Senate Transportation & Energy [Apr 22, 2026]

Senators Bazley. Present. Excused. Lindstedt.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Really excited to be here to talk about Senate Bill 142 and want to thank first of all all of the folks who are here who will testify who have been working really hard on this bill over the last several months and also to my co-prime sponsor for joining me on this bill. I am a really big believer in geothermal energy and a big believer in geothermal energy in our state for a couple reasons. We talk a lot about energy transition and the future of energy production in Colorado. And geothermal is a really exciting space because there is a lot of activity, there's a lot of excitement in that space, a lot of investment. Because what it offers is a clean, firm form of electricity. So something that comes up when we talk about renewables sometimes is the intermittent nature of wind and solar and planning around that. Geothermal doesn't have that challenge. Geothermal energy is consistent. And as opposed to some things like wind and solar, the footprint is really small. And geothermal has been around for a long time, but it's an area that is now receiving a lot of attention. Other things it has going forward is it provides really good jobs and frequently very good union jobs in our state. And Colorado is really well positioned to be a leader on geothermal energy for a couple reasons. One is that geothermal energy in some ways fundamentally relies on digging wells. And that actually makes it a very attractive industry for oil and gas jobs, which we have a number of in our state. Our state is also very well set up geologically. We are in the top five of states throughout the country for just the best natural geological, you know, natural resources for geothermal. You can see that in our hot springs. And geothermal is also bipartisan. It's something that was left undisturbed in the IRA. The subsidies for geothermal were not repealed by HR1 several years ago. So it really an industry and a space that has a ton of promise and it one that I think we as a state should really be leaning into because it a great way for us to achieve our climate goals by leaning into some of the natural resources we have supplying good jobs in the process and doing so with a form of energy that really has a lot to offer. So right now the status of the industry is, you know, there's a lot of demonstration projects. The first big geothermal energy project is coming online very soon in Cape Station, Utah. But the industry is currently looking for the next several projects that they can start. It's also an area where there's a lot of innovation and things happening for geothermal heat. So if you dig a well very far down into the ground using new technologies, you can generate energy. But it's also the case that if you dig a well far enough, you can get to a good source of geothermal heat. And that heat has the potential to heat a lot of our homes in the way that we currently rely on things like natural gas for. So the purpose behind this bill is really to take a step forward as a state and push the geothermal industry for both heat and electricity forward so that Colorado can be a leader with this technology throughout the nation. and really how this bill came together was back over the summer I started having conversations but then brought a group of people together in January really just soliciting ideas for what could we do around thermal energy and thermal heat that would take a big step forward as a state. And so what you see in front of you now is things that have come from a bunch of different places, both on the geothermal heating side or the geothermal energy side. And these were policy proposals that were submitted that we've been working now with a number of different stakeholders to try to refine to the bill that you see before you today. There's a multi-page amendment that you all received yesterday that makes some changes to what is in the bill, but I'll just run very quickly through what's here. We've got a number of panels with people who are a lot smarter than I am who can answer questions. but some of the things this bill does is and I'll use the old section numbers because some of these will be renumbered but section 3 and section 4 are really focused on allowing cities and towns and special districts to aggregate thermal energy demand across public and private buildings to create thermal energy networks. In section number 6 and section number 7 and 8 it's additionally granting additional powers to municipalities, special districts, to enter into agreements with local governments to create these geothermal projects. This bill also has a provision in Section 9, and this is a really innovative idea that came together primarily from feedback from ECMC here around taking the orphan wells that we have as a state and collecting data from them. All of the orphan wells that the state has had to repossess, they have temperature readings. They have things that could be really useful for the industry to know, to be able to know where to drill the holes and get energy. So we are creating a really innovative program around allowing folks to come in and get data out of those orphan wells and then make that public so that the industry knows a little bit more about where it can find energy. And then lastly, sections 9 and 10 create a new pathway for geothermal electricity production. We're asking regulated utilities in this state to come forward with a proposal for a small-scale and a large-scale geothermal energy project And one of the reasons that important is because a lot of work has to be done on the front end to find out where it suitable to have a geothermal energy project There some discovery learning where you don totally know if you can put a geothermal project in a certain area until you dug a hole seeing if the temperature is right and the conditions are right for you to create geothermal energy there. And so by asking for proposals, and we've had really good engagement from the utilities on this, By asking for proposals, we're really pushing forward that process so that we get some real planning behind where we think geothermal energy might be in the state. And our hope is that, you know, that really results in a couple new projects that puts us at the forefront of geothermal energy. So with that, I will hand it over to my co-prime sponsor.

