Senate Transportation & Energy [Mar 18, 2026]

Okay, good afternoon. We have a crowd today. Calling transportation and energy will now come to order. Ms. Forbes, will you please call the roll?

Catlin. Here.

Lindstedt. Present.

Pelton B. Present.

Gonzalez. Ready to go.

So Sal Pace is here to introduce them. Hello. Welcome.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Sal Pace, and I'm the general manager of the Front Range Passenger Rail District. The Front Range Passenger Rail District is a Title 32 special district, like so many other Title 32 special districts, with a specific mission created by the Colorado General Assembly in 2021 with a clear mandate to plan, finance, build, and eventually operate an intercity passenger train from state line to state line along the front range. We also have the authority to refer a funding question to voters, which is something we are considering for 2026. Since then, since our creation, we've been doing the heavy lifting, technical planning, coordination with partners, and building out what is this system, what it could actually look like. And we're now at a point where that work is really coming together. The vision is in express intercity train connecting communities from Trinidad to Fort Collins with stops in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Douglas County Denver Westminster Broomfield Louisville Boulder Longmont Loveland Fort Collins and special event stops along the corridor In the near term without asking taxpayers to provide any more money or taxes we're working with RTD to deliver starter service between Denver and Fort Collins with a goal of launching three trips a day in 2029. Longer term, the system would expand to up to 10 round trips a day with trains running up to 79 miles an hour. We're on existing freight lines, so we're building something real, but doing it in a practical way without needing to acquire new right-of-way or necessitating eminent domain or condemnation. We're also having conversations about future opportunities, like a special event stop at Burnham Yards with the Broncos or South Broadway for the Denver Summit. At the same time, we're doing extensive public engagement, town halls, stakeholder outreach, and making sure people across the corridor have a chance to weigh in. You may have also seen the Name the Train campaign, which has been a great way to get people engaged. And we've had, I think, nearly 30,000 responses. And today you'll be considering seven excellent bipartisan candidates for the board, folks with strong local government and transportation experience to help guide this into our next phase. So overall, we've moved from concept into real planning. and now we're focused on refining the details and preparing for the decisions ahead. And I'm happy to answer questions or pass it over to some of our district directors for reconfirmation.

Hello, Madam Chair. I'm Tricia Canonico.

please go ahead and tell us why you want to be reappointed to the board thank you um i have now been on the board since the summer of 2024 and um the work has really advanced rapidly and i want to stay on the board to continue to move this forward and bring it to the ballot and build out uh the starter service by 2029 and move to the full build out of the corridor with the 10 stops round trip from Fort Collins down to Pueblo. I've also served on the North Front Range MPO for four years,

work. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. Please proceed and tell us why you'd like to be on the

to continue that work. Thank you so much. and it looks like we have several members on

Thank you so much, Mr. Lucero. Claire Levy, I see you if you want to introduce yourself and tell us more about why you want to serve.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'll be brief. I was appointed to the Front Range Passenger Rail District, the Inception Board back in 2022, and to represent Dr. Cog. And I'm proud and honored to have been reappointed by Dr. Cog to that position. We've gotten an amazing amount done in the last four years, and I'm really excited, particularly with the addition of General Manager Pace. We've been getting a whole lot done, and our progress is increasing exponentially, I'd like to say. So I'm really excited to continue that work with Claire Levy, with Trish Canonico, and Miles Lucero, and Corey Applegate as new members of the board. I think we're getting a lot of really important work done to bring this vision to fruition, and I'm delighted to serve.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Honorable State Senators. My name is Commissioner Corey Applegate from El Paso County. I'm from District 4. I'm a former city councilman and former planning commissioner also for the city of Fountain. Two big reasons why I want to serve. So I was the appointee from the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. That not only includes all of El Paso County, but some of the local municipalities and county representatives in Teller and Park as well. So even though this is kind of like a regional thing, this is like something that's going to span across the state, I want to take in what their concerns are, the local municipalities or the county leadership from these counties, and bring that to the board to better represent them as well as the citizens, too. I want to hear from the area and see what their thoughts are. Colorado Springs is now almost half a million people. So I'm going to see what their concerns are as well. And being like the planning side of things and being a former planning commissioner, as well as city councilman and now county commissioner, I've seen good plans and I've seen a few bad ones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for all the nominees and for Mr. Pace. I represent Adams County. And obviously during the formation of this, there were several different routes that were looked at, including along I-25, which is predominantly where a lot of Adams County's population is. But I think the ultimate route has been decided to go maybe down US 36. Adams County is still within the region. We've heard ballot measure conversations several times now with the nominees and from you Mr. Pace. Would love to hear your thoughts on what that looks like with Adams County still being in the district but a large portion of our population not being within a distance of being able to utilize this. If there is a ballot measure, how are you going to ensure that you're not having people pay for this that may not necessarily be able to benefit or utilize it? And would love to hear the thoughts from the nominees as well on whether they would support really looking narrowing down who's within the district and who would pay for this if it comes to the ballot in

Ms. Mulvey?

Does anyone else have a response? Okay. Go ahead, Senator Mullica.

Fabulous. Yes. Please pronounce your name for me. Thank you.

Canonico. I don't know why I have a hard time. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please proceed.

Thank you, and for the record, I got the Tricia part. Well, Claire Levy, Commissioner Levy?

Thank you, Mr. Nevitt.

Okay, Mr. Lucero.

All right. Thank you. And lastly, Mr. Applegate.

any further questions yes uh senator gonzalez thank you madam chair i want to express my appreciation to the members of this board who are up for renewal I guess my first question and also I want to extend my appreciation to new appointees

Mr. Pace.

Thank you. In that case, understanding the length of the term and also both appointment processes that lead to these confirmations today, the question I would ask you all is this. What are the challenges that you each, as prospective board members of the front range passenger rail, what are the challenges that you perceive as being most important? And how do you expect to navigate said challenges?

Sorry, I didn't recognize that before. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Gonzalez, the challenges are the same, but they have morphed, if you will. As General Manager Pace said, we're required to represent the entire district, but there are so many differences in the district, and I'm proud to be a resident of South Metro and serving in the South Metro region because it is unique. And so just as Adams County might, I often find small towns in Adams County that have the same concerns as small towns in Douglas County. The challenges have been in the past to ensure that the choices as to station location and route and such match the desires of the community and match the needs of the community. And so that has been the greatest challenge. It's also ensuring that we give voice to the community. And just this morning I spoke with members who are opposed. That is what we do. In the future, we will be working towards whether or not the logistics of the project can be undertaken because what we've heard from the community is how are you going to finance it? Don't use models that don't work. Use a model that does work. And then how are you going to integrate that into the community? And then finally, station location matters. And so it's a matter of how are you going to fund that sort of thing and who's going to pay for that sort of thing. And one of the things that we have a challenge with is that each of the different communities and station areas have different models for how they want to fund it. And in Douglas County, it's not a governmentally funded entity that is going to do that. So we have to find creative ways around that. And we think that on the board, we've already found some ways to accomplish that, and we're continuing to work on them.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. I've served on multiple boards, and this one has been really challenging so far, but I think we've overcome a lot of challenges. There is a divide between the North and South, as Council Member Mulvey had mentioned, director mulby and we have found ways to come together and work together to benefit our local communities um i think as we move forward and um you know if we have the funding to go through the five phases that we see this taking to move get to full build out i think one of the things that we really have to be considered of is how does frprd work with the local stations to ensure that we get the ridership projections are accurate and that we get the riders we want to see and also how do we help the local communities activate these areas so that we get the transit oriented development we want to see we get the interconnection between local transit and this transportation that's going to take people up and down the front range so those are the things that I'm also really focused on as we move forward. Thank you. Ms. Levy, excuse me, Commissioner Levy.

Okay, thank you. Let's see, Mr. Nevitt.

All right, Mr. Commissioner Lucero.

Yes, various challenges on the money side. I'd like to just help the group as much as I can. I know in El Paso County, we've had a lot of conservative spending practices. So unlike Like some of the municipalities in the area that are upside down right now, we've managed to maintain, keep a good budget and also keep our head above water. And so I want to look at that. I'm also the chair of Pikes Peak Regional Transportation Authority. So to kind of model the same thing, some of their spending practices on that board as well and just kind of bring that information to the table and see what the board's thoughts are. So then to use those ideas to help us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to appreciate the challenges that y'all are going to be grappling with. We wish you all the best, and thank you all for, thank you, and we're also sorry, for the hard, difficult, challenging work that you all have ahead. With that, Madam Chair, I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation, the appointments of Commissioner Claire Levy, Honorable Chris Nevitt, Councilmember Tricia, I'm sorry, Councilmember Deborah Mulvey, Honorable Tricia Canonico, Commissioner Miles Lucero, and Commissioner Corey Applegate to the Front Range Passenger Rail District Board.

Aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee, for hearing our bill, well, my bill today. Data centers have become a hot topic here in Colorado. and across the nation, with the innovations of AI technology, we are seeing an enormous boom in this industry and a very rapid transition is happening. Many call it the AI revolution. As we've watched AI technology grow, we are seeing the data centers that underpin the technology change and grow too. Data centers are not new. We've had facilities backing up our Zoom calls and our cloud computing for a while now. With a rapid shift of the AI industry, we are now seeing a very fast-paced expansion of AI data centers as well, and this transition has a lot of communities filling whiplash. Colorado has not seen the same pace of development largely due to our unique budget constraints. We have not provided an incentive for data centers as other states have. You will no doubt hear today how that is affecting what kinds of investments we may see here in Colorado. But it also gives us an opportunity that many other states have not had. Virginia has over 550 data centers, thanks in large part to a generous tax incentive. They've seen a big expansion and are now wrestling with the same issues we are, how to account for the energy needs, how to protect ratepayers, and how to manage impacts on communities and state budgets. Colorado gets the benefit of learning from other states. We don't have to go as far as Virginia either. Just across our southern border in Doña Anya County, New Mexico, residents are still trying to find out who is building in their backyard. A massive AI data center negotiated entirely behind closed doors under non-disclosure agreements was approved by county commissioners before most residents even knew it existed. They only learned details when the developer sought $165 billion in industrial revenue bonds and air quality permits to operate natural gas generators that could emit as much greenhouse gas annually as New Mexico's two largest cities combined. The company's identity was hidden for months when residents pushed back, anonymous mailers arrived, featuring stock photos of Hispanic models sent from a Virginia shipping store from a company not registered in New Mexico urging support for the project. Local lawmakers called it a transparency failure. A retired state water manager said simply, there is so much secrecy and lack of information about this project, and throughout, no enforceable renewable energy requirements, no ratepayer protections, no community benefit agreements. This is what happens when there are no guardrails on data center development. I believe that hyperscale AI data center development is on its way to Colorado Some have called my bill a ban Let me be clear it is not a ban It a straightforward approach to ensure Colorado is ready for this boom and that we aren't left holding the bag if there is also a bust. Colorado can do better, and SB 26102 is how. Colorado has approximately 57 data centers operating today, with more under construction. Right now, in Denver's Elaria, Swansea neighborhood, already one of the most polluted zip codes in America, already surrounded by I-70, a Superfund site, the Suncor refinery, and the Nestle Purina Pet Food Factory that led Denver's smell complaint list in 2028, the CoreSite data center is rising. At full build-out, it will draw up to 60 to 75 megawatts of power, more than Denver International Airport's total draw, and consume up to 805,000 gallons of water per day, the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver residents. The permit was approved as used by right, a wholesale trade or storage. The community found out after construction was already underway. Colorado has 50 to 60 data centers. Most of these are small, and one estimate is that our current data center capacity is about 300 megawatts total right now. To add more context, the CoreSite project, the one we were just talking about, could scale up to 75 megawatts, a 25% increase. increase. East of Denver, the QTS hyperscale campus in Aurora is under construction at a planned 177 megawatts, enough to eclipse Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel in Pueblo and the Climax Molybdenum mine as Excel's Energy's single largest customer. One data center surpassing two of Colorado's biggest businesses and energy users. So while these new data centers in Colorado may be seen as small potatoes compared to other states. We are seeing rapid expansion here as well. And the QTS plant is not the ceiling. It's the floor of what's coming. Five years ago, most of us had never heard of a data center. Today, the hyperscalers, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta, are building at a scale that would have seemed unimaginable. Just north of us, Larimer County, Wyoming, just approved a data center campus near Cheyenne. 1.8 gigawatts in its first phase, scaling up to 10 gigawatts, an amount of power the Associated Press reported would, in its first phase alone, more than double Wyoming's entire current electricity generation. Meta is building a campus in rural Louisiana, spanning nearly five miles long and a mile wide, scaling to five gigawatts, the equivalent of roughly five large nuclear power plants. These are the facilities that are actively scouting sites in states like ours. The QTS campus being built in Aurora at 177 megawatts, set to become Colorado's largest data center by far, would be a small corner of one of those campuses. And the pressure is only going to grow. Excel Energy has received 37 power supply requests from data center developers in the past year alone. Data centers are projected to account for 62% of Excel's new electricity demand growth, and 72% of new peak demand growth in Colorado. The company estimates that meeting this demand could cost $22 billion. So what's at stake for rate payers? The Colorado Public Utilities Commission delivered its analysis just days ago. Its findings are stark. Excel Energy's profits could triple from $678 million to $1.9 billion by 2031. Electricity rates could rise as much as 55%. To understand why, you have to understand how utilities make money. Excel doesn't profit by selling electricity. It profits by building infrastructure and charging ratepayers the return on those investments. The more they build, the more they earn. And they are planning to build $37 billion of investments through 2031, nearly three times the current value of all their Colorado assets. That build-out is driven almost entirely by anticipated data center growth. Every dollar of it flows through our ratepayer bills. The Union of Concerned Scientists is direct. Without strong ratepayer protections, data center growth could put households at risk of more than $500 billion in cumulative electricity costs nationally by 2035. The independent market monitor for PJM interconnection, the nation's largest grid operator, concluded that data center growth is the primary reason for recent and expected capacity market conditions, including tight supply and demand balance and high prices. This is happening everywhere. Data centers have come online without guardrails. left unregulated data centers default to fossil fuels open ai ceo has said repeatedly short-term natural gas a louisiana utility is building three natural gas plants for a single meta data center the iea projects data center emissions could more than double by 2030 making it one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases in the world. Colorado is already seeing this dynamic. Excel is now proposing to extend the lives of its Comanche and Hayden coal plants through 2030, citing capacity shortballs driven in part by data center demand. Colorado's legislative council staff confirmed data center load growth is directly threatening Colorado's greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Atlantic's April cover story put the industry's choice plainly. We can unlock the promises of this technology by doubling down on the energy systems of the past, or we can seize the opportunity to push the grid into a carbon-free future. We can do it better here in Colorado. SB 26102 chooses the second path. There are a lot of ways we could drive investments that drive jobs, shield rate payers, strengthen our grid, and protect our clean energy progress. That is the goal of this bill. Our own legislative council staff also has documented what happens when data centers are powered by fossil fuels and diesel backup generators. Approximately 600,000 asthma symptom cases and 1,300 premature deaths annually from data center pollution nationally. The data, the public health burden is projected to reach $20 billion by 2028 and the per household health burden is 200 times higher in disadvantaged communities than in less impacted ones Researchers studying Virginia data center alley found noise levels 5 decibels higher in neighborhoods, just 200 feet from data centers. And research shows extended low-frequency noise impairs cognitive function, including logical reasoning and mathematical calculation. In a state that has committed to environmental justice, these are not abstractions. They are the hilarious Wansaya neighborhood, already carrying I-70, a superfund site, a refinery, and a pet food factory that residents ascribe as smelling like someone barfed in your backyard and it baked in the sun. They are communities that cannot absorb more industrial burden. Some have proposed offering long-term sales tax exemptions to attract data centers to Colorado. Let me tell you what that looks like in practice. Illinois offered similar incentives starting in 2020. The cost went from $10 million in one year to $331 million in year four, a 3,600% increase. increase. Virginia lost $1.6 billion in a single fiscal year, up 118% from the year before. Georgia is projected to lose $2.5 billion this year, 664% higher than its previous estimate. Texas revised its cost estimate from $130 million to $1 billion in just 23 months. In Illinois, 22 of 27 certified projects committed to exactly 20 permanent jobs. 20. The bare minimum to qualify in exchange for $983 million in tax breaks. That's $1.7 million in tax relief per job. These incentives were designed pre-AI data center revolution, and now they are stretching budgets. Several states are now looking to repeal their incentives. Virginia legislators will return for another legislative session in late April following a stalemate over data center tax incentives. And the stalemate is not whether they should keep the incentive as is. It's if they should get rid of it altogether or keep it but add new restrictions. Michigan lawmakers introduced repeal legislation. Ohio is considering repeal. Arizona and Georgia are also considering big changes to incentives this year. In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order to pause the incentive, and the legislature is currently considering a comprehensive bill to add guardrails. It's over 600 pages long. So we've been much more concise here in Colorado. None of the other states has to contend with Tabor or any other elements of our uniquely complicated budget. Without guardrails, an incentive could leave us in major fiscal wreckage. Again, we get to learn from our fellow states. They're reckoning with incentives designed for a wholly different industry in Texas. The high-velocity pace of development combined with the virtually automatic incentives means that just in 23 months, their incentives went from $130 million to $1 billion. These programs were designed for a different era when data centers were choosing between a handful of favorable markets that needed to be lured. That world is gone. The AI build-out is happening at a pace where companies are desperately hunting for land, power, and grid access. The constraint isn't just incentives. It's infrastructure. It's customers. It's grid access. It's workers. Colorado has the climate the location the grid and the workforce The leverage has shifted to us We should be targeted in what types of industry projects we want to bring to our state And we need some clear rules of the road for how they operate whether they are a 30-megawatt facility or a 1-gigawatt facility. We have a lot going for us here in Colorado, and we're not trying to stall development. Jobs and other community investments that could come here, But we need to keep in mind that we have a lot to offer already. Among the states that have a sales tax, Colorado already has the lowest rate sales tax rate in the country at 2.9%. Illinois is 6.25%. Texas is 6.25%. Virginia is 5.3%. Arizona is 5.6%. As those states repeal their incentives and their effective costs rise, Colorado's competitive position improves automatically without giving away a single dollar. In Georgia, they have seen their tax credit expand rapidly. It's now expected to cost their state $3 billion in 2027. An audit by the University of Georgia found that 70% of data center projects would have located in Georgia without the subsidy. We have to be thoughtful about what and how to attract new industries here in Colorado. Chasing data centers with massive giveaways while compromising our climate goals and burdening our ratepayers is a race to the bottom that Colorado cannot and should not enter. We don't have to speculate about whether it's possible to welcome data centers responsibly. We have proof. Excel Energy itself, the same company serving 1.6 million Colorado customers, just structured a deal with Google in Minnesota. 1.9 gigawatts of carbon-free power. Google pays the full cost of new grid infrastructure funded through a special charge on Google's bill, not existing rate payers. Excel's Minnesota president called it a model for data center partnerships, one that fulfills and protects Minnesota's goals for a carbon-free future, all while ensuring our current customers are not paying more for this growing demand. Excel knows how to do this. Tri-state generation and transmission, Colorado's wholesale provider to rural co-ops, is already requiring upfront security payments, minimum contract terms, and minimum demand charges from data center customers. Their CEO said plainly, we don't want to build a bunch of resources and then have those stranded where our remaining members have to pay for them. That is the stranded asset rationale behind SB 102's contract requirements, stated by a Colorado Utilities CEO in his own words. This is not a radical or novel approach. At least 36 states, including red states, Oklahoma, and Texas, have already adopted large load tariffs with similar protections. Oregon requires tariffs preventing cost shifting. Maryland requires rate schedules protecting residential customers. Minnesota has authorized clean energy and capacity tariffs. The Western resource advocates found that the seven largest utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah have seen collective load forecast jump from 1% annual growth to 4.5%, almost entirely driven by data centers. By 2035, those data centers could consume water sufficient for 194,000 people annually in a region already running out. National polling found that when voters are asked about data centers powered by fossil fuels they oppose by 16 points When asked about data centers powered by clean energy which is what this bill requires they support by 25 points a 41 swing based entirely on the energy source The public has already decided. Across the country, communities are acting on it. Five years ago, most people didn't know what a data center was. They were invisible infrastructure tucked away in industrial parks. Today, data center announcements are being met with organized opposition from Ohio to Virginia to Texas to right here in Colorado. Nationwide, at least 54 local moratoriums have already passed. Denver's mayor and city council announced their own proposed moratorium on February 23rd, the same week that hundreds of Valeria Swansea residents packed a standing room-only community meeting to demand answers about the Corsight campus going up across from their park, an affordable senior housing facility, and a community health clinic. In rural Colorado, Logan County became the first county to pass data center regulations and has struggled with these issues and how they may impact agriculture. The backlash isn't anti-technology, it's pro-accountability. People are not opposed to data centers powered by clean energy that pay their fair share. they are opposed to the current default, fossil fuels, cost shifting, and secrecy. That is exactly what this bill addresses. Across Colorado, local elected officials have written this legislature asking for exactly these guardrails. Their communities span the state. Denver, Aurora, Broomfield, North Glen, Westminster, Thornton, Littleton, Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Lewisville, Lafayette, Loveland, Golden, Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Cortez, Leadville, and counties from Boulder, Jefferson, Clear Creek, Eagle, Pitkin, Rout, La Plata, Urey, Summit, San Miguel, Hinsdale, Sagwash, Gilpin, Larimer, and Chaffee to the eastern plains and beyond. These are the frontline communities. They know what unregulated data center development looks like, and they are asking us to act. This bill does not ban data centers. It establishes clear enforceable terms under which large load data centers, those over 30 megawatts operate in Colorado. It prohibits utilities from offering discounted economic development rates that shift costs to residential customers. It requires 100% renewable energy matching beginning in 2031 from new sources, not paper credits from existing generation. It requires 15-year infrastructure, cost contracts, or upfront payment. So if a data center leaves or underperforms, Colorado ratepayers are not left holding the bag. It requires annual reporting on energy and water use to CDPHE. It includes environmental justice protections, cumulative impact analysis, community benefit agreements, and public hearings before facilities locate in disproportionately impacted communities. It includes labor standards. It gives DOLA authority to publish model local codes so communities have tools before the next facility arrives. These are the same protections that local elected officials from across Colorado, from the western slope to the eastern plains to the San Juan Mountains have asked for, that the Union of Concerned Scientists recommends, that Excel already offers its Minnesota customers, that Tri-State already requires of its Colorado members. I want to be transparent with the committee. We are still working through elements of this bill, including the fiscal note. And we are not bringing amendments today. Our plan is to lay the bill over and return with amendments. We want to get this right. We are working hard to ensure the energy provisions work for utilities, rate payers, and data centers. We want to align community. processes and ensure consistency and transparency across our state. And we want to ensure that the jobs which could come from data centers are as good as possible. But the direction is clear. Colorado has the opportunity to welcome this industry, and it is coming on terms that protect our families, our climate, our water, and our communities. Or we can follow Virginia and Illinois down a path that has left them with billion-dollar budget holes, coal plants running longer than planned, and communities organizing against an industry they once welcomed. The residents of Doña Anacani are still waiting to find out who their neighbor is. The residents of Valeria Swansea found out when the concrete was already rising. This bill is about making sure that the next community, wherever in Colorado it is, finds out before the first shovel goes in the ground, has a seat at the table, and knows that someone in this building has their back. I ask you to listen carefully to the testimony you'll hear today from the communities, the ratepayer advocates, and the energy experts who will tell you why these guardrails matter. We'll be back with amendments, and I look forward to working with you all to get this right. Thank you.

