you're talking about is an entity that doesn't... not exist. And if you build it and it has its own islanded power from the grid perspective, it would still no longer exist. So that would not change. Now, what would change is if that utility, and we're looking at some of these things, you're looking at powering, like city-size amounts of power that needs to be brought in. If we're looking at the data center load that we expect to come, basically doubling the load of Colorado, that transmission would have to, those transmission lines would have to be built. Now, currently, I think there's what would be considered, I consider a perverse incentive for building the transmission lines in that the governor's PUC authorizes, regulates approximately a 10% return on investment of the ratepayers' money. So to build a power line at $5 million to $7 million per mile, they're going to invest a guaranteed return because it's going to come out of the ratepayers, and then the ratepayers are guaranteed to give them a 10% on their money. So the investors basically get to invest the utility customer's money with a guaranteed return of the rate payer's money to bolster that. So I think the thing that is actually going to more likely to actually grow the utility cost is the extra infrastructure that's required, again, at $5 to $7 million per mile and stretching who knows how many miles that the electricity has to be stretched. So those costs have to be recouped by the customer. Those costs go on to the customer's bill. So those are the costs that would actually make the customer's bills higher since in terms of the grid, the high load user would still not exist. Representative Smith.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative DeGraff. Interesting idea. I'm just wondering, so would there be no oversight at all of the system? And I'm thinking about safety issues and connectivity issues and, you know, what sort of experts are going to be on the ground building these things and so forth.
Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a good question, fair question. No, they're still responsible to all of the safety rules and regulations. The bill does not exempt any of that. It specifies that they would still be like all of the, again, all of the safety requirements that any other utility would be subject to. They would be subject to. I mean, those are just part of like manufacturing, a manufacturing unit. I mean, they just have essentially a manufacturing area of their own power at that location. It doesn't exempt them from any like OSHA laws or environmental laws. They're still subject to the environmental laws. So yeah, they're, no, they're not, they're not exempt from those because they're islanded. They're still under those, those same provisions of the, they're just not regulated like, you know, like, like, like they do for the, the public utilities. And if they were to if they were I mean the bill it has them as islanded but if they were to like connect to the grid in an agreement with say Excel or Black Hills or anything like that they would instantly under this bill become part of the Public Utility Commission that enterprise So it wouldn be that they could just generate power They would, under this bill, they would become regulated as a public utility.
Representative Smith, a follow-up. Yes, thank you. So I notice that there's a lot of opposition to the bill, and I'm just wondering if you did any stakeholding to try to get people moved off of opposition? Oh, yeah.
Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, trying to get them off the, find out what, you know, what the opposition is, yes. And mostly silence. You know, I do understand, you know, from talking to Black Hills primarily that they would prefer to have the, like the baseload production themselves. But again, you know, depending on where you're going to site these things that these large load users, they're going to have to, they're going to have to have ready access to, they're going to have to have ready access to a large amount of power. Now, the other thing that you could do with those areas is you could, you know, we talk all the time about building housing. Now, whether I agree that we have a housing shortage or not, if you're going to try to build housing, housing also needs access to power and it also requires access to transportation and all that. Now, when I see a lot of our large load users, they are located next to transportation and maybe we don't need to take up these potential housing areas if we can allow large load users to access large capacity electricity at a site that's other than where it is. Otherwise, what you're looking at is you're looking at potentially decades and lots of legal considerations. And then also, again, losing 5% percent where you know we build uh you know that's in discussion uh now on uh on improving the uh the transmission to lose less energy in the transmission process you know just the sake just just for transmitting it over large distances you're losing you're losing five percent so um yeah does that does that answer your question sufficiently or representative smith not really
but that's okay. What part am I missing? Representative Smith, did you want to say
something? Okay. Representative Slaw? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there any other states that are doing this? How is it going there? Anything you can say to that? Representative DeGraff? This is relatively
new. New Hampshire is in the process. They've approved theirs last year, and other states are considering it. It is happening under different models behind the meter. Black Hills mentioned that they have a behind the meter operation in Wyoming. So it is going on and it will go on. And again, I think it's going to be the difference of whether a large load user is going to consider Colorado to locate their jobs to Colorado, or if they're going to go someplace that doesn't take decades to get in lots of... Obviously, if eminent domain is required to get electricity to them they also not going to be viewed positively by the community that coming into them So this also de that So I do understand that on some of the power company side that they look at a new customer would be a new revenue base. And so I can see why they would be opposed to it. But this is more a bill about protecting the citizens rather than the utility profits.