I think this is a good step in that direction, and I hope you will be a yes vote. Thank you, Senator Kipp. Any questions for the sponsors? Well, seeing none, let's move into the witness phase. It looks like there's 20 witnesses. All right. Let's have Mr. Ed Carley, Julie Murphy, and Patricia Garcia Nelson, who are, I believe the first two are in person and we've got one remote. And Mr. Matthew Sayers, if you are here, can you please join us as well? I see we're pulling someone up online. Welcome. If you're ready to go, you can introduce yourself and begin. You'll have two minutes to testify today. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Julie Murphy and I'm the Director of the Energy and Carbon Management Commission within the Department of Natural Resources. We're here in a support with amend position. I would like to note that Senate Bill 26142 would advance the state's work on geothermal energy and I want to thank the sponsors for their work on this effort and their collaboration with us and so many other stakeholders. ECMC currently serves as a state regulatory authority for deep geothermal resources. While we have a robust regulatory framework in place, acquiring and disseminating similarly robust subsurface data would both inform ECMC's regulatory process, communities as well as de-risking geothermal opportunities for projects that could in the long term benefit the state. The gap is a primary barrier The information gap is a primary barrier preventing the industry from scaling and preventing the state from optimizing responsible resource management. Senate Bill 26-142 provides a solution by authorizing development of a program to facilitate the collection and dissemination of this missing geologic data. ECMC is aware that an amendment will be proposed to clarify that the participation in this program is voluntary and non-compulsory. DNR is supportive of that amendment as it reflects the Department's intent in implementing this legislative direction. By leveraging our existing infrastructure, we can build a transparent data repository through collaboration rather than mandates. The bill also requires ECM to provide a report of recommendations by November of 2026. We view this deliverable as a critical roadmap for the next General Assembly and the next administration to continue Colorado's leadership in geothermal and its progress. Importantly, ECMC will execute the requirements of this bill within our own existing resources, and this work will not compromise our other core regulatory work, such as oil and gas regulation or carbon sequestration oversight. In closing, this bill is a positive step forward in the responsible regulation and development of the state's geothermal resources. Thanks, and I'm happy to answer questions. Have you done this before? That was perfect. Thank you. Sir, if you would like to go ahead and introduce yourself, you'll have two minutes. Yes, my name is Matthew Sayers. I'm a senior geothermal researcher with the Colorado Geological Survey. I want to thank the committee for the chance to provide testimony on this important bill. I'm here to provide some technical context on the role CGS could play under this bill. The bill contemplates a range of activities related to geothermal resource development, including the use of existing geologic data, evaluation of existing wells, such as orphaned and marginal wells, and potentially new subsurface data collection, including drilling and resource characterization. From a technical standpoint, these activities can vary in scope. work using existing data and related coordination work is relatively limited in scope while efforts involving new data collection or drilling represent a more substantial level of effort the bill is structured to allow that work to scale on the available funding while ensuring that it doesn't infer interfere with CGS's existing responsibilities from our perspective CGS can and wants to contribute within our current capacity, particularly around existing data and technical input. More extensive activities such as generating new data would require additional resources and depend on how the program is implemented. I'm happy to consider any questions. Thank you so much. And I see Ms. Garcia-Nelson online. Please welcome. Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Garcia Nelson. I am the Colorado Fossil Fields Just Transition Advocate for Green Latinos. I live and I'm based out of Greeley, Colorado. Green Latinos supports SB21, or excuse me, SB26142. We believe geothermal and thermal energy networks have a real potential to help local Coloradans access clean renewable sustainable energy And we want this field to be the vehicle that makes that happen The amendment is a step in the right direction and we encouraged by the new legislative directive declarations, excuse me, language recognizing that these technologies can reduce energy burdens for low-income qualified households. We're especially glad to see the workforce development moving in this bill. Geothermal development requires skilled trades, drilling, pipe fitting, electrical, construction. All of these jobs are well-matched for workers who have spent careers in oil and gas. For families in Weld County in the North Front Range area, this is a real bridge from the energy economic we are moving away from to one that we are building. We want to make sure that the final workforce provisions include clear preferences for hiring local and for workers transitioning out of fossil fuel industry. And so people who have powered Colorado's energy economy are the first in line for what comes next. We know there's still work to do to ensure this bill reaches income qualified households and disproportionately impacted communities. And Green Latinos will keep engaging through the legislative process and beyond to make sure the equity promise in these bills and this bill's declaration becomes real for communities thank you thank you so much for your testimony this afternoon um does anybody committee do any of you have questions for this panel no seeing none thank you so much you have a lovely afternoon For our next panel, we have Mr. Ed Carley, Emma Donohue, Taylor Mooch, and Drew Nelson. And can we also have Matthew Mendisco, are you here? Hi. Okay, please join us up here. All right, welcome. How about Jonathan Power? Join us. There's room at the table. Okay. All right. Welcome, everyone. Ms. Donahue, would you like to kick us off? You'll have two minutes. Sure. Madam Chair and committee members, thank you so much for your time today. My name is Emma Donahue, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal Leagues, representing our cities and towns across Colorado. And we are here in support of Senate Bill 26142. Many municipalities across Colorado have started working on geothermal projects in part due to the grant funding that has come out of the Colorado Energy Office. And we would like to be able to support these communities to continue these projects. And this bill will help communities be able to understand what their obligations are, what their authority is, and how they can use geothermal projects throughout their communities to support their buildings, other businesses, and for homeowners in their areas. So we are very supportive of this bill because it will allow municipalities to be able to continue to expand their work in the geothermal space and to be able to utilize this energy source that is a renewable sustainable and sustaining energy source throughout their projects We are very happy to have worked with the sponsors on this bill to make sure that this language can work for municipalities, that they are able to work on the projects that they need, and also to be able to coordinate with our municipal utilities and our other utilities throughout Colorado. Thank you so much for your time, and I'm here for questions. Thank you so much. If you'd like to introduce yourself, sir, and begin, you'll have two minutes. The little gray button down below. Can you hear me? Oh, great. My name's Jonathan Power. I'm here representing my company, Game Creek Holdings. I had prepared remarks, but Senator Ball stole my thunder, so I'm going to take a risk here and just wing it. I am a developer and about two years ago I had lunch with, well, a major utility in town and they told me that they were very interested in geothermal. I said, interesting, for the last 12 years I've developed projects for a major energy user and so I'm always asking utilities for more power. So I went home and started looking in geothermal, why doesn't it exist? And two years later I'm really a big proponent so I'm a supporter. So what I'm proposing to do as a developer is to drill two holes. And again, oil and gas is critical because we know what the conditions are in northern Colorado. We also know there's hot water there. So you drill a hole, it goes down 6,000 to 9,000 feet, hot water comes up. We take the heat off of that water. We put it into the grid and form a generation. So I'm talking about a small-scale electric generation plant, which has all kinds of benefits. And then we pump the water right back down to where it came from and it reheats and it's just a loop. No major cost input like natural gas. It could run for 100 years. We don't know. It could become the lowest cost energy source in Colorado. Wind started as expensive but now it's cheap. We need investment and support in the terms of policy so that we can get utilities to take a risk. They told me last night they couldn't take a risk on geothermal because policy didn't tell them to do it. They'll just go with natural gas. Well, that's silly. That's short term. What we need to do, in order for me to finance my project, I need a power purchase agreement from a major utility. A major utility needs to be able to consider, because of policy, the indirect benefits of geothermal. We'll need you to wrap up your remarks, sir. You're over the time. Well, we need policy to direct a major utility to enter into a power purchase agreement, and that's why you can help. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Welcome, sir. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Oh, you can stay. We'll have, yes. We're going to grill you after this, so don't go. Okay, go ahead, sir. Oh, we're good? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and everybody of the committee. Thank you for having me here. My name is Matthew Mendisco. I'm representing the town of Hayden today. And what I wanted to start off with is that, you know, I come from an energy community. I was raised in, if people know, Natter-Rita, Colorado. And I've seen, and I also, you know, I'm doing work right now in Sedgwick County to help them with their EMS service. And all of these places have one thing in common. One they have geothermal potential and actually Sedgwick County is taking advantage of that And two we all trying to figure out what our economy is going to be Because we all fighting for a new economy with energy transition and everything else in the middle And so I'm here today because geothermal can provide a diversity perspective to help us make those transitions to our next steps. You've heard a lot about geothermal and the resources. I've been studying geothermal so much that and we're actually doing it. We are doing it right now and it is working. It's created two jobs just for our local government. It's an entirely new business in Moffat County who we just hired to do drilling for us because we had to have multiple drillers. But we had to do what I would call some very creative legal ways of getting that done. And what this bill does is clears the way so that we can start engaging with a new sector. Local governments can contribute to what we're doing and we can do that in a very forthright way. And I would also like to say that we've spent, we were just awarded an additional grant from the state. We're doing it. We believe in it. It's created five jobs already in our community. And I truly believe that this is a bipartisan issue. We don't have to fight over it. Everybody is on board with geothermal, including the federal government. So I would ask you to vote yes on this bill. Very good. Thank you so much. And Mr. Nelson, online there, are you ready to begin? Yes. Welcome. You'll have two minutes. Please introduce yourself and go for it. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Hi, my name is Drew Nelson, and I'm representing Interspace Action, a 501c4 focused on scaling geothermal energy in the United States. We work in a number of states, and one thing we've seen everywhere we work on geothermal legislation is that these bills are bipartisan, building on a theme that you've heard from a couple of other speakers. In Texas, where I'm based, for example, comparable legislation to scale thermal energy networks passed 138 to 0 in the Texas House and 31 to 0 in the Texas Senate. We've seen bipartisan legislation move in Arizona and Pennsylvania and New Mexico as well. That's the kind of consensus that geothermal attracts. And Colorado is well positioned to be the next place where that happens because the resource here is exceptional. Our analysis shows well over 100 gigawatts of technical potential for geothermal electricity and over a terawatt of industrial heat technical potential and another terawatt for building heating potential. And that's the sort of heat that this bill seeks to unlock. The state has done a great job in recognizing this potential, investing lots of money. But these projects are not growing at the scale they need to because of some of these soft costs that other speakers have referred to. Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this bill give every tier of local government in Colorado, municipalities and counties and special districts a complete and legally coherent toolkit for thermal energy development. It cuts red tape and it lets the sector grow. What all this adds up to is simple. Right now, a local government that wants to develop a thermal energy network faces legal challenges. This bill changes that. Combined with the other sections that have spilled, it creates a clear policy signal that geothermal electricity, industrial heat and building heating and cooling should be part of Colorado's future. I urge the committee support for SB 142. Thank you. Thank you very much. And it looks like a lot of people are going to be able to do that. Looks like we have Taylor Moot online now, too. Please, you there? Yep. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes when you're ready. Thank you so much. Hi, everyone. Thank you, Chair Cutter and members of the Senate Transportation Energy Committee. My name is Taylor Moot, and I lead Xcel Energy's geothermal strategy as part of my role within the innovation and commercialization team. Xcel Energy's position is support on this bill. First of all, thank you, Senator Ball, for working with us on the provisions of this bill and for championing geothermal. Cell Energy is supporting this bill for many reasons. Because geothermal has the potential to provide carbon-free baseload and or dispatchable electricity, which our grid needs to meet the company and the state's carbon-free electricity goals. Here's some data for you all. In 2023, we filed our electric resource plan, which identified 500 megawatts of geothermal power as viable in the 2030s. Since then, cost estimates for geothermal power have come down significantly. Those updated costs were introduced in modeling that we provided as part of our large load tariff conversations, which increased the number of megawatts to 850 as viable in the 2030s. Further, as we start to look at increasing load, if we imagine a world where there's two gigawatts of large load, we're seeing 2.75 gigawatts, almost two additional gigawatts of geothermal being valuable in the 2030s. So this is a near-term opportunity for us. All to say, from our modeling, it is clear that geothermal can help us meet our carbon-free goals affordably. It's not just us. Other utilities are seeing this as well. We have a lot of momentum in Colorado for geothermal electricity, started by Governor Paul's Heat Beneath Our Feet initiative, Colorado Energy Office's tax and grants incentives, the ECMC's standing-alone permitting pathways, as well as the Carbon-Free Future Development Fund, which was recently approved to help de-risk projects. This bill would help provide geothermal-specific procurement opportunity and acts as a strong signal to geothermal developers that they should prioritize efforts in Colorado over other states. Further, it allows electricity cell energy to procure these projects in a timely fashion to meet the state's goals and make Colorado a leader in geothermal electricity production. Thank you so much, Ms. Moot, for joining us. Okay, committee, any questions for this panel? Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, sir, since you're a developer, I have a few questions. Great. So we heard a lot of talk, some talk about oil and gas, so we can use the oil and gas driller rigs, right, to do these geothermal projects, correct? Critical, critical. I'm sorry, remind me of your name. Jonathan Power. Mr. Power, please go ahead. it's absolutely critical to have the expertise local. And more important is that you have the history of the layers and how expensive it is basically per foot on drilling because technology and drilling has really been advanced by the oil and gas industry and it gets cheaper and cheaper. And there's some really exciting stuff coming from, I don't want to tell their companies, but there's some really interesting breakthroughs coming that will even make it more cheap. Cheaper. Cheaper. And so the economics of geothermal are going to get better and better. What we really need is a test plan. We need to understand, like anything that you iterate, gets better every time you do it. And so we've got to, Colorado has a unique position to be a leader in this space, and we should be We got the oil and gas industry and we got hot water near the surface Okay yes Senator Pelton Thank you Thank you Mr Power I appreciate that. The reason why I ask this question is that I see that there's labor requirements in the amendment. There's a lot of non-union shops where I'm at, like, and especially in Logan County, we have a lot of non-union shops. But with the labor requirements in here, I just wondered, being on a developer, and you want the best bang for your buck, I mean, is that going to hurt the way that you are getting jobs bid out and that sort of thing? Because if they have these wage increases in here, it would be some of our folks can get, you know, you could get cheaper folks if you needed to so you could build the projects cheaper. So that's my question for you. Mr. Power. Well, I'm not a politician, so this gets into areas where I'm not an expert. What I know is, yes, of course, the lowest cost provider, the returns get better and easier to finance. Am I for, you know, I want the best Colorado workers that are available to do the work, most qualified is how I would answer that. And if the cost is an issue, then this comes back to my power purchase agreement. That's really going to drive everything. If we want to provide union jobs or don't want to provide union jobs, that will all be factored into the cost of electricity that I need to sell. So I'm going to stay out of the political debate over labor, but thank you you don't have to answer anymore so thank you trying to get him in trouble Senator Basley thank you Madam Chair really a question for any of you really I'm trying to understand Mr. Mandisco you made the comment of that this bill would clear the decks or clear the way something along those lines and I'm trying to square that with the description of the bill itself that begins saying, the bill permits the sale of recovered thermal energy by a qualifying entity under certain conditions, including that the thermal energy is a byproduct of the qualifying entity's primary industrial or commercial process, and the thermal energy is not generated primarily for retail sell. So it's got all these restrictions. thermal energy can't be the direct process, and that's what it sounds like you as a developer. Senator Bazley, may I? I'm sorry, I just want to let you know that that section was taken out of the bill. It was. So if you still have questions, please let me know. But I just thought maybe it wasn't relevant. Thank you for that clarification. So, no, I'll just withdraw that then. So the confusing part was brought, taken out. Thank you. Never mind. Okay, other, let's see, Senator Exum, did you have a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Powers? Yes, sir. Just a question about the safety, getting this amount of heat into electrical grid. Are there safety concerns? Mr. Power. So the beautiful thing that we're proposing, so you've got to, am I on the clock? How much time do I have? Ten seconds. No, you can go. So what we talking about what my project specifically talks about is a small scale So we talking about a 20 generation plant which has all kinds of benefits If we depend on 500 generation plants that a 10 process and billions of dollars What I'm talking about is 20 megawatts. I can get it up and running in a year and literally, so I have to stay on the distribution side, which means you just take an ordinary county power pole, hang up another line, and take it to the grid, and it's on the grid. So in terms of major power and heat and danger, no, this is a tried and true technology that all utilities are very comfortable with. And that's part of the reason why this is important. The distribution generation has to be a part of the solution. If our only tool in the tool bag is 500 megawatt plants, we're in trouble. If we can build five 20 megawatt plants, well that's 100 megawatts, but it adds reliability. Not all five are going to have problems at the same time. You can build it in places where generation is needed, and therefore you don't have to transmit it. You don't have to build major transmission lines. So this adds another tool to the tool bag, and it's an important one. It's part of the matrix to solve our energy problem. Yes, Senator Exum. Thank you for that answer. In the size of the project that you're talking about, how many homes or businesses would that serve? Mr. Power. I'm not an engineer. It's 20 megawatts. I don't know what the average for a home. We do have an engineer on staff that could easily answer that. I'm sure someone in the room could probably do that as well. So, but 20 megawatts is the max to stay on the distribution side, and that's also for capital investment. If you get on the other side, in the generation side, you're talking about substage build, the numbers get massive, and the entitlements get long. And what we need is, you know, we need to look under every rock, pun intended, to find solutions. Looks like Mr. Mendisco had something to add. Okay, thank you. Senator, just for perspective, 20 megawatts would power the entire town of Hayden on a daily basis, which is just over 1,000 homes and roughly 200 commercial buildings, including an airport. So 20 to 25 megawatts per day. Now, that's just in a day. But that's our average. As you can tell, I've been studying this for quite a while. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Any further questions? No? All right, seeing none, thank you so much for joining us today. Next up, Mr. Hay, Nate Bernstein, Bill Hayes, Cecil Courtney, And then online we have Laura Rosenbaum and Andrew Sabin, Dr. Andrew Sabin. All right. Okay. All right. Welcome. Would you like to begin, Mr. Hayes? I would be happy to. Okay. Well, welcome. You'll have two minutes. Thank you. I am going to introduce myself as Phil Hayes, who is representing the National Electrical Contractors Association both the construction and line chapters here in Colorado We are in support of this bill if L passes I think we had a question from Senator Pelton earlier so I'll explain what that really does. In 2023, we passed a law, Senate Bill 23-292, that established definitions on when labor standards, labor requirements apply to utility-scale projects in Colorado. Those requirements, essentially the footing on that requirement says basically that the generation has to be a nameplate of one megawatt or larger, that the state, a public utility or a REA, a rural electrical cooperative, must spend over $500,000 in aggregate support for the project, and that the total cost has to be a million or more. So any project that doesn't fall within that sort of framework is automatically – just wouldn't apply to that. The amendment is really meant to essentially raise a hand and say, hey, the current law applies here as well. If you go to Title 24, geothermal and thermal networks are included in that law. So we're not really carving new ground or making new policy. This is essentially a tie-in amendment that just says, hey, don't forget the law applies here if it meets the definitions in the current statute. But look, I think on the level, geothermal is a critical piece of our power generation. As electrical contractors and line contractors, we want to be helping to develop these things in the state. And we're really appreciative of the Senators Kip and Ball who helped us with the amendment and looking forward to supporting the bill. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Mr. Cecil, Courtney, Cecil Courtney, sorry. Thank you for joining us. You'll have two minutes, so please begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much for your testimony today. And welcome Mr. Hay. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hay. Mr. Bernstein, welcome. Can you find a button? Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Laura Rosenbaum, the sustainability coordinator for the city of Littleton. Thermal energy is one of Colorado's great untapped resources. Our mountains are a hotbed of geothermal activity that makes our state a prime location for the kinds of energy resources supported by SB 142. The intent of this bill to unleash thermal energy is the kind of visionary approach that Colorado needs. Thermal energy resources provide firm, dispatchable electricity that can ensure our energy grid's reliability while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. When we talk about decarbonizing electricity in the sustainability field, we often talk about concern about decarbonizing the last 10 percent of the grid. This is because we're used to having power plants that we can turn on and off as needed to deal with energy demand peaks. For the most part, those energy sources have been from fossil fuels like natural gas. However, we can't rely on natural gas forever. Methane is a greenhouse gas with impacts 100 to 200 times higher than carbon dioxide while it is in the atmosphere. And natural gas drilling and pipelines inevitably leak this climate pollution into the air. Furthermore, burning it still produces carbon dioxide. Ultimately, we need to replace that last 10% of the energy grid with firm, dispatchable resources, meaning power generation that we can turn on whenever we need it. This can look like batteries that store solar and wind energy, but it can also mean geothermal energy. Community geothermal and thermal energy networks, the focus of this bill, provide distributed, dispatchable energy that improves the reliability and resilience of our grid in an affordable way. Pending some of the final amendments, including the removal of Amendment 3, which removes many provisions that support and enable local governments to implement thermal energy networks, I ask the committee to support SB 142. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here today. As I note, the others just talk about thermal energy. You gentlemen and your members are the ones who actually get dirty and turn the wrenches and actually make this stuff happen. And so I so much appreciate that. But I do have a big concern because we have, right now, we have industries that are trying to grow our food. And the manure that we're waiting for is sitting on ships in the Strait of Hormuz because we're at war there. I just finished reading about the next part of our economy that is being based right now on data centers and microchips and AI. Apparently, all of those things are built with helium. And we had a huge stockpile in the United States in the mid because we thought we could weaponize that helium And then when we found out that we didn need to we stopped producing it and then we started selling it all off. Now, lo and behold, helium is what we need to make microchips and AI and data centers. And again, that stuff is in the Strait of Hormuz again. I guess my question to you all is, do you think your members are going to have the materials here presently or can get to them without it going through the Strait of Hormuz that we can move forward with this industry and with this power that we need here in the state of Colorado? Who wants to take that question? okay go ahead Mr. Hayes