Yeah, and I'm sorry this opening statement was so long. A lot of information. There's a lot of information. There's 1.7 million per job. You did the math.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Illinois, 22 of 27 certified projects committed to exactly 20 permanent jobs at 1.7 million per job.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Senator Kipp, in my experience, local government's reliance on use by right for land use decisions is used very carefully. And we have bills going through the process or that have been previously passed that require local governments to approve projects as a use by right. That being said, why the prohibition on authorizing data centers as a use by right? Senator Kipp.

Senator Gonzalez. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Poulton did have another question. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Kipp. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Pelton, for the question. Now, I agree, we need to defer in a lot of ways to local governments, but what has happened and what we're trying to learn from that has happened in other states, other places around the country, there's been a lot of this secrecy. Maybe we're not going to have that in Colorado, and I hope not, but I know that the core site was taken by surprise when this just rose from the ground as a use by right type of thing, and that was a problem, right? But there have been numerous examples from around the country as data centers have developed where not only did they hide from three corporate levels down who the actual company was, but they have put into nondisclosure agreements that some locally elected officials have, to their detriment, agreed to not letting local communities know how much water and energy they're using. And I think that's a major problem, and I want to make sure that doesn't happen here in Colorado. So I'd say the state is attempting to set a floor,

Please. All right, Senator Palm. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think my problem with that is that, let me give you an example. So a wind project comes into a community. They negotiate with the landowners. The landowners have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Thank you, NDAs. That they can't discuss with their neighbors what the wind company just did. There are some of that that still goes on, especially with green energy and that sort of thing. I get that aspect. But when it comes to siting the project, there are signs that go up. There are information that goes out to the public to make sure that the public is making, has their full say in the projects when they get cited. So I think Colorado is definitely different. In fact, I think that if it wasn't for local land use being such a big deal here in the state of Colorado, we wouldn't have the robust green energy system that we have right now. So I think when we go back to talking about these great big projects like this, I mean, you saw in Logan County, especially that last meeting, how frustrated some of the farmers were and how they had to go back and change a lot of their land use regulations to match what the farmers want. So I think that really with this moving forward, local land use is so important. But giving them a floor not necessarily works because what if they want to go lower than the floor? You know, that sort of thing. So that's something that we really need to think about moving forward with this bill. Senator Kipp.

Okay, Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Basley.

Senator Kipp.

Any further questions for our sponsor? You're off the hook. Thank you, Senator Kipp. Our first panel I will bring up in support. We have Deb Kapiloff, Amelia Schachter, Megan Kemp, and Caroline Nutter. And I will remind you all two minutes of testimony, please. And committee will have ten minutes for this panel for questioning afterwards. Welcome. All right. Could you, are you prepared, Ms. Kemp? Okay. Yeah, I'm going this, so I'm reading it. Okay. Please introduce yourself and begin.

Thank you, Ms. Kemp. Let's see. Amelia Schechter, please. Welcome. I thought I got it. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Oh, thank you so much, Mr. Jector. Ms. Nutter? Welcome.

You rehearsed that.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Deborah Kapiloff, and I am a policy advisor with Western Resource Advocates. I'm here today to testify in support of SB 102, and I thank Senator Kipp for bringing this timely bill forward. Utilities across the state have been inundated with requests to interconnect large load data centers, but the state has not established protections to ensure that existing utility customers are not bearing the costs. SB 102 recognizes that data centers are coming to Colorado and provides a path forward that will ensure that large data center development advances climate goals, follows best water use practices, minimizes air pollution, and doesn't add costs for other utility rate payers. SB 102 will establish critical guardrails, ensuring that when large data centers come to Colorado, they do so in a manner that is consistent with priorities of environmental stewardship, consumer protection, and advancing innovative clean energy technologies. This bill requires large data centers to commit to long-term contracts to receive service and ensures through those contracts that they pay their own way. SB102 also safeguards Colorado's air quality by requiring that data center backup generators employ advanced pollution control technology. And SB102 drives clean energy generation forward by requiring data centers to bring additional clean resources that will help Colorado's power sector transition away from fossil fuels so that we are able to continue on a path to meet our utility sector climate targets. Putting the framework established by SB102 into place will signal that Colorado data centers should be powered by clean generation. and that utilities and data centers working together can bring innovative resources online. This is already happening in other places, and for example, NV Energy is developing 150 megawatts of advanced geothermal for Google in Nevada. I urge committee members to consider how Colorado can meet the moment by ensuring data centers in the state develop responsibly. Thanks again to Senator Kipp for bringing this bill forward, and thank you, committee members, for your attention.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for Ms. Kaploff. I just asked the sponsor of the bill about use by right. And in that question, we use that. I'm a former county commissioner in Logan County. We use use by right very carefully and responsibly in most counties. And I just wanted to hear your answer to that question. Why not have the use by right?

Okay.

Ms. Nutter. Thank you for that question, Senator Pelton. Yes, green energy tax incentives are kind of in a different category of tax incentives here because when we have to look at tax incentives, again, like I said, we have to look at effectiveness, efficiency, and return on investment. Things like green energy tax incentives that are incentivizing industries that are extremely high, they have very high capital costs, startup costs, and a lot of those industries because we're trying to create new energy that has not been created in Colorado before, like wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, et cetera, the cost of actually creating those industries here is really, really high. We have other reasons for why we want to incentivize industries like green energy. They have other unintended externalities that we think are positive for the state. Less pollution, more jobs, things like that. There are other externalities that are these positive externalities when compared to things like data centers that have a lot of negative externalities. And so in combination with those, we have to look at things like the but for. Would this industry have come to Colorado but for these incentives? In a lot of cases with things like geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, they do meet that but for analysis. And we incorporate that analysis into a lot of what the Office of the State Auditor does when they review tax incentives too. but that is really something that we look at and we do look at things like green energy incentives and we did help amend those bills to make them more targeted

Ms. Nutter. Thank you for the question. Data centers do bring in local property tax revenue. That is true. But again, subsidies for these industries in other states at the state level have shown these ballooning costs with states across the country seeing revenue loss spikes of over 1,000% from what they anticipated. If the state has a bad budget year, that austerity is not restricted just to the state. That flows through to local counties and school districts as well. And because our property taxes are some of the lowest in the country, the benefit is not as big as it would be in other states. But what I will say is that in Colorado, because we have Tabor and because we have this restrictive state system, we have to be really, really concerned about what we are giving away at the state level because that also impacts local level. Half of our school funding comes from state dollars. And so when we give away tax incentives at the state level, that does flow through to local counties as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure who mentioned it, but conditional use of tax incentives. I don't know if that was in Kathy's opening statements, but can anybody address that?

I think maybe I had responded to one of Senator Pelton's questions about special or conditional use zoning, but I don't know that anyone spoke to conditional tax incentives.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Julian Aguilar, and I'm a second-generation member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 68. We are here today in strong opposition to Senate Bill 102. We feel this bill is an economic opportunity loss for our members. I'm a journeyman electrician and have been in the trade for 17 years. I've built small-scale data centers like the Sycamore and Blue Marlin Projects in Aurora. And me and my wife were able to afford a family due to this economic opportunity. We had to do IVF and as everybody in this room knows that's not cheap, right? And our union doesn't cover that. So being able to work on a project like this data center, it was, I was able to make enough money to be able to provide for my family. My dad also works at a data center down in Highlands Ranch and makes a really good wage. But at the end of the day, we don't want to see more of our members go to Wyoming where they're currently paying Denver Journey Worker Scale and we have multiple members already working up there. We feel this bill would push them to do so due to lack of economic opportunity here in Colorado. We ask for a No vote on Senate Bill 102.

Hello Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Jose Soto. I am a proud Colorado native and 20 year member of LAUNA, the Labor's International Union of North America. My union membership has provided me the opportunity to work, live and raise my family here. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning data center development within our state. is a critical issue that directly impacts the economic well-being of our members and their families. Laona Labor's Local 720 represents over 1,700 hard-working men and women across the state of Colorado. We are construction craft laborers. We are a skilled and trained workforce. You can find us building Colorado's roads, bridges, buildings, as well as its energy and renewable energy infrastructure. Our organization supports legislation that makes high labor standard central to any data center development, these facilities represent significant long-term investments and they must contribute to the creation of quality jobs. Since data centers require a highly skilled construction workforce, adopting robust safety and registered apprenticeship requirements is the investment that Coloradans are looking for. We are deeply concerned that overly restrictive and over-regulated legislation targeting data centers could devastate job creation and economic growth in our Colorado communities. Data centers represent one of the largest private sector infrastructure development in decades providing thousands of good paying skilled union jobs for construction workers. While we understand the need to address community concerns related to energy use, water and environmental impacts, excessive regulations or moratoriums risk choking off this vital industry just as it is poised to deliver significant employment opportunities and local economic benefits. Many data centers in other states have already adopted reasonable practices including using renewable energy, minimizing water impacts, and working under local project labor agreements that ensure fair wages and training pipelines for workers in Colorado. For these reasons we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sergio Cordova I a business agent with Pife Fiddles Locotoid Denver Pife Fiddles Locotoid strongly opposes Senate Bill 102 This legislation is deeply flawed and poses a direct and serious threat to the Colorado economy workforce and future competitiveness While we support responsible policies and encourage data centers to develop alongside strong labor and environmental standards, Senate Bill 102 does the opposite. It creates the most burdensome and restrictive regulatory framework in the nation and one that will drive investments, jobs, and opportunities out of Colorado and to our neighboring states like Wyoming. The economic consequences of this bill cannot be overseeded. Senate Bill 102 puts a risk between $2.5 to $5.1 billion in construction wages and benefits for Colorado workers. These are not abstract numbers. These are real careers, real families, and real opportunities that will be lost. Instead of strengthening the workforce, this bill will force skilled tracements to leave the state in search of work. It would also severely limit the ability to train our next generation of apprentices, further deepening Colorado's already critical skill labor shortage. Equally troubling is the bill's failure to include meaningful incentives for development. It claims to support labor standards, yet burdens projects with such excessive costs and regulatory hurdles that those standards become meaningless. Promises of prevailing wage and apprenticeship opportunities bring hollow in projects that never break grounds in Colorado. The energy provisions of 102 also is unworkable by demanding exclusive reliance on renewable energy and imposing rigid hourly matching requirements of the bill and flexibility. provisions ignore practical, exclude other viable clean energy technologies and ultimately jeopardizes billions of dollars of potential workers.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Andrew Frank. I'm a third generation member of Plumbers Local 3 here in Denver, Colorado. I'm a business agent and organizer. Plumbers Local 3 is adamantly against Senate Bill 26-102. This legislation will negatively impact our members along with other skilled trade workers in Colorado by risking between $2.5 billion in construction wages and benefits for Colorado workers. These wages which are spent by Colorado workers in Colorado communities impacting not only just the people in our communities but as they are going to and from work and spending these dollars in our communities and gas stations and restaurants and et cetera. are all viable dollars being spent in our communities. Colorado skilled workers could be forced due to some of the regulations in this to seek work elsewhere such as Wyoming and surrounding areas where data center work is plentiful. These states are actively incentivizing data centers in their areas. Additionally we are concerned with the regulatory oversight forces data centers through most of the most burdensome regulatory process for data centers in the nation involving multiple agencies, PUC, CDPHE, DOLA, local governments. This is the law you write if you never want data centers to develop in Colorado. We're also concerned with project delays and cost escalation over complex regulations would delay timelines and obstacles and significantly increase development costs, e.g. mandate battery backup requirements could add hundreds of millions of dollars to project costs. Unnecessary model codes, mandates of DOLA to develop unnecessary new model energy codes despite data centers already complying with existing building codes and permitting standards Excessive environmental authority Grants CPDHE board authority over cumulative impacts despite data centers generally having lower emissions than major industrial sources