All right. Thank you. We will now move to witness testimony. representative to graph it looks like we don't we have a couple of folks against
in the group for do you have a preference sure let's go with against
first okay we will have miss Claire Valentine miss Carolyn Elam and Travis Fisher who is neutral Welcome, Ms. Elam. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes today for testimony. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today on House Bill 1246. I'm Carolyn Elam, and I'm here speaking today on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, or CC4CA. CC4CA is a coalition of counties and municipalities advocating for strong state and federal climate policy. Our 48 member communities represent more than a third of the state's population. As local governments and local elected officials, we have a unique perspective on the threats and challenges that climate change poses, a perspective that is often overlooked in the policy debates. Our members are all government agencies who are also responsible for protecting public interest. As stewards of public rights away and lands, and in many cases operators of generation facilities and and utility infrastructure ourselves, we also understand the criticality of the regulatory construct that governs generation and power infrastructure in our state. House Bill 1246 represents an approach to energy regulation that is contrary to how electricity generation is regulated in Colorado. It places private interests ahead of public interests, undermining existing state laws and goals. The very point of the utility compact is to ensure the public interests are protected. Yet here you create a scenario of market competition exclusively to the benefit of a small set of private interests. Absent proper regulatory oversight, you risk load erosion that strands businesses and residents with assets and higher bills. You let data centers compete with utilities for resource acquisitions. That drives up costs for everyone. You place our state climate goals at risk. While I appreciate many of the concerns the sponsor has raised, the potential consequences of this approach have not been fully considered. We cannot afford to risk our state goals here, and so I ask the committee to vote no today. We do need to put much greater thought into how this approach could work in the Colorado construct. I think there's plenty that can be done to support development, even as we have to build transmission and distribution assets. But this is not the time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Valentine, please unmute yourself. you'll have three minutes for testimony today. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Claire Valentine and I'm a Senior Policy Advisor at Western Resource Advocates or WRA, where I advocate for policies that accelerate transitioning power generation to clean resources while maintaining affordable and reliable electricity for Coloradans. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in opposition to HB 26 WRA is deeply concerned about this proposed legislation This bill would allow for the creation of new electric generation and supply systems to serve new non-residential load, and it would exempt these systems from public utility regulation. Accordingly, HB 12-1246 would allow new large businesses, including data centers, to defect from existing utility systems and regulations. This bill massively jeopardizes Colorado's trajectory toward decarbonizing its electricity systems and its economy. As defined in this bill, consumer-regulated electric utilities would not be subject to the clean energy target framework that was established for qualifying utilities through Senate Bill 19-236. Accordingly, large load growth in Colorado served by these new consumer-regulated electric utilities would have no requirements related to clean energy or the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As Colorado grapples with the environmental impacts of large load growth from data centers and other sources, we need responsible oversight of load growth, not a public utilities exemption. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change as Colorado faces the worst snowpack on record, a year-round wildfire season, and extremely concerning drought conditions that threaten both our water supply and agriculture industry. To mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, new large loads and utilities serving them must do their fair share to decarbonize the power sector. That can't happen if we entirely exempt these entities from reasonable regulation. For these reasons, WRA respectfully believes this bill is the wrong approach for the state. We urge you to vote no on HB 1246. Thank you for your attention and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Fisher. Ms. Valentine, Mr. Fisher, thank you for your welcome. Please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. Good afternoon, Chair Valdez, Vice Chair Velasco, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I'm Travis Fisher, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Cato Institute based in Washington, D.C. Cato is a non-profit think tank that advances the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. House Bill 1246 would implement a policy concept that I've been working on for some time called Consumer Regulated Electricity, or CRE. For a deep dive on the concept, I encourage everyone to read the written testimony of Glenn Lyons, my co-author on the Cato briefing paper on CRE. The short version is that Colorado faces four simultaneous challenges is on its power grid. Costs are rising, resource mix is changing, grid reliability is a growing concern, and now we all face the big question of how to meet new demand from large industrial consumers, especially data centers. On that last point, I often hear people ask whether our grid can meet the moment and provide the electricity needed for artificial intelligence. It's a valid concern because incoming utilities often make new customers wait several years for new service. With HB 1246, state lawmakers can address all four of these concerns. Most importantly, this bill will empower the state of Colorado to offer a resounding yes when asked if you can meet the moment. The bill creates a new category of electricity provider, consumer regulated electric utility. These new CRE utilities will be physically islanded from the incumbent electric