Good afternoon, Chair Cutter and Committee members. My name is, oh, sorry, there we go. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Green. I'm a registered professional engineer with the RMH group. I'm here representing the American Council of Engineering Companies in support of Senate Bill 26142. ACC Colorado is a trade association of 256 small, medium, and large consulting firms collectively employing 13,500 employees. This membership includes engineering professionals who plan, design, and implement these systems every day. I here in strong support of Senate Bill 142 which takes an important step towards unlocking Colorado thermal energy potential As project manager of the recently completed CU Boulder geothermal energy study funded by the Colorado Energy Office, I've seen firsthand how geothermal energy has the potential to transform large-scale campuses and even cities to carbon-free energy at lower costs than alternatives without the need to expand electrical grid capacity. We also see great potentials for cities, counties, special districts to aggregate demand, enter long-term contracts, finance, and deploy thermal energy networks. Senate Bill 142 strengthens Colorado's leadership on geothermal and clean energy, reducing emissions, conserving water, and improving energy efficiency. I urge the committee to support Senate Bill 26142 and turn Colorado into a leader for this valuable resource. I'm glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members of the committee. I'm Dan West and I'm providing this testimony in support of SB 26142 on behalf of Clean Air Task Force or CATF. CATF is a U.S.-based environmental organization that pushes for the change in technologies and policies needed to get to a zero emissions high energy planet at an affordable cost. at CETF we focus on next generation geothermal technology which makes it possible to produce large amounts of renewable baseload electricity in many more places than before next generation geothermal has enormous resource potential and could contribute significantly to Colorado's energy mix one of our main state level policy recommendations in this space is to improve data collection, a crucial lever to lowering the cost and risk of projects in areas new to next-gen geothermal in new regions. For example, valuable geothermal data could exist in regions with historical oil and gas drilling activity that just hasn't been shared for that purpose yet. The bill also clarifies what a statewide geothermal resource data collection program in Colorado should accomplish and directs agencies to collaborate and share information. collecting and sharing information about key subsurface characteristics such as temperature at depth the distribution and properties of rock formations and the structure and connectivity of natural fracture networks will help de-risk next-gen geothermal projects and attract private investment to the state for this reason we urge you to pass this bill thank you for your consideration and thank you to senator ball senator kipp and the bipartisan sponsors for leading this