I'm pretty bougie, so I need a fancy one. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. My name is Jeremy Ross, Assistant Business Manager for IBW 111. We're here to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 102. Our main concern is power and how these facilities are going to be powered. We want to make sure that utilities have an opportunity to service their service areas as these facilities are put in their areas, and the 100% renewable requirement is problematic and expensive. We also believe that it's overly burdensome and could potentially prevent some of these facilities from being built. So these hyperscale data centers, you know, a lot of them are upwards of 100 megawatts for a single data center. And if you're talking about 100 megawatts of renewable power being developed at two to five acres per megawatt of solar, that's, you know, a large swath of land that needs to be used just for the solar. I just think that it's problematic on its face. and we believe that the utilities that have had the service area and have been servicing those areas for a number of years should have an opportunity to provide those. And many of these utilities employ our members. They have very long track records of paying very good wages and health care benefits and retirement benefits to working-class families in Colorado, and that's all across Colorado. A lot of times these utilities are providing the best paying jobs in a rural community, and we want to make sure that they continue to have the opportunity to do that, that our members continue to have the opportunity to power Colorado in its future. Thank you.

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for taking time out of work to come down here and speak with us. Mr. Soto, you talked about your members and coworkers heading off to Wyoming. Can you kind of expand a little bit on that? Was that you, Mr. Aguilar? You talked about Wyoming? Okay. Can you maybe expand on that and talk about the $100 billion projects that are going on in Wyoming right now? And can you talk about are we losing our skilled workers? are they leaving the state? Yeah, definitely.

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that. Mr. Cordova, we've heard a lot about, I mean, he just talked about the different jobs that are happening right when plants are being built, when the centers are being built. Can you talk about the permanent jobs, the residual jobs that will be there afterwards, the ones that people will be able to have careers on and raise families in those areas? Mr. Cordova.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Senator Winstead.

Mr. Cordova. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Nonset, that's a great question. I've been in the office for seven years, and before I was in the field for 20 years, and we've been building some of the all kinds of systems, closed-loop, open-loop systems. The last ones in the last 10 to 12 years have been closed-loop systems. Once you fill the system up with water, whatever how many thousands of gallons that system needs, it's a one-time use of water, and that water just circulates and cools the whole place. So there's no water loss. There's no water loss daily or nothing like that. It's just a closed system that recycles the water through the whole system. So that's a basic, simple.

Okay. Let's see, Senator Gonzalez?