grid and will only serve new large customers. So the concern about sort of load erosion is not a real concern because we're only talking about brand new customers. Because they'll be off grid, they will not impose costs or reliability risks on existing customers. And since islanded systems can't impact the existing grid, they don't need to be regulated as if they were a public utility. creating a space for growth within private electricity networks means Colorado can develop new projects faster and attract new businesses with draining the public grid. Imagine being able to bring new electricity intensive businesses to the state with zero concern that families in Colorado will be burdened by higher utility bills. CRE utilities could be world leaders, in fact, in building low emissions technologies, including solar, batteries, new nuclear advanced geothermal, and others. But perhaps the most important benefit of HB 1246 could be the insights and innovations it provides not just to lawmakers, but public utility commission on how to improve the public grid. In other words, CRE allows for much needed breakthroughs in electricity without risking essential services for Colorado families. I believe House Bill 1246 will unlock new growth and place Colorado in a position as a leader on AI. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Committee questions for the panel. All right, seeing none, thank you all very much for your time today. Our next panel is going to be Ms. Vicki Arani, Jenny Rush, Donna LaBelle, Sarah Montal-Bono, and Amy Parsons-Birch. all right miss rush aka miss sparkles please bring us start us off here today you'll have three minutes okay how you doing kids here we are again um i'm just going to read this because i did some looking up for the benefit of everybody to understand this bill you're creating electricity generation by a consumer regulated electric utility to serve new industrial commercial and data centers, which I don't love AI, and other non-residential loads not previously served by a provider of retail electric service, right? Well, let's go into that for just a minute. I got to, I'm moving my paperwork, sorry. You're saying this not a public utility, not subject to regulation by Public Utilities Commission, PUC in Colorado, unless a utility elects to connect with grid services and with the public territories. This is a free market idea. There are 3,000 electric utilities in the U.S. that are in four major categories serviced. Investor-owned utilities serviced nearly 75% of the customers nationwide, And they are in large cities and now rural. And they do the most, you could say. Public owned utilities are run by federal, state, municipal entities, usually smaller, not subject to more stringent rules, actually. Cooperatives, not for profits. And then the native tribal utility authorities. What I'm seeing, Colorado has jumped down a very unreliable energy future rabbit hole, destroying its strong available resources of oil, coal and natural gas in lieu of unsustainable, not clean, extremely costly, unreasonable and unreliable resources, basing all their options on unscientific disinformation, climate hoax, and all that garbage. Adding the total vulnerable grid situation, which you should have passed Ken's bill on vulnerability on the grid. Nationwide, we have problems. So decentralized opportunities at every step are a good thing But I think we going to have to watch that AI data center stuff There over 380 some already and 24 hyper ones We can't let the machines run the people, but we do need energy and we need it decentralized. And if large users help create their own, as long as they're not destroying our water and our use and our vulnerability, I think we need to look at this in a long-term option way. Thank you, Ms. Rush. Mantelbano? Ms. Mantelbano? Sorry. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
My last name is pronounced Montalbano, but I've heard that before, so no problem. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sarah Montalbano, and I'm an energy policy analyst with the Independence Institute, a 501c3 free market think tank based in Denver. Colorado's electricity system was built for a world of slow, predictable demand growth. For decades, that model worked, more or less. But Colorado's electricity demand is accelerating with artificial intelligence electrification mandates and advanced manufacturing creating large concentrated loads that did not exist five years ago. The traditional planning process was not designed to absorb this demand on this timeline. HB 26.1.1.2.4.6 offered one tool to address this challenge. The bill authorizes the development of consumer-regulated electric utilities, which are privately financed, physically islanded systems that serve new large commercial and industrial loads not previously on the grid under voluntary contracts. Because these systems are separate from the regulated grid, they would not directly impose any cost or reliability burdens on existing utility customers. The existing grid would continue to serve homes and businesses as it does today. From a policy standpoint, this framework does several things at once. It allows private capital to finance new infrastructure without the possibility of shifting costs to existing right payers. It may allow a faster path to deployment for projects that the current utility planning and interconnection process cannot accommodate on commercially viable timelines. and it would generate real-world data for us about how market-driven electricity systems perform in terms of cost, reliability, and in environmental outcomes. None of this comes at the expense of Colorado's existing environmental or safety obligations. Projects developed under this framework remain subject to all applicable permitting, land use, construction, safety, and environmental requirements at every level of government. In short, HB 261246 does not replace Colorado's existing electricity system. Instead, it opens a second track for serving new large electricity loads while allowing the existing system to continue focusing on affordability and reliability for current customers. For those reasons, the Independence Institute believes HB 261246 is a policy option worthy of serious consideration by the committee and the larger assembly. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you. Ms. LaBelle, please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes today.