begin? Welcome, you will have two minutes. I am, thank you. Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you for hearing my comment today. I'm Kristen Bertuglia. I'm the Director of Environmental Sustainability for the Town of Vail, and Vail is also a member of Colorado Communities for Climate action. Mountain towns like Vail face unique challenges to decarbonization and transitioning away from natural gas is very difficult in cold climate, energy-intensive communities like ours. Heat pumps can be more costly and electricity while approaching 100% renewable here, thanks to Holy Cross Energy, is more expensive than gas. Vail runs the largest municipal natural gas snow melt system in the world at over 14 acres in public spaces. And we're currently working on a geothermal district to power this system with the support of the state and IRA funding, but we're still kind of a ways off with the gap in funding. However, the residents can't always shoulder the expense of electrification or heat pump technology. Although the cost of these systems are coming down, in the meantime, the thermal resources supported by Senate Bill 142 can be near-term, cost-effective solutions to providing low-carbon energy in mountain communities like ours. We are living in a time of climate crisis, and we need all the low-carbon energy we can get. I'm sure we're all thinking daily about our state's historically low snowpack and the resulting drought that the state is entering as our summer months approach. Climate change threatens our water supply, which is fundamental. And in Vail, we took a serious economic hit this winter because of the lack of snow on our mountain. We're also preparing for a very severe fire season. At the same time, Vail and many Colorado mountain towns are situated on top of high thermal energy capacity. According to the National Lab of the Rockies, Colorado has some of the best geothermal resources in the country, And we have test boards in Vail already showing great thermal connectivity. We need to be taking advantage of the energy beneath our feet, which is low carbon, affordable, low impact to surrounding ecosystems. And this legislation provides financial relief for these projects and remove some of the barriers to the implementation. I know we still got some amendments, but I encourage you to move forward and support Senate Bill 142. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee I'm Cameron uh City Councilor in Golden and I'm speaking on behalf of my constituents I support the intent of this bill but I understand from some other stakeholders that some amendments are needed to ensure that it lives up to its intent Nevertheless, I ask the committee to vote yes on Senate Bill 142 while we await clarity on the needed amendments. Golden is one of five pilot communities approved by the Public Utilities Commission and the Colorado Energy Office to participate in XL's gas planning pilot community studies. We're planning to study a seven-acre city-owned property anchored by the city's new municipal building. The new building could serve as a key part of the potential thermal energy network for the local area, demonstrating the use of geothermal and an all-electric commercial office building. We've modeled a 70% reduction in the energy use from our current building, making use of geothermal wells. The city owns and controls this development site, so it's ideally suited for thermal energy network. The success of this project and projects like it depend on some key measures that Senate Bill 142 addresses. The bill creates market incentives for thermal energy development, which will help with costs of these projects. It also provides clear statutory authority for local governments to aggregate demand, partner with private entities, and finance thermal networks. These stipulations lower the costs and increase the benefits of thermal energy projects for local governments. Amendment 3, however, strikes many of these benefits to local governments. I ask for an aye vote on this bill without the harmful amendments that will stymie local government progress on developing thermal energy. I also like to comment briefly that we talk about thermal and people think heat but we also with shallow wells can make use of cooling of fluids that come back from the earth at about 60 degrees and that certainly plenty enough to cool a building. So I encourage you to support this bill. Thank you.

Yes, I am. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of SB 142. My name is Colin Laird. I'm a member of the Carbondale Board of Trustees and the Policy Vice Chair for Colorado Communities for Climate Action, a coalition of 48 local governments who have come together to advocate for strong state climate policy, which I believe 142 embodies. In Carbondale, we recently completed an assessment designed for a geothermal network that would heat and cool a 16-acre section of our community. We are in support of SB 142 because it enables communities like ours clear legal ways to implement such a system and create a win for climate, for labor, for utilities, for industry, for affordability and for resilience. Additionally, unlike other climate-friendly technologies, there is bipartisan support for geothermal. We strongly support the goals of this bill, particularly the goal to remove barriers that hinder local government's thermal energy projects. I understand there is an amendment that was just mentioned, number three, that would remove the provisions from the bill that facilitate and ease local government's thermal energy projects. I ask you to vote for the bill, but vote down that amendment, Amendment 3. We need to enable local communities to develop geothermal networks and not restrict their abilities. Thank you for helping the state of Colorado and local communities meet our climate goals and create a more resilient, clean energy economy. Thanks very much.

Sure, thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I'm here on behalf of myself, although I've worked for the last 30 years in the geothermal industry. I live in Colorado. All of my work has been out west. unlike most of the participants, I don't have a planned statement, but I am in support of this bill for a couple of reasons, and I'll try to be brief. Most of my career was with the Navy, little known fact, one of the largest geothermal power producing fields in the country is on a military base. The Navy discovered that, the Navy oversaw the development of it, and the Navy oversees the day-to-day operations of that field. We've also conducted exploration on portions of the 27 million acres of land managed by DoD. It's been my experience that every time we would approach a base, they were always reticent or hesitant to consider allowing us to explore for geothermal for two reasons. One, they didn't understand the technology. And secondly, they had misunderstandings or misperceptions about the risks involved. So I in support of this bill because if nothing else it feels back another layer of the onion of misunderstandings or a skin of the onion of misunderstanding So that all I have for now Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak Thank you so much for joining us today

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Jeremy Ross. I'm here representing IBW 111 and the nearly 4,500 utility and line workers in our union. this type of legislation is really key to what we believe is the future of the electric generation in Colorado. While we've spent a lot of the last several years focused on wind and solar, we have failed to address the baseload need of the future of Colorado. We believe that geothermal as well as nuclear are going to play a big role in this. So we really look forward to this bill passing. We appreciate the amendments from the senators to include the labor language and really look forward to the opportunities that this type of legislation brings for our memberships in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Ross, for being here today. I asked questions earlier about the materials to do this, and so I guess I can talk to one of the guys. Do you have the personnel? Have you got workers already here ready to work? We had heard at another briefing about all of our workers heading off to Nebraska and Wyoming to build data centers. We got people here ready to go and trained on this type of work? Mr. Russ.

Any further questions for this panel? No. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony today. Really appreciate you being here. I believe, let's see, Ed Carley was called earlier. I don't know if he is available in the room or on the TV box up there. Anyone else wishes to testify that is not signed up No Okay Seeing none the witness testimony is closed Sponsors, welcome back. I believe we have amendments. Senator Ball.

Would you like to explain your amendment? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So the two things to highlight in this amendment is that this removes Section 2. So Senator Basley, I know you had asked a question about Section 2.

Are there any questions? Yes, Senator Baisley.

So, no, they actually can. This is an area where statute isn't clear, but there's no prohibition on doing that. We were hoping to elevate that to statute so that we would affirmatively say you can do that and give permission to industry to do that. We ran into concerns from a number of folks in the utility space that that would encroach on the service area that utilities have. So I think the fear was if you're in an area where a certain utility has the authority to provide the heat and the electricity, that you'd have a data center come in and they would start poaching residential customers through taking the heat from a data center. So we removed it after a lot of conversations because of those concerns, but it actually doesn't fundamentally change what you can and can't do because right now that does exist in sort of an area where statute is silent, and so that would be permitted now because there's not statute on point.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move L006. That is a proper motion. Can you explain

the bill, and we've added some language at the request of Green Latinos about making sure that we are, that we have an eye towards affordability and low income customers when we talk about rolling out geothermal heat and energy in Colorado.

No amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to end by thanking everybody who's done really good work around this bill. There's been a lot of enthusiasm since this bill was introduced and a lot of people who came to the table because they believe in geothermal energy and heat. And everybody's come to the table in a really constructive way to make this bill better and achieve the goals of the bill. So just want to say a big thank you to everybody who's put in hours and hours of work behind this bill and asked for an aye vote.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 142 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Senator is Baisley.

Pexum.

Lindstedt.

Mullica.

Elton B.

Elton R.

Sullivan.

Mr. Vice Chair.

And Madam Chair.

Thank you committee chair. Sorry, there's a button, a red, or the red light is. There you go. All right. Thank you committee chair and chair people. These testimonies are really emotional for me, so I would ask that you give me a little bit of patience. While I'll be brief and hopefully informative, if you can give me a little patience in finishing my time. My name is Josh Stewart. I'm a father to three amazing sons, and we've been in the school system for 10 years because of that. In that time, I've been a coach, a den leader, a fundraiser, an event planner, even the PTO president. I'm currently the president of all the PTO presidents in our school district. I've been on the school accountability committee. I'm currently on the district accountability committee, and I'm on the city transportation mobility board. But most importantly, I am the father of Liam Stewart, who I have not had a chance to hug, laugh with, or talk with in two years, six months, and five days. Because on the morning of October 17, 2023, he was hit and killed by a driver 500 feet from the school. What I would first like to talk about is what a school zone is. A school zone is actually a comprehensive system of design strategies and control devices to change driver behavior near a school At the closest points that could be slowing the school to parking lot speeds It can be lowering the speed limit to 20 slightly outside of that Outside of that zone Colorado allows for double fines for enforcement from police as well as camera enforcement That school zone could be any size in Colorado. And it allows for lots and lots of areas, for lots and lots of tools to keep children safe. Safe routes to school expand beyond those borders. and they're a very popular program, this bill would give structural capability for those routes. The problem is that one day while driving my kids to school, I noticed that all of the school zone signs I was used to seeing were missing. The city had done an engineering study and hired a firm to review the school zone because of my son's death. that firm applied tactics that they would normally apply to dense areas like new york city and not rural and neighborhoods of colorado and shrunk the school zone to a mere 250 feet from the school what it appeared to all of us in the community since they did not hold a public hearing was that every crash that we knew about every interaction with a car and a student that we knew about was now outside of the boundary of the new school zone. The data had been fixed. There would never be another crash within the school zone, making it safer. All this is all that we are asking for is making a minimum for these areas. So when an engineer comes in, instead of shrinking the school zone and avoiding the dangerous intersections, they look to fix the dangerous intersections for the children that are using them. What works in New York and LA does not work in Colorado. We need to keep and maintain our abilities and our rights for our children. Passing this bill clearly declares that even one child killed on the way to school is too many. Passing this bill affirms a simple principle. A child's right to get to school safely and independently is fundamental.