Thank you, Chair Valdez and committee members. My name is Donna LaBelle, and I represent myself. I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 261246 We all know as we been hearing that there is an ever need for electricity for many reasons such as electrification of end uses, industrial expansion, and digitalization, to name just a few. The idea of a consumer-regulated electric utility appears to be an intelligent, actually brilliant, and possible solution to mitigate this growing need, Someone asked earlier if this is being done in any other states, and I looked it up, and there are 17 states presently where consumers have the choice to select their electricity supplier. Generating electricity in close proximity to the point of use reduces long-distance transmission lines and does not impact private property owners. Large industrial facilities can absorb the cost to build the electric utility to have the benefit of complete control along with electricity security. They would naturally maintain it to be efficient, safe, and productive in order to produce the highest profit. And as was mentioned in the previous testimony, according to this bill, it would be subject to applicable permitting, restoration, and public safety requirements. These islanded power systems are a win-win proposition for companies and therefore for Colorado's economy, as well as for your average consumer constituents. By enabling these kinds of projects, Colorado can position itself as a leader in the next generation of energy technology. I hope you also see the great value of passing this bill and urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Ariadne, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes for your testimony today.
Hi, my name is Vicki Ariadne and I represent myself and I am for this bill. I am for anything that's going to be sustainable energy, environmental friendly and cost effective for all of us. Right now, currently in a three bedroom home house, our utility bills like 350 a month for electricity. Way too much. We don't need more cost. Also, with independent businesses having their own independent source of energy, then. And that cuts down the need for more power lines, downed power lines, overworked power lines, risks of fire, risk of overload, like our utility bill goes up certain periods of the time of the day because so many people are making dinner. So you pay more. That will eliminate some of that. And then those who are concerned about the environment, the big windmills are killing birds, the foul of the air. And they also have tanks underneath every single one of them that uses diesel fuel to power them, at least get them started. And when the wind's not blowing, they use the diesel fuel to operate those windmills. and the short life, they don't have, they not cost effective So plant more trees instead of ripping out farmers trees Just We clean the air by allowing nature to clean the air There is an ecosystem that's being off balanced by too much interference with nature. And so therefore, I am completely for more independence, less government control, oversight, yes, but we the people should have more say in our lives and not have government micromanaging different aspects of our lives. And that's just that's my opinion. And I appreciate this opportunity to share some of my thoughts in what I consider sustainable energy. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Parsons-Birch, please unmute yourself. Turn on your camera if you can. You'll have three minutes to testify today.
Thank you. Thank you, committee members. Amy Birch, representing myself, El Paso County, asking you to pass HB 26-1246. We consumers should oversee our own grid, which would lead to energy abundance. Think innovation and growth. We will create voluntary off-grid arrangements to protect our homes, as well as incoming industry and AI data centers. from rising costs. Constraints on the public grid would be practically eliminated. Today's electricity industry is built for a low growth and low risk environment, not abundance. We need to meet the demands of modernization. Localities need voluntary contracts with local sellers of electricity. This entrepreneurial way of the future is already happening in New Hampshire, as mentioned, but also Ohio, West Virginia, and Utah. I ask you to study their successes. Sounds like Wyoming, too. Look at New Hampshire. It just became the first state to pass their legislation authorizing off-grid electricity providers. House Bill 672 says independent entities not connected to the state grid may generate, transmit, and sell electricity without coming under the jurisdiction of the state's public utilities commission, provided they remain physically separate from the existing grid. Please pass 1246 for Colorado, as it can carve out an exemption for new utilities serving real needs of our residents. Thank you.
Thank you. Committee, questions? All right, seeing none, thank you all for your testimony. today. This will be a last call for anybody who's in the room who'd like to testify on the bill today. All right. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. At the sponsor's request, we are going to lay the bill over, and we will see this bill come back for action only in a few weeks. So for now, this bill is laid over, and we, as the House Energy and Environment Committee, stand adjourned. Thank you very much for your work today.