Hi, my name is Alan Coghill. I'm representing myself today, but I'm a member on the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Advisory Board. If you have any other guests, by my receding hairline and slightly graying hair, I grew up in the 80s. When I went to school, about 25% of kids walked or biked to school. When my parents went to school, it was around 50% of kids walked or biked to school. Today, it's closer to 12%. One of the primary reasons that parents cite is that they don't feel safe doing so because the streets are simply too dangerous because of drivers. I'm one of the parent leaders of the Brown Bike Bus, a bike bus which is pretty much a large group of students biking to school a few miles west of here in Denver. In particular today, I'm asking you to support the component of the bill that creates a school street. Last year, we were one of the first schools in Colorado to try to have a school street on bike to school day in May. If you're not familiar, it's a taking a street adjacent to a school, prioritizing children, usually by a temporarily closing one street adjacent next to the school to traffic. And it was logistically nearly impossible for us to do so. Our local Department of Transportation wanted us to put up 41 signs to do so on adjacent neighborhood streets next to our school for closing the street for less than an hour before and after school. It was going to cost over $1,000 to do so. So there was no category for a street like this and they treated us more like a construction site that closed the street for weeks than a temporary school closure before and after school. So my hope is the school street amendment will give us the potential to provide an innovative and safe and fun environment for kids that's shown to get lots more kids biking and walking to school, having parents feeling safe to do so. When other cities have done this, over 90% of students felt safer getting to school. They had larger numbers of kids walking and biking. Washington State recently implemented this and now have 16 temporary school streets and five permanent ones. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. I'm Nick Robles, policy analyst with Boulder County. I'm here to testify to Boulder County's current amend position. Boulder County supports the goals of increasing safety near schools. Boulder County believes that everyone deserves to arrive alive. Vision Zero is Boulder County's commitment to ending traffic deaths and serious injuries. The program has brought together community members, planners, and safety experts to create safer streets for everyone, no matter how they travel. Whether you walk, bike, roll, ride, transit, or drive, Boulder County wants our roads to be safe for everyone. HB 1318 makes numerous statutory changes to improve the safety and consistency for school zones. I'd like to thank the sponsor, Senator Cutter, for her leadership with this bill and the engagement of local government. The bill, with the adoption of the amendment, strikes a balance between ensuring safe routes to schools and recognizes the planning and intention that has gone into existing school zones. With the passage out of committee and the adoption of the amendment that Senator Cutter mentioned, as staff, I will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the neutral position of monitor. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the gentleman on the end here for coming and advocating and sharing your story about your son, Liam. I think it's really important that we hear from folks out in our communities when we're making policy like this that bring their own, you know, experiences to the table. And even though it's hard, you know, I hope you know that it matters and that we listen. And so thank you for doing that, and thank you for probably going out of your comfort zone a little bit to do that. but it does matter, and I just wanted to recognize that.

Yeah, maybe the fellow panelists from the transportation team could better answer that. Okay.

Yes, sir, Senator. So school street and school zones are two different things. So this would not change the speed limit on school zones throughout the street, excuse me, school zones throughout the state. Strictly if a community chose to optionally implement this, again, not a mandate, strictly an opt-in provision, they would have the opportunity to implement a school street the speed limit would be 10 miles an hour on that small block next to the school typically a residential quiet street and they would have to have it very clearly signed on that section of road Senator Ruxem.

We had it for two small blocks next to our elementary school, so in theory it could be. It would have to be with the approval of that Department of Transportation for that municipality.

Hello, this is Amy Kenry, and I am a crossing guard for Denver Public Schools at Logan and Exposition. I am speaking in favor of Bill 1318. My intersection is 528 feet from the school property just outside of the school zone. Originally, I was told that I could not be a crossing guard there because it wasn't inside of the school zone. I was told it was too dangerous. Admittedly, it is dangerous. There are no signs to let drivers know kids use this street to access their school. The speed limit is 30 and drivers often go closer to 40. I had to take my case all the way to the superintendent to get special permission to cover this intersection because it was outside of our school zone. When I started as a crossing guard, only a few kids walked through my intersection or biked across this busy street, Logan Street, to get to our school. Although half of our school population lives within walking distance of the school on the other side of this intersection. Kids were being driven three blocks to school because it was too dangerous to get there any other way. I counted kids, went from 20 kids crossing daily to 65 kids crossing daily in just one semester. I've seen kids as young as second grade earn their wings. My experience illustrates the huge difference it can make to improve the safety of a street, whether that's with a crossing guard or by slowing drivers down to finding a school zone or allowing crossing guards to even protect an area because it's in a school zone. Busy roads plow through disadvantaged neighborhoods and separate the haves from the have-nots. This bill is an incremental step towards repairing this system-level inequity. Please vote in favor of this bill and today's amendment. Thanks.

Hello I Melissa Colano I rushing to get to school pickup which feels fitting for this testimony But I a parent of three children in Denver Public Schools and I also a leader of the Odyssey School bike bus So Alan spoke about bike buses previously, but I'm speaking today in support of this bill. And our Odyssey bike bus rides every Friday. Navigating the streets like immediately surrounding our school is the most dangerous part of our entire route. and I've tried to work with the school administration on this but you know there's a lot of uncertainty by the school administration about what they are allowed to to implement in terms of traffic safety so this bill would really help with a situation like that I imagine many of you have experienced school pickup and drop off it kind of seems like people's logic and decency just goes out the window when they're in a rush to get their kids to school drivers routinely speed, block intersections, park illegally. Like even the president of a school PTA could probably park on a crosswalk and few teachers or parents would say anything. So we really must change this precedent and this law would help by establishing clear and consistent definitions of school zones. I also really support the proposed amendment for a school street. you know that's been really successful in Europe and I think just what that would give to local communities in terms of health and safety benefits is really something that our communities need. We had our first as some of you may know our first ozone action alert day early this week and that's very early being in April and so I really think our state needs to do something about pollution and like the very least we can do is clean up you know the areas in front of our schools with idling cars and other traffic violations um thanks for the opportunity to speak today i really hope the committee will pass this and the school street amendment thank you thank you miss colono

represent. Hello. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for having me. My name is Lindsay Dawson, and I am here to represent students and families of students at Brown International Academy. For the past four years, I've been a consummate volunteer, as well as part of the CSC Collaborative School Committee. My husband and I have two children. The first is in first grade and the second and third grade. So we have, being that we walk to school and bike to school nearly every day, living two blocks away, have seen firsthand a lot of the issues and the concerns surrounding pedestrians, particularly students and their families versus traffic. I've witnessed firsthand students nearly killed and have spoken to school officials about it. I have seen others nearly hit. I have heard of others hit. Basically, while some drivers are diligent and great around schools, far too many are rushed, impatient, distracted or unaware, especially with the advent of cell phones. a couple of years ago we finally included a pedestrian crossing like the painted lines that helped issues however not so much that my family and I decided after some time that neon flags were necessary for students to hold as they cross the street that helps as well however even with these steps we have unfortunately seen way too many close calls This bill if passed would bring us so much more closer to assuring these these amazing little kiddos their kids make it to and from school and their home safely Whether it's been on the bike bus, which Alan has been amazing at running or, again, just walking with my kids and others. to know that they are safe every day. It's the only thing that matters. So I highly encourage you to vote in support of this bill. And thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Pete Piccolo, and I serve as the executive director of Bicycle Colorado. Our team works across the state to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries and to expand access to safe biking and walking for people of all ages and abilities. There's no place where this mission is more important than when it comes to protecting children traveling to and from school. Colorado has made a clear commitment to encourage kids to bike and walk to school when in 2004 we passed Safe Routes at Schools legislation. Safe Routes at Schools is one of the most important, certainly the most enjoyable part of our work at Bicycle Colorado. And although many kids are taught how to bike and walk to school, we are sending them off into spaces that are far too often not safe. And this bill is a meaningful step towards addressing that. While the bill could do more, we believe it has been thoughtfully drafted, incorporating feedback from a variety of different stakeholders. Importantly, the bill maintains sufficient local control, allowing communities to tailor its implementation to specific contexts while still advancing a strong framework for safety. In our opinion, school zones are sacred spaces. They are zero tolerance spaces for dangerous driving. And there should be no barrier that prevents us, no barrier administrative or financial that prevents us from taking every reasonable step to protect our kids as they travel to and from school. So I respectfully ask that you vote yes on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Skyler McKinley here on behalf of AAA and our 800,000 members in Colorado. I want to talk for a moment about fairness. Under current law, a school zone is not a zone. It's an area where a jurisdiction has placed signs. There's no distance requirement, no standard, no minimum, no maximum. The rules are different school to school and city to city, and a motorist has no reasonable basis to know what to expect. A zone could be 50 feet in one community. It could be 500 in another. That's more than just confusing. motorist, it's not fair. When the sign moves, the zone moves without notice to the motorist who drive that road every day, meaning a driver who complied yesterday may not be able to comply today or may not comply today by behaving the exact same way. That same instability affects families. I grew up in Pueblo. I walked to school every day. That was a decision my mom and I made together. It was a long walk, but she made that decision because it was safe and she had judged it to be safe. If a school zone can move as a sign moves, parents aren't able to know if the The route that they're sending their kid on is the route that it was yesterday. This bill changes that. In the first place, school zones will be required to mark the boundaries of the zone so motorists will know where the zone starts and where it ends. That's a baseline expectation. Before a jurisdiction can reduce the size of a school zone, they're going to have a public hearing. We're having a public hearing right now in the acknowledgement that, you know, policy changes require a little bit of input. All of these are notions of fairness that government should tell you what to expect before it expects it of you. Just on the topic of fairness, AAA has worked really closely with the Colorado Municipal League, CDOT, and county partners to ensure that this bill doesn't create any additional mandated unfunded cost to any jurisdiction, except in those extremely limited edge cases where school zones are below 200 feet. I think we can all agree that the small cost of moving a sign is worth saving a life in those circumstances. So look, AAA does everything in triplicate. This gives us more options, more safety, more clarity. I urge a yes vote. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Mr. Lanzer.

to make that choice as Skylar was just saying. That as a parent with my kids that we can try and make a choice to keep them safe if they want to ride their bikes to school So I really appreciate this bill Thank you Senator Cutter for your leadership and thank you all for hearing me today Thank you. Next we'll go to Ms. Vogel. And we cannot hear you. I think you may be muted. Still can't hear you.

on hb 1318 thank you committee members any questions for our witnesses seeing none thank you for coming uh and the testimony of the portion of this hearing is closed Senator Cutter, the bill is on the table for amendment. Are there any amendments? There is an amendment. Sorry. Thank you Senator Cutter would you like to move your amendment Yes, I move amendment L-006. Tell us about L-006. So this reflects on conversations with all kinds of local government stakeholders, including Colorado Municipal League and Boulder County to ensure the bill does not impose unfunded compliance costs on jurisdictions working to meet the bill's expectations. It clarifies that existing school zones are above 200 feet are grandfathered in on their current size. No signage upgrades are required if existing signs were in place on the effective date. It further clarifies that only school zones currently under 200 feet must move to that minimum. It's really a narrow targeted obligation that addresses the most acute safety gaps. And it also clarifies that jurisdictions retain the authority to determine what is and is not a school for the purpose of the statute. Clarifies that jurisdictions are not required to buy new signs just to comply with the statute. And with this amendment, CML will move from an amend to a neutral position on the bill. So I would ask for support. Are there any questions about the amendment? Are there any objections to the amendment? Seeing no objection, amendment L06 is adopted. Are there any additional amendments that you'd like to bring on your bill, Senator Cutter? No. Committee members, any other amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the amendment portion of this hearing is closed. Senator Cutter, would you like to move your bill? Yes, I move House Bill 261318. as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation. That is a proper motion. Members, wrap up comments. Senator Baisley.

Thank you. Committee members, any final comments? Senator Cutter, I neglected to give you the opportunity to give a final comment on your bill. It's okay. I can have the last word. It's fine. So 1,000 feet really isn't a long distance, right? A driver traveling at 20 miles per hour passes through a 1,000-foot school zone in 34 seconds. 34 seconds of extra safety is all we're asking of motorists. And as I was listening to testimony, I remembered I, A, was a crossing guard, so I did that and saw the little kids coming through and their bikes and things and that really important That like a great way to build community have kids getting to school on their own power and their parents walking them and such. And we also had an accident in a school zone, so someone was going too fast and not paying attention. So it's just really important we do everything we can to make sure that our kids get to school safely. Parents deserve to know that when they assess a route for their child as Mr. McKinley shared, that the route will still be protected tomorrow. It's not going to change. And motorists deserve to know where a school zone begins and ends before the law expects something else of them, something different. That's why parents, bike lists, crossing guards, and motorists all supported this bill. And I just want to acknowledge that Mr. Stewart has done such an amazing thing by advocating for something. We have other friends that do that, advocating for something based on a tragedy in their own lives, trying to help other people, and that is the greatest good. And I'm so thankful that he has worked so hard to bring this forward and help protect other kids and other parents. So with that, I hope I have your aye vote on 26-13-18, HB 13-18. Thank you, Senator Cutter.

On that note, Ms. Forbes, can you please call the roll?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Can I request the consent calendar? You may. Are there any objections to this being placed on the consent calendar? Seeing no objection, this will be placed on the consent calendar. And that concludes our hearing. Thank you very much.