And I think from my perspective, when both state legislators and city council, even XL was like, at this meeting. I am curious at what point do we say, hold on, this is a lot happening real fast. And I actually appreciate the seeing that Logan County has put forward this to say, under these conditions, this is how, this is when, and this is not. So I'm curious for y'all's perspective, because I think there is a difference between a ban and a moratorium, and I also don't think that this legislation is a moratorium. But I would be curious for your perspectives on that question, as we're all trying here to grapple and figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time. Who wants to tackle that? All right, Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Senator. So IBW has 180 electricians on that project that you're talking about right now. and when you hear the word moratorium we don't know what that means right at this point they're still trying to draft whatever that moratorium is going to look like but for my members i got multiple phone calls saying do i have a job still am i going to go on to the next phase is does this mean that 180 electricians just electricians on that project and it's a small scale data center right does that mean they have a place to go to work tomorrow or the next day or next week or next year. We partner with our contractor association in order to get the work. We provide the workers to perform that work. So it makes it very hard for us to know how many people we need to organize because all of a sudden in the construction industry, you don't just say, all right, we're going to go to a different project. You get laid off. So those people don't have jobs anymore. So I think that's the real concern here. And I know the bill doesn't say it's a ban or moratorium, but effectively that's what it creates. Because there's going to be this maze that the contractor has to go through or the constructor, I should say, that has to go through in order to build a project like this. And they're not going to come to Colorado. They're going to stay in Wyoming. They're going to go to Utah. They're going to go to Arizona. They're going to go to Idaho. So. Okay, Senator Pelton. Oh, I apologize. Mr Ross Yeah if I could just add one thing to that You said it happens you know that this project happened to community and not with community All of these projects go through local planning and zoning and permitting processes And you know if an area decides they don want the project or the city decides they just don permit the thing right I mean they have the ability to do that through local control And so why Denver didn't do it on that project? I don't know. Why city council didn't get involved in the planning and permitting process? I don't know. It's become a big issue now because data centers have become the big talking point nationally. And so now it's getting blown up. But it didn't get blown up during the planning and permitting process. Senator Gantzoss. Thank you. We have 25 seconds. Sorry. Just briefly, I will say that actually because it was used by right, there wasn't a requirement for permitting. So that's why it's happening to, not with. But I appreciate the point. Okay. I'm sorry. We only have six seconds. Oh, sorry, Senator Pelton. Okay. There will likely be more labor folks you can ask. All right, thank you all very, very much for your time and your testimony today. And let's see, we have a panel now of, oh, George Marlin, Anita Seitz, Katie First, and Matt Schur. All right, everyone's getting settled, but Mr. Marlin, if you're ready, you can go ahead and start your two minutes. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is George Marlin. I'm a Clear Creek County Commissioner, speaking in amend position on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, as well as my constituents, who can neither afford delays in climate progress or increased energy rates associated with unfettered data center development. Construction of AI data centers is spurring a rush to construct new natural gas power plants. The U.S. tripled its planned gas-fired capacity in 2025 to serve this industry's projected needs at a time when we should be transitioning to renewable energy. Colorado shows signs of joining this rush. The PUC just approved an Excel Energy request to acquire new gas resources. We are also seeing pressure to keep coal plants online past retirement dates to meet the energy demand for data centers. In the midst of this rush to build new gas, Colorado is wrapping up its warmest winter on the 131-year record. The ground in much of Clear Creek County never froze this year in spite of our mountainous terrain. As I speak to this community, our county manager is among many in my community that remain without power because of tree falls caused by this winter's unduly warm temperatures and extreme wind events. A commissioner is leading a group of volunteers to help get people reconnected We must do everything we can to ensure that Colorado does not contribute to worsening climate change This means basing data center energy on renewable resources not natural gas We are in an amend position on this bill, due in part to continued conversations about its renewable energy requirements. I strongly urge that this percentage of renewable energy required for data centers not decrease below the requirements for everything else in the state of Colorado, which must reach 80% renewable energy by 2030 in statute. Thank you for your time, and I welcome questions. Well done on time. Thank you, Mr. Merlin. Ms. First. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, committee members. My name is Katie First. I'm the legislative director for Colorado Counties, Inc., the Association of Colorado's County Commissioners. We are in an amend position as well on this bill, and we've had very good productive conversations with the sponsors and the proponents about these, but did want to flag a couple things for you all. One is, as Senator Pelton, you've discussed, the prohibition on utilizing a use by right for the permission of data centers. I think a use by right is a really tricky thing for counties. We've seen quite a few bills come through these last few years, even this session about requiring things get used as a use by right. It's just a tricky business for counties, right? When you have a statewide prohibition on something, either way, it gets hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube if that ever does need to occur for land use purposes. Also have quite a bit of feedback about the model codes that are prescribed by DOLA, but I think due to fiscal constraints, that's going to be an entirely separate conversation. And also kind of the same wrapping our heads around the renewable energy requirements, what that means for our county processes for renewable energy siting and related. And then lastly, the portion about disproportionately impacted communities, what that means for counties. In the event that there is not a disproportionately impacted community to negotiate right, we're always going to keep in mind and mitigate those impacts but there might not necessarily be in every community those organized groups to form a community benefit agreement and what happens in those cases. Happy to answer any questions and thanks for being here today. Thank you so much Ms. First. Let's see, any of the sites? Welcome Ms. Seitz. Thank you. Hello Chair and Committee and thank you for your consideration on this important topic. My name is Anita Seitz, and I am the Advocacy Director for CC4CA, a coalition of 48 local governments from across Colorado. Collectively, our members represent a third of the state's population. We are in an amend position on Senate Bill 102. Our amendments ask for language that ensures that data center operators would be responsible for the costs of public hearings and the development of community benefit agreements to ensure that local governments also to ensure that local governments continue to have regulatory authority and that it's expanded for regulation on noise and then that the bill contemplates some additional protections for DI communities but we'd like for local governments to be able to expand those protections to all portions of their community. Our members want to enhance water resource conservation And our members realized that current energy requirements contemplated in the bill such as hourly matching may be challenging at this time But as we look for additional flexibility on the energy portion we do not want to undermine the state current climate or emission reduction targets that we as a coalition helped pass Finally, we'd like to see enhanced language that supports labor provisions. Our members have concerns regarding the rapid development of data centers in our states. While we value economic opportunity and urge you to establish regulations that mitigate data centers' negative impacts on our climate, energy costs, air quality, and water resources. These intensive data centers are causing a massive increase in demand for electricity and water. You've heard from some of our colleagues about the concerns here, but we also want to make sure you're aware we are concerned about unregulated diesel backup generators and the cooling and powering of these centers. Thank you, Ms. Sides. Thank you. Is METSCHER online? It doesn't seem so. Okay. Committee, any questions for this panel? Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. First, when we were talking about local land use and the floor aspect of it, the model codes are going to be very difficult, which I'm very well aware of that. When you were in the big room, and I call it the big room, having this discussion, was there a lot of angst coming with this, with that section of the bill? Ms. First. Thank you, Madam Chair. confirming that you're discussing specifically angst about the model codes portion. Thanks for the head knot. Frankly, and I hope that it's okay with the sponsors that I say this, we had kind of initial conversations, and I had some feedback on the model codes language. My initial feedback, too, was like, can we make it very explicitly clear that no one is expected to adopt these and that those would be a floor rather than a ceiling for local governments? and should be a tool for local governments, not a mandate. And my kind of conversation with the sponsors and the proponents was a concern about the fiscal note that DOLA would put on that and being able to secure sufficient resources to actually put forward that model code. And so I shared that with the commissioners when it came up that that is also very likely to probably come out because of the fiscal constraints. It did come up some concerns for that, but I think some other counties were like, that would be a great tool for us to have for our awareness because this is a new emerging technology that we just don't know about. Any further questions? No? All right. Thank you both so much. Well, all three of you, if you missed sites, thank you for being here. And let's see. The next panel will be Harmony Cummings, Jim Marshall, Steve Schwartz, and Alana Miller. Shout out to my constituents, Steve Schwartz. All right, Ms. Miller, welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alana Miller and I am the Colorado Policy Director for NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council. We strongly support this bill as smart and reasonable data center policy. New data centers are not the quiet server rooms of a decade ago. These are industrial-scale facilities that consume as much electricity as a mid-sized city. Without a clear framework, there are real risks. costs will be shifted onto everyday customers, there will be pressure to build new fossil generation, and communities will be left with all of the impacts and none of the benefits. SB102 does not stop data center development. It establishes reasonable rules of the road. If grid upgrades are needed to serve a large data center, those costs should be borne by the customer, not a school teacher in Aurora. If a data center brings new demand onto the system, it should help drive new clean energy resources rather than consuming clean energy that Coloradans have already paid for. And communities that host these facilities deserve a voice in the process. Some stakeholders have questions about the clean energy provisions, about what is technically achievable, and on what timeline. We take those concerns seriously and are committed to working with the sponsors and stakeholders to ensure that these requirements are strong and workable. What we cannot accept is letting data centers undermine the emissions reductions and clean energy progress that Colorado has already made. My colleague just sent me a story from Vineland, New Jersey, a city of about 62,000 people about the size of Broomfield or Castle Rock. They just got a 300 megawatt data center, which is twice as much energy as the city uses. It is being powered almost entirely outside of the utility's power by gas engines, Not even turbines, these are engines that are typically used on ships. SB-102 is designed to be a framework to avoid that situation. It's a framework where the best actors win, and Colorado has a real opportunity to build a modern, reliable, clean grid. Thank you so much. Steve Schwartz, please introduce yourself and begin. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Steve Schwartz, and I'm a volunteer advocate for AARP Colorado. We represent about 670,000 Coloradans across the state, and we're asking you to support Senate Bill 102. Colorado's utility system was designed during a period of gradual and predictable growth, but large data centers are different. They arrive suddenly, requiring enormous amounts of electricity, and often demand expensive infrastructure to support them, new substations, transmission lines, generation capacity. That creates a fundamental challenge because our system was built on the simple principle the cost should be fairly allocated among those who benefit. But when a single massive user enters the system, the balance can break down. Costs tied to new infrastructure, peak demand, or even failed investments would be shifted onto residential and small business customers with the offsetting protections included in Senate Bill 102. 102 recognizes that utilities are public regulated monopolies. Consumers cannot shop for electricity, and the Public Utilities Commission is the only line of defense against cough shifting. 102 gives the PUC clear direction to ensure that large load customers like data centers pay the full cost that they impose. For older Coloradans and families struggling with affordability, the math adds up in one place, the monthly bill. Senate Bill 102 ensures that those who create costs are responsible for them and that everyday customers are protected. We take no position on the clean energy components of this bill as they are outside the scope of AARP policy. Thank you and we ask your support. Thank you very much Let see who we have online Miss Cummings please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes Hi my name is Harmony I stand here at the Coresight Data Center Development right there and 75 feet from where they building a nursing home an apartment and in health care clinic a park and so on There was no public engagement until after permitting was done. Right there are 14 backup diesel generators. They couldn't be closer to the nursing home. There are more regulations for a swing set in a park than these generators. Communities need a true seat at the table. And Coloradans need transparency around modern electricity. Over there, Excel is building a substation touching the oil train. Excel said the substation is due to portable housing, but it seems more substantial is foresight at 18 megawatts. Excel will not show us the demand projection. Who pays the cost for the substation? It seems the rate payers. More residential users are already being charged triple rates in peak hours, and large loans have a special lower non-disclosed economic development rate. jobs. Both of these projects create construction jobs, but the nursing home will create scores of long-term jobs based on systems of care instead of systems of corporate greed. I advocate for the megawatt minimum to be lower to 18 to add protections for communities like ours, already one of the most polluted in the country. We do not know what we do not know about the impacts of things like infrared sound, evaporation, magnetic fields, and facilities at this scale at close proximity. I invited each of you to come and experience this firsthand and none even responded. I know schedules are busy, but this is a standing invitation and we will work with you. It's imperative for decision makers to see this as the consequences of your decisions will be hyperscale and long lasting. Water, close loop systems use less, but the real water drain is in the water created to create the energy to power these data centers. Water used to the point of extinction forever removed from our hydrological cycle. It's 20 degrees hotter now. Will it be 20 degrees hotter in July? And nuclear is not the answer. Thank you so much, Ms. Cummings. Mr. Marshall, please introduce yourself. You'll have two minutes. Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Jim Marshall, and I am chair of the Cleantech Business Coalition here in Grand Junction. I'm speaking today in strong support of Senate Bill 102. Just a couple weeks ago, I was in Denver with the E2 delegation meeting with legislators on this very issue, and I am glad to have the opportunity to testify today. Energy bills in Colorado are already rising at nearly twice the rate of inflation, and Excel Energy recently proposed yet another 10% increase. My neighbors, my colleagues, and I simply cannot absorb more. And without this bill, we will be asked to subsidize the infrastructure costs of a booming data center industry that can and should pay its own way. S-Bill 102 fixes that. It explicitly requires that any new infrastructure costs, generation, transmission, and distribution needed to serve large data centers must be paid by the data centers themselves, not passed on to Colorado rate payers. That's only fair. This bill also requires clean energy sourcing and brings long overdue transparency to water use. Data centers consume enormous amounts of water for cooling. Yet right now, there is little to no public reporting on it. In a state where water is precious, Coloradans deserve to know. This bill protects ratepayers, creates good family-sustaining jobs in an already robust clean energy economy, and protects the air we breathe. At a time when the federal government is stepping back from clean energy Colorado has the opportunity and the responsibility to lead I respectfully ask that you vote yes on SBIL 102 Thank you Well, thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. Committee, any questions for this panel? Yes, Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cummings, for your testimony. It is good to see you. I'd like to understand if you can help us elaborate on what permitting core site specifically submitted as part of or prior to their building process. Ms. Cummings. Thank you, Chair. I cannot fully answer that question because this is at industrial use. there was no notice to the public at all. What we were told time and time again, because this is industrial and right by use, that they didn't have to tell us anything. We didn't find out about the project until all the permits were done. And there was no avenue for true community engagement. Thank you. All right, I have a question for Ms. Miller. There was some talk before about the, on a couple, like a panel ago, about water use. Can you speak to how, I mean, is it, let me, two parts, I guess. Is it universal that all data centers are essentially going to use water the same way? And is it all just, you know, circular and they just keep using the same water and hardly make any impact? Can you speak to that? Thank you, Madam Chair. Admittedly, I focus mostly on climate and energy. so water might be better for a subsequent panel. My understanding is that we don't have a lot of visibility into how much water is being used and what the systems are, and so part of what this bill is seeking to do is to actually have transparency on that to help local governments make that decision, to help us as a state understand where our scarce water resources are going and how much is being used. Great, thank you. All right, no further questions. Thank you all for your time today. We appreciate it. And the next panel will be Sandra Higginsolen, Dan DiIorio, Michael Gifford, and Phil Hayes. Welcome. Should we start this way? Are you ready, Mr. Hayes? Oh, let's hear it. Ms. Solon. Perfect. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sandra Hagen-Solon. I'm here as director of the Data Grid Consortium, which is encompassed of Colorado headquartered data center developer and operators. Senate Bill 102 and House Bill 1030 have been framed as competing measures, One focused on guardrails and one focused on incentives, as though those goals are in some tension. The Data Grid Consortium opposes 102, not because accountability for this industry is wrong, but because it forecloses the very opportunity it claims to govern. Colorado is home to the headquarters of some of the largest data center developers and operators in the country. These companies with Colorado addresses, Colorado leadership, and deep groups in the state, and yet not one are building in Colorado. They're not investing here. Billion investments decisions are being made every quarter and they are pointed to Texas Arizona Kansas and Utah states that made a deliberate choice to compete In Wyoming billions of dollars in data center projects have been greenlit and are moving forward right now Skilled tradespeople are leaving Colorado for those projects today Colorado has the climate, the renewable energy, the workforce, the geography. What it has lacked is a competitive policy. 102 does not supply that. It deepens the deficit. 102 imposes obligations on an industry. It has no mechanism to attract. Environmental standards, however well-intentioned, cannot be enforced on facilities that are never built here. And we're talking at the larger scale. Under the policy environment 102 creates, operators will build elsewhere. And Colorado will collect no jobs, no tax revenue, and exercise no influence over how these facilities are built or how they operate. That is not a guardrail bill. That is a decision to cede the field. Consider what Colorado would miss under 102. There's a $4.5 billion transmission investment gap in the state. Under today's environment, closing that gap means touching every ratepayer's electric bill. An incentive framework creates a mechanism for the data center industry to fund that infrastructure as part of doing business in Colorado. The great investments Colorado needs regardless, paid for by industry rather than families. 102 has no such mechanism. It captures none of that investment. Thank you for your testimony. That was so fast. And we've got, I know. And please go ahead and introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Oh, on this base. Okay. I was going for the microphone. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Dan DiOrio, Vice President of State Policy for the Data Center Coalition, National Association for the Data Center Industry, including several members headquartered here in Colorado, here in a post-position on 102. Today, there's unprecedented demand for the digital services that have become central to our daily lives and modern economy. Everything from the way we work and learn to how we buy groceries, bank, and even access medical care occurs now online. The average household has 21 connected devices and consumers and businesses will generate twice as much data in the next five years as we did in the previous ten. Data centers are the essential digital infrastructure behind every online purchase, every telehealth appointment, every online news article, and every digital classroom. It's a critical component of our global economic competitiveness and keeping Coloradans' data safe and secure domestically. Data centers prioritize investments in local communities by catalyzing supply chain and service ecosystems, creating jobs for thousands of construction professionals as facilities are built and quality high wage jobs to support ongoing operations. For every one job in the data center, six jobs are supported elsewhere in the economy. Data centers are amongst the most efficient water users in the economy, using less water than semiconductor manufacturing, food and beverage production, and water that was lost to utility water leakage. In Virginia, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission found that 83% of data centers use as much water, if not less, than a large commercial office building that data center water use is sustainable. Data centers catalyze clean energy development representing half of all corporate contract of renewable energy in the U.S. in 2024 and 84% of all contract of corporate renewable energy in the first half of 2025. The data center industry is committed to paying our full cost of service for electricity. Lawrence Berkeley National Labs found that the biggest factor for rising cost is infrastructure, poles, wires, and of course in the West, wildfire mitigation. We are actively and proactively engaging utilities, regulators, operators and others on tariffs, contracts, and policies that ensure proper cost allocation. We are ready to be a partner on responsible and sustainable development in Colorado, but Senate Bill 102 would close off Colorado for development by the industry. Thank you. Thank you very much. And welcome, Mr. Gifford. Please begin. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Gifford, and I'm Advocacy Director for Associated General Contractors of Colorado. we have 650 members in the state and 28,000 members nationally that are commercial general contractors and specialty contractors and suppliers. And we are the collective bargaining group with Labor's Local 720 that was sitting here earlier. And I want to expand a little bit on their very good testimony on the effects on our workforce in our state. Construction employment overall in Colorado is down from a high of 187,000 a couple years ago to 184,000 now, a little less than 2% drop. And, you know, we started looking at why, and the most reliable data source that we have is net migration, and specifically net domestic migration was a high recently of 70,000 in 2010, and last year in 2025 it was negative 12,000. That's an 82,000 delta. And so people are now voting with their feet and their dollars to leave Colorado at a greater rate than they're coming in versus 10 years ago. And if you took the data center construction that's currently taking place in Colorado out of the mix, if you could magically do that, that drop would be even greater. We also, as an industry, don't want to see our labor force go to Wyoming or go to Utah. Other areas that we've regulated, like apartments, we've seen that construction market go down by as much as 40%, and that business go to Salt Lake City. And so we just want to respectfully ask our state to be careful what we ask for in terms of regulation of data centers over other large loads like advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, bioscience. Thank you very much, Mr. Gifford. Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Phil Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Voice of God, hello. Phil Hayes representing the National Electrical Contractors Association and the Western Line Contractors Association. We work with our partners at IBW to build Colorado's utility and construction infrastructure on the electrical side of the industry. We oppose this bill for a couple reasons. First, we do not believe the 100% renewable requirement with hourly matching is technically feasible. I found it ironic that someone in the first panel stole the virtues of geothermal. Folks, geothermal is not renewable. That is a clean, firm technology. We would love to build geothermal in Colorado, and we think that clean, firm technology should be applied to data centers, nuclear, gas with CCUS, obviously geothermal, and any other technology that's a viable baseload, distributable, dispatchable form of power generation. Secondly, we see these buildings are high-performing facilities. They have to maintain power through any storm, any blackout. They cannot be interrupted. Millions and millions of dollars have lost revenue for the business. If that occurs, generally there is some form of battery backup and some type of diesel generation. We think the right call is to have level four diesel emissions. Obviously, if the stationary sources on site require an air permit, we support making those facilities go through that. But you know as the person who wrote the two laws in Colorado that deal with apprenticeship utilization and prevailing wage I do not believe the provisions in this law are legal Fundamentally when you have a private business that is you know agreeing with the state to have prevailing wages and apprenticeship utilization requirements, there has to be a public... All right, we're going to go on to questions now. Thank you. Committee, I saw Senator Baisley first. Mr. Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair. And for any of you and all of you, good to see you, Senator. It makes sense to me that the demand is going to be met, that the data centers are going to be built. They'll either be built in outskirts around Colorado or they'll be built here creating jobs for Coloradans. Do I have that right? They're going to be built. having laws that regulate them out of existence or chase them away, simply chase them away, they're still going to be built. Is that right? Okay, who is that directed to? Please, yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, yes, that's true. We are in an unprecedented era of demand growth for digital infrastructure. As I mentioned, the average household, 21 connected devices, Everything that we do today requires digital infrastructure. The demand is there. The industry is building out to meet that demand as fast as it can. All indications are that we are behind. Colorado, I think, has unique benefits to it in terms of its workforce, in terms of its land and its energy mix. However, it is not yet a destination for data center development. So I think it is a question of if it's going to be built, we should want it being built here in Colorado. and that's our biggest concern with the bill is that that won't happen under 102. All right, thank you. Senator Catlin. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for you, Mr. Hayes. You didn't quite get to finish what you were saying. I was hoping maybe you could flesh out what you were saying at the end of your testimony. Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity to finish my sentence. The point I was trying to make, Senator Catlin, is when you apply labor standards under the law on a private project, there has to be a public skin in the game, as it were. When you look at the way the law is structured right now for public projects, obviously that's a tax expenditure to build something on behalf of either a state department or an institution of higher education. So that makes sense. In 2023, we passed a law that says that if the public investment through a utility, a regulated utility, or an REA, is put forth, then you have some ability, the state has some ability to essentially say you're going to pay prevailing wages, you're going to use contractors, if available, that have a registered apprenticeship program for high-quality training. what 102 essentially says is that you're requiring a private company to do things that we support paying prevailing wages and train people and apprentice but because there's no tax incentive no public skin in the game we don't believe it's legal and the the the risk for my clients and for ibw partners is that we pass the most onerous piece of legislation regulatory legislation in the entire country for data centers, and then if someone legally challenges the provisions that would provide prevailing wages and apprenticeship utilization, then we're doubly screwed because we're not going to have the ability to attract businesses to the state. And at the same time the things that really benefit a high construction in terms of training and good wages and benefits will potentially have been kicked out in the courts And so I mean that our concern with this bill and you know that something that we you know that's why we think an incentive is very... Thank you, Mr. Hayes. We have a minute and a half left and four people that want to ask questions. So, Senator Gonzalez, please go and everyone be as quick as possible. Thank you. Permission to dialogue with Ms. Solon? Please, feel free. Thank you. Can you give me a sense of what Data Grids Consortium is? We are a coalition. Sorry, I can't hear you. Thank you. We're a coalition of data center developer operators that are headquartered here in Colorado. We have eight headquartered facilities or companies here. Can you give me a list of who? When I look on the Secretary of State, it just says Data Grids Consortium, group of persons, 244 Clayton, Denver. What is the coalition? We are a coalition of Crusoe, Tract, Vantage, and a few others, a couple of others. Can I get the whole list, please? We will provide you a list of those who wish to be shared. Wait, are there people who do not wish to be shared as part of your coalition that you're representing today? We have not had that conversation. I'm happy to share with you who are members of the consortium. It is the, okay, yes, I will provide you a list. Thank you. That's right away. All right, thank you. We are out of time for questions. Apologies. We're going to save them for the next panel. That's quite all right. So thank you all for your time today. And just a reminder, if we can move through as quickly as possible so everyone gets to ask some questions, that would be great. I know it's hard. Lots of questions. Panel of Tony Larson, Will Tour, Aaron Ray, and Lori Anderson. I see Director Tour. Good afternoon. Mr. Ray, do you want to get started while everyone else comes along? Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Ray. I serve as Director of Policy in the Department of Natural Resources. As introduced, SB 26102 establishes a new regulatory framework for large load data centers and requires the Department of Local Affairs to publish model codes for the development of these data centers. In developing those model codes, DOLO would be required to engage with DNR, and DNR divisions regularly consult with other public bodies in the development of codes, and the department welcomes the opportunity to lend our expertise in support of good code development. For example, our Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division frequently provides comments at the request of local governments developing or updating land use codes. DNR also appreciates that the legislative declaration recognizes that siting and development of new large load data centers can result in habitat loss and fragmentation. We also note that the definition of cumulative impacts in the bill includes resources for which DNR has an obligation to protect, including water, climate, and wildlife. There are a few areas which we believe the bill could be strengthened. First, we believe that consultation between infrastructure developers and DNR can serve to identify impacts to natural resources and strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts. The department would welcome amendments to the bill that would require consultation with DNR on impacts to natural resources. DNR also has a number of recommendations related to water provisions of the bill. In general it would be valuable to give water utilities equal footing as energy utilities in the bill including the development and reporting phases of projects We also recommend clarifying the definitions of a high water use facility and water usage effectiveness Finally the bill could include measures to hold facilities accountable for reducing water usage, in addition to simply requiring reporting of water usage. In summary, the Department appreciates the committee considering this important issue. We stand ready to engage on any potential amendments that would strengthen protections for natural resources. With that, I'd like to thank the committee and be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. Director Tour. Thank you, Chairwoman Cutter and members of the committee. My name is Will Tour, and I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Energy Office. I'm here today in an amend position on Senate Bill 102. I'd like to thank Senator Kipp for her leadership on this issue. The Energy Office strongly supports the bill's core objectives, ensuring that large load facilities don't shift infrastructure costs onto existing utility customers and advancing our state's transition to a clean energy economy. We appreciate the focus on ensuring responsible energy procurement and environmental stewardship. However, as currently drafted, the bill contains a couple of provisions that we believe could inadvertently stall economic development in Colorado. First, we believe that one of the biggest opportunities that data centers provide is the potential of co-investment in emerging clean energy technologies that provide lower or zero carbon emissions, but also firm dispatchable generation. There are examples of this, such as Google's investment in geosermal in Nevada, and the recent partnership between Google and Accel Energy in Minnesota to bring a billion dollars of investment in long-duration iron-air batteries. The bill, as written, focuses on requiring data centers to be fully powered by hourly match renewable. We believe there could be greater benefit to an approach which encourages co-investment in clean firm generation. In addition, while we agree that the new generation for data centers should not jeopardize progress towards state greenhouse gas pollution goals, the current language we think is unrealistically strict. The bill requires zero incremental emissions from new data centers. We do not hold any other new loads to this standard. Instead, our clean energy planning framework is focused on reducing emissions across the utility system as load continues to grow for many reasons. A standard that is too tight could incentivize new load to move to other nearby states with sturdier grids, which would increase total emissions. We think there could be an alternative approach. Thank you so much. Working with the sponsors. Thank you. All right. Tony Larson, please introduce yourself and begin. And I want to know, we've pulled up Matt Schur to add him to this panel as well. He was not online earlier. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Toni Larson, and I'm testifying on behalf of the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to informing voters, encouraging civic engagement, and influencing public policy. The League is generally in favor of SB 26102, but takes an amend position urging a few key additions. First, a universal environmental impact analysis to apply to all proposed data center development, regardless of location. Second, the League requests to either prohibit data center development in disproportionately impacted communities or strengthen consent requirements to include review of major approval stages by third party. chosen by the affected community, 90 days advanced notice of public hearings in appropriate languages, informational materials based on independent assistance assessments, and granted affected communities more decision-making authority over proposed development. Third, the League requests a provision requiring disclosure of all chemicals used by data centers, including those discharged into the environment. Monitoring of air, water, and land for the effects of those chemicals during production, transportation, storage, use, and disposal. Noise pollution should be added to the disclosure list. And finally, the League asks that the sponsors consider prohibiting non-disclosure agreements to foster transparency and consider decoupling the act from any federal standards or lack thereof in place after December 31, 2025. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Larson. Ms. Anderson, Lori Anderson, please introduce yourself. them begin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to testify. My name is Lori Anderson, and I'm a council member for the city and county of Broomfield, speaking on behalf of my constituents. Data centers require enormous amounts of water to cool their servers. Colorado snowpack, on which our water supply depends, sits at near record lows. Broomfield issued a drought warning on February 9th, one of the earliest we've ever had to do, underscoring the seriousness of the crisis we are facing. Climate change means these shortages will only become more frequent. Where do data centers fit into this already water-starved ecosystem? That question is what leads to an amend position on this bill. I understand the sponsors are considering several amendments that would strengthen guardrails around data center water usage. I support these amendments, especially those addressing both water quality and water quantity. Importantly, data centers that recycle water using less overall instead contaminate the water that they do use with high levels of PFAS, forever chemicals, which must be periodically flushed. We must ensure that data centers do not threaten the viability of Colorado's water supply, whether by consumption or contamination. Brimfield has first-hand experience with industrial water contamination from oil and gas operations. Both industries create water quality challenges that local governments must manage, and both can leave communities with costly long-term consequences if guardrails aren't in place from the start. This bill does not yet address these water issues, but I believe with the aforementioned amendments, it will present reasonable guardrails for data centers. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Who else do we have? Matt Schur, are you there? Commissioner Schur, I apologize. Are you online? That's quite all right. I am. Welcome. Yeah, thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. And my apologies for being delayed. I am Ego County Commissioner Matt Schur, here to testify in an amend position on 102 and looking for additional protections for water resources that allow for flexibility on energy without undermining our state's existing climate and energy goals and that support the authority for local governments to have robust siting authority. Eagle County is not a strong candidate to site a data center so I hope our interest here highlights the statewide impacts of data centers Without regulation data centers pose a significant threat to our water energy climate and environmental justice goals As my county experiences the economic impact of a historically low snowpack and 70-degree weather today, I want to stress the importance of Colorado's commitment to our strong state emissions reduction and clean energy statutory goals. Data centers demand a huge amount of energy and water. Other states that earlier welcomed and incentivized data centers are now a cautionary tale. The nation is seeing an increase in coal electricity generation and climate emissions directly related to the rise of data centers. Residents and business owners are experiencing significant increases in their energy bills. Communities are forcibly pushing back on the siting of data centers, and support has dwindled as they prove to be noisy, dirty neighbors due to their use of backup generators. The good news is we can learn from their experiences and develop common-sense regulations that protect our residents and our environment. I and other local leaders recognize the potential economic opportunity that data centers may provide communities in Colorado, but this should not come at the expense of our communities, ratepayers, or the climate. Thank you again for hearing my comments. Thank you very much. Committee, any questions for this panel? Yes, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Larson from the League of Women Voters, still with us? I'm here. Ms. Larson. One of the, you made comments and you talked about, and I'm not sure exactly how you worded it, some kind of impacted communities. You said you didn't want it in certain communities. Do you recall that part at the beginning of your testimony? my question to you do you have a list of those communities can we see who it is that you don't want or where it is particularly in the state that you don't want this to happen Ms. Larson first of all it disproportionately affected communities and one of them has been mentioned for sure the one that's in north Denver in the area of Suncor and Purina. So I can get you a list of what we consider disproportionate communities. I don't have it in front of me. Okay. Okay, thanks. I'm going to ask a quick question to sneak one in. Director Tour, can you clarify? We heard that geothermal was not renewable energy, I think, earlier. Can you speak to that? So geothermal energy is considered renewable energy, certainly in our statutes under property taxation. I will have to review the statutory reference in this bill to see whether the statutory reference is to a definition that includes geothermal or whether it isn't. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Thank you, that's fair. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for this panel? All right, seeing none, thank you all so much for your time. Oh, I apologize. Senator Gonzalez is going to take us up on that. Thank you so much. And so I think the question that I want to understand because I have this data center people have been referring to the data center in the GES neighborhood in my Senate district that, again, my words, right, is happening to community and not with community. For you all as local government leaders, can you help us understand what existing permitting processes. You all already have. And to pick up on the question that Senator Pelton mentioned about the bill language on page 28 that said, local control except not used by right. Can you help us understand y'all's perspective on that language? Is that workable, or would you like to see that language amended, and if so, how? To whoever is the right person to respond to that. Thank you. Who would like to respond? No one wants to. Anyone have an answer for the senator? All right. I tried. All right. Good question. All right, then, if there's seeing no other questions. Oh, go ahead. No, okay. Seeing no other questions, thank you very much for your time and testimony this afternoon. I appreciate it. Have a good evening. All right. Can Howard Geller, Dr. Logan Harper, Commissioner Nina Waters, and Councillor Jean Lim please approach? Okay, we may have one in person. If Dr. Harper is here, please come forward. But let's go ahead and start with those of you up there. Let's see. How about Councillor Lim, if you would like to introduce yourself and begin. You have two minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. My name is Jean Lim, and I serve as the Mayor for TEM for the City and County of Broomfield. I am here on behalf of counties and commissioners acting together, not the City and County of Broomfield, to ask for your support for SB26102. It is essential that large load data center operators provide upfront payments or contracts with utilities of at least 15 years in order to weed out purely speculative proposals. Rate payers must be protected from the burden of extremely expensive stranded assets. I have heard from my senior constituents on fixed incomes that they are already stressed by increases in their energy utility bills. At a time when the state is facing a massive budget deficit, massive incentives for data operators make no sense to my constituents. With my background in protecting the health and safety of residents living near oil and gas developments I appreciate that SB 26102 aligns with Colorado strong clean energy goals and that backup generators must meet or exceed EPA Tier 4 final emission standards Disproportionately impacted communities should be supported in their need for a site analysis and notification requirements and other public hearings. As I end my time at the National League of Cities Conference, I can state that there is bipartisan recognition among our Colorado congressional delegation in addressing data centers that rate payers in Colorado must be protected, unlike other places across the nation where there is now community backlash. SB 26102 provides these necessary guardrails, and I ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Waters, are you ready? Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you so much, Chair. Can you all hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Nina Waters. I am a Summit County Commissioner, but also today I am representing the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality and Quantity Committee, also known affectionately as QQ. We are comprised of municipalities, counties, water and sanitation districts, and of course, conservancy districts located in Route, Grand, Summit, Eagle, Pitkin, and Gennison counties. Essentially, QQ encompasses all of the headwaters for most of Colorado and the western slope as well as the eastern slope. We are most impacted by, of course, Trans Mountain water diversions, which I'm sure you know much about. I'm here to express support if amended for SB 102. For some background, since it's inception since the 1970s, QQ's interest has been protecting and strengthening local authority. So local governments in our region have a say over the impacts of water projects or other large developments in their unique communities. Given the large amounts of water used by some data centers, QQ is concerned. Data center development and operations, especially on the Front Range, will increase water demands from our Colorado headwaters communities. For example, the Fraser River has approximately 60% of their stream flows diverted from the river. That's going to impact all of our local communities, including the one of Tabernash, who has a thriving angling and rafting community outfitters in their areas. At 60% of a diversion rate of the stream flow, the water simply is just not enough. And so this winter troubling snowpack is also a stark reminder that these supplies are limited and unlikely to increase in the future. So any additional water use in Colorado, especially on the eastern side of the divide, must be heavily scrutinized. For these reasons, QQ support state action to regulate water use of data centers. Thank you, Commissioner Waters. Thank you. Apologies. That's right. Thank you so much. Mr. Geller, if you're ready, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am Howard Geller, here today on behalf of the Energy Efficiency Business Coalition. We go by EEBC, a coalition of over 70 businesses and other organizations that manufacture, market, sell, and install energy efficiency measures in Colorado. EEBC supports Senate Bill 102 and Thanks, Senator Kipp, for bringing it forward. Data centers contain mostly IT equipment, but they also contain cooling, lighting, electrical, and power management equipment. SB102 will help to make this equipment as efficient as possible, thereby benefiting energy efficiency businesses along with renewable energy businesses in Colorado. These energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses are already responsible for over 70,000 jobs in the state. As the fact sheet produced by the organization E2 along with EEBC points out, this fact sheet has been provided to the committee members. Enacting SB 102 will help to grow this critical workforce. One more point, if I may. Energy efficiency businesses maintain offices, warehouses, and other facilities in Colorado. Requiring new large data centers to pay their own way for electricity will help to keep electricity prices as low as possible for energy efficiency and other small and medium-sized businesses in the state. SB 102 includes this important requirement. Please vote yes on SB 102. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Geller. And I see Dr. Harper has joined us here at the dais. Please introduce yourself. You'll have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Logan Harper, and I'm a family physician here in Denver and an advocate with Healthier and Water Colorado, and I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 102. As a physician, I see every day how environmental conditions shape my patient's health, and I'm concerned that without strong guardrails, data centers could worsen the very conditions that are already making people sick. These facilities require enormous amounts of electricity and water, and that means more strain on our grid, more pressure on our limited water supply, and without clear protections, more air pollution. And I can tell you even small increases in pollution have real consequences in my exam room. I think about one of my patients, an older woman with chronic lung disease who lived in a highly polluted neighborhood. She was hospitalized over and over again because she simply couldn't breathe, and eventually she chose hospice because her quality of life was so poor. Air pollution wasn't the only cause, but it's very likely that it made her condition worse and shortened her life. And that's what's at stake. We already know that pollution from fossil fuels and diesel generators increases asthma attacks, heart disease, and strokes. Ozone kills 800 Coloradans every year and brings up hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs in the process. And children, seniors, and communities that are already overburdened by pollution will be hit first and worst. Senate Bill 102 is about prevention. It ensures that large new energy users pay their own way, protects our air and water, and helps prevent avoidable harms before it shows up in my exam room. So as physicians, we don't want to wait until a patient is in crisis to act. We take steps early to protect their health. I urge you to do the same and support Senate Bill 102. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Committee do we have any questions for this panel No I will take the opportunity to ask Mr Geller if you could speak a little bit more about geothermal I still think there's been a little confusion about whether or not that's renewable and how you perceive that. Thank you, Madam Chair. my understanding is that geothermal is included as one of the renewable energy resources that is eligible for contributing to the compliance with the renewable energy requirements in the bill and it generally is along with solar and wind power considered to be a renewable energy resource and if geothermal is produced as firm new generation, I would like to add that it will also help data centers to comply with an hourly matching requirement for renewable resources. for firm generation is exactly what will be useful for complying with an hourly matching requirement, which is one of the requirements called for in the bill. Wonderful. Thank you for that answer. And thank you all for your time and your testimony this afternoon. We appreciate you participating. And we'll call to the dais now Joe Rowan, Rich Werner, Commissioner Kevin Ross, and Jamie Henning. All right, we'll go ahead and start while the online people come on. If you'd like to introduce yourself and begin. You have two minutes. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having us today. I'm Jamie Henningham, the president of the Greeley Area Chamber, but I'm speaking today on behalf of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, representing over 2,500 businesses in northern Colorado between Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins, and we urge you to vote no on SB 102. At the heart of this issue it would significantly alter local controls and as a home rule city we've seen many bills that have attempted to do this. This bill would assert a strict statewide regulatory framework that is not ideal for economic development projects that we wish to pursue here in northern Colorado. And that would not be the direction of the business community. Weld County and Greeley are significant in every way. As the county seat and the most significant voice for business, one of the largest energy and ag producers, we know that it's important to remain competitive but also to diversify and welcome new opportunities to our communities. We believe removal of the potential to be competitive on data center projects and to not have a lens on prioritizing economic diversification and stable tax revenue would be a mistake. When our industries thrive, our people thrive, and our property taxes that have been generated by oil and gas have kept schools funded and county services intact. Our residents continue to build their lives around our industries, and as regulations have tightened, we have seen companies forced to contract in Colorado and begin to lose its competitive edge. We've not stopped looking for what's next in northern Colorado. We're not a region or community that waits, but we need the state to be a partner in that search. Data centers represent one of the most tangible opportunities we've seen. We are talking about capital investments million or more per facility property tax revenue and that flows directly to our schools and county budget Thousands of construction jobs for skilled workers and we have a lot of those Greeley has the workforce, the land, the power, the infrastructure, and the will. What we need is the state to send the right signal to our companies making state selection, site selection processes, and those decisions right now. If we have one message today, it's to keep the door open. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Henning. Let's see. Please go ahead and introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Joe Rowan. I also serve on the Board of Directors for the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, and we can certainly get you the list of those 2,500 businesses if it's important. We do urge you to vote no on SB 102. Over the past few years, our economic momentum has stalled in the state. Business confidence has weakened. demographic trends are shifting, and legislative and regulatory environment has become far more hostile to the private sector. SB 102 reflects that trend. It mandates energy sources that are neither cheap nor fail-safe. Medical facilities, emergency services, and water treatment plants, for instance, depend on data centers for 100% always-on reliability, reliability that intermittent wind and solar cannot offer. This bill creates real risk for critical services within our communities. Despite its stated intent to protect consumers, SB 102 will drive up costs. Compliance expenses do not disappear. They simply move down the value chain to the businesses and families this legislature seeks to protect. With unrealistic energy mandates and operational constraints, SB 102 sends an unambiguous signal to the site selectors everywhere. Colorado fears the future. Other states will enjoy the billions of dollars of investments that might otherwise be made in northern Colorado, along with thousands of construction jobs, property tax base, and long-term spinoff effects that go with it. SB 102 may be well-intentioned. intentioned. In practice, it locks Colorado out of opportunities that could help our economy recover. And it leaves northern Colorado with fewer answers to the burning question that is becoming now urgent. And we urge you to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Rowan. Do we have Commissioner Ross online? Commissioner Ross? You do, Madam Chair. Yes. Okay. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Kevin Ross. I'm a Well County Commissioner. It's a pleasure to speak with the board today. I would urge you all as a committee to vote no on Senate Bill 102. This bill is not a bill that incentivizes data centers to come to Colorado. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It, in fact, halts development of data centers within Colorado. Earlier, the bill's sponsor, Ms. Kipp, talked about how it's not a ban, and I would argue it actually is. She also said that it's due to budget constraints that data centers are not incoming into Colorado. I would argue it's actually due to overregulation that is causing this to be prohibitive for data centers to come into the state. Last week, I took a tour up to Cheyenne, Wyoming, where we saw the large data center being built there that's using over two gigawatts worth of power. To do that because of this ban having a mandate of all renewable energy the solar power space that that would take would be well over 20 acres that would be consumed to power enough of this plant with solar power That's quite frankly, that's unfeasible. We need to look at bills like House Bill 1030. That lets us use clean energy. Here in Wells County, we have an abundance of natural gas, which I would say is the proper way to start fueling these deals because they need a consistent, reliable fuel source for these. Again, committee, I would ask you to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Commissioner. And Rich Werner, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Madam Chair, Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado Economic Development. I respectfully request a no vote on this bill. I keep hearing about incentives during this discussion, but this is not a discussion about incentives. This is a punitive bill that targets one industry and over-legislates a process that already addresses the concerns that the sponsors have raised. So let's look at that just for a minute. And I am not a physicist, nor I'm an engineer. But if we look at how our utilities currently operate, and it's not two utilities, it's not three, it's 52 utilities with specific franchise territories in the state of Colorado. They all have a separate process. And that process deals with a large load completely separate from the distribution grid that everyone is talking about today. We're not talking about residential communities on the distribution network. We're talking about transmission level service. Every single project that approaches a utility to have this done is paying for that project to come across. They're paying for line extensions. They're paying for transmission studies. They are paying for the capacity, all of it. And this is the biggest misnomer that we are not talking about when we are looking at this bill. I can't recall a project also that hasn't included some renewable energy component in it in any of the requests we've seen over the past two years. And I'm running out of time, so I just want to throw a couple quick numbers to the committee when we talk about economic impact. $1.5 billion in payroll for the Jade project you heard about before. A lot of those jobs are actually coming from northern Colorado. When we look at this industry compared to other industries on a square foot basis, a home generates one cent of sales tax and tariff fees. A big box retailer, four cents. A warehouse, three cents. Commercial, five cents. Five dollars a square foot for data centers. Thank you so much, Mr. Werner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. So I believe we have a question right away, right out the gate from Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for Commissioner Ross. Commissioner Ross, being from Weld County and being like one of the best counties with land use, because all of us littler counties around you, we'd steal all your land use codes and then just kind of add to them or subtract from them, whatever it is. Can you explain use by right and how it works in Weld County? Yeah, that's a great question. Thank you, Senator Pelton. Go ahead, Commissioner. Here in Weld County, we have a very robust process when we consider use by right. That's what we're actually going through right now as we set up the planning process to which data centers will be considered here in Welk County. We look at making sure that they have adequate water, that they can show that they have adequate power, that they're in the proper zoning. So we take a multitude of factors into account. And when you're looking at use by right, it still gets reviewed by staff. And it has the ability to get kicked up to the commissioners even above that. It's not just a simple pass through that goes through in the dead of night and no one gets to see because there's even still a process at our planning commission when the community gets to speak to any concerns they may have to that. So we like to think it's thoroughly robust, and it still offers a way to the commissioner's tables to make sure it's an appropriate project. Okay, thank you. Senator Exum. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ross, would you be amenable to powering these systems and the backup system with an equal share of like natural gas, diesel, battery, solar? Commissioner. I really think you ought to look. Oh, thank you. Sorry, Madam Chair, again. I'd be looking at clean energy for this, right? Natural gas is there. What these data centers require is consistent power, and that consistent power is often more than the grid itself can generate. That's why you see data centers producing their own power or the need to produce their own power, which then alleviates people's concerns that their grid is going to be taxed too much from a power draw on that grid because of the data centers. When we're talking projects that are well in excess of gigawatt in power, they have to find the way to do that. Clean power, such as nuclear, natural gas, things to that nature that will be consistent and able to provide that is where we really need to go. I think there's an opportunity for some solar, but the problem with solar is its consistency. A simple cloud goes by, it draws down the amount of production that a solar facility can create that means they cannot process that data and that data is used for everything in fact i'm talking to you through the use of a data center that's how this all gets processed it's not just for ai as people like to attribute it to thank you sir um i have a question and i think a couple questions and i think it's Maybe Mr. Rowan, but possibly a few people could answer this. So I'm wondering, I've heard a couple times about jobs leaving and, you know, people fleeing the state because, I mean, not to exaggerate, but people leaving because of jobs. But, like, what metrics, what data are you using to say that that's exactly why? Is there costs associated? Is there, you know, quality of life? Do we know, you know, how do you attribute that? Is it through research that you attribute that only to jobs? Thank you, Madam Chair, for that question. And I'll defer to my colleagues if they want to add more to this. But we are looking at, again, economic data that shows the amount of jobs that are available. So we're not necessarily attributing any job loss to this type of legislation. We're talking in general. The business environment has become far less favorable to the private sector. It's becoming harder to operate. And so we are seeing more, we actually do have data that shows that companies are relocating, taking their jobs with them, or they are site selectors that are coming to Colorado, specifically northern Colorado, and finding that the conditions are not favorable. Okay, did you have something to add? Thank you. Madam Chair Oh I sorry yeah Ms Henning Yes thank you I would just like to add to that you know Weld County has seen a lot of diversification of their industry and in the energy sector in particular there have been a lot of regulatory environment changes that have caused changes to the industry A place I might point is just the Common Sense Institute's done a number of studies recently on just the competitive edge of Colorado, so there are a couple out there I'm happy to provide them. All right, thank you both, and thank you all for your testimony and your time this afternoon. We are moving on to, let's see, David Knight, Nicholas Ramos, Catherine Goff, and Megan Eliezer. And you will surely correct me if I'm saying any of that wrong. Are they all? Aha, someone's coming in. All right, Catherine Goff, Nicholas Ramos, and David Knight. All right, it looks like people are starting to pop in. Ms. Eliezer, if you would like to begin your two minutes and correct my pronunciation of your name. Yes. Hi, thank you for listening to us today. My name is Megan Eliezer. So you're really close. Don't worry, it happens all the time. And I am here on behalf of myself. I did initially come in as a strong support position because I do want to tremendously thank the bill sponsors for bringing this forward. I think it is a tremendous first step in some much needed regulations in this area. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. And I do encourage a yes as is so that we can move forward and talk about some potential amendments as well. I am more concerned about the water. So I think this has a lot of really great stuff in terms of power infrastructure. But I do think that the concerns that I have most are our water needs. A lot of these data centers use water-cooled equipment, which means that the water is in a cycled system, but it does have to go out into tanks to cool. And when it is going out into tanks to cool, it is then evaporated, which is where a lot of that water loss comes from. So I do think that putting some sort of stipulations on the cooling systems to not use the tanks would be really good. And that could, the other thing real quick on the last 30 seconds is that I do think we should also look at making sure that these facilities cannot just produce their own emissions with like gas and diesel turbines, and then just trade the credits for like trade in energy for renewable credits. I would like to see that kind of be a loophole that is tied in because I think that we do really need to move to renewables and those are why I came in as an amend position on this particular bill and I'd love to talk to the bill sponsors at some point if they'd like. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Ms. Goff, if you're ready, please introduce yourself and begin. well hello there thank you for letting me comment tonight I Catherine Goff council member for the city of North Glen speaking on behalf of my constituents Colorado is lucky to be considering how to handle incoming large low data centers now because we have models in other states that can teach us how to choose the right guardrails for this industry. One of the most important areas to consider is how data centers' energy needs could drive up the cost of living in Colorado. As you heard earlier, Virginia spent years rolling out the red carpet for data centers, but skyrocketing energy costs have meant ordinary people paid for these large load customers' energy needs. Now the Virginia legislator is scrambling to reverse this trend and protect their other rate payers. Meanwhile, people are still paying increasing electricity bills. We are seeing the same trends emerge in Colorado, a 150% increase in electricity demand over the next five years, largely because of data centers' forecasted needs. That increase in demand comes with a similarly high price tag, and families across Colorado, such as those living here in North Glen, should not have to bear the cost of this industry's energy needs or of Excel's energy's profits. Colorado can learn from Virginia and set reasonable guardrails for data centers up front. This is why I am in an amended position on this bill. There are still some improvements to be made on other aspects of the bill, but its protections for ratepayers must be included in the final legislation. We must prevent this industry's expansion from becoming a way of transferring money from regular people into the hands of corporate shareholders. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your testimony, Councilwoman Goff. Is it Nicholas Ramos that I have? I can't see her. Oh, okay. This way. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nicholas Ramos, and I'm both an architect and on staff at the Colorado Chapter of the American University of California. Institute of Architects. I'm here today on behalf of AIA Colorado in an amend position on Senate Bill 102. Architects who design data centers aren't the only members of our profession affected by this bill. A single facility with such a big impact on local utilities affects other buildings tapping into the same resources. Data centers can limit other development if electricity and water aren't readily available. If not carefully regulated, utility rates can dramatically rise for everyone, affecting how we practice, including limiting our clients' ability to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. The tricky thing is figuring out the right level of regulation in a rapidly changing market center, both in AI's place in society and data center technology. I applaud the sponsor's effort on a bill that does a lot of good. What do architects like about the bill? Almost everything. It has strong guardrails against abuses of fossil fuel generators. These must be limited to use in power outages, not as convenient supplemental power. They aren't efficient, clean, or quiet. There are good annual reporting requirements. These inform how well policy works and planning efforts for future data center demand. We also support analysis requirements targeted at protecting communities. Renewable energy requirements have caused division amongst architects, though. Should a data center pay for its own connection to the grid? Absolutely. Does all of its electricity use need to be from new renewable sources? That's a bigger ask. It could shut down data centers that would otherwise be a net positive in Colorado. We don't think this must be a strict requirement if the grid has appropriate capacity, especially for utilities that are on track to reduce their carbon emissions in alignment with the state goals Even if this section were removed we have a great bill that would make a meaningful difference in how communities are affected by local data centers I not saying we should go that far but the current requirements don't quite hit the mark. I ask for a vote in favor of this bill today to continue working through the more contentious parts of the bill. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. David, it doesn't look like David Knight ever came on. All right. Committee, any questions for this panel? No. Seeing none, thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. Have a wonderful evening. All right. The next panel is I'm going to call Commissioner Liz Marin, Commissioner Jeff Aiken, Laura Howard, and Evan Anderson. Thank you. Welcome our first panelist. Ma'am, if you can please state your name and the organization you represent and proceed, you'll have two minutes. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Liza Marin, Sowatch County Commissioner, and today I speak on behalf of counties and commissioners acting together, and I'm in support of Senate Bill 102. We all are here in Sowatch County. Across rural Colorado, we are increasingly being approached as potential sites for large load data centers, and we recognize that not all data centers are the same. In Swatch County, we support appropriately scaled facilities, particularly those that are air-cooled and rely a good bit on renewable energy and work in partnership with our local electric cooperative. Those kinds of projects can fit our landscape and our values. but the large load data centers presents real risk to rural communities like ours. So we're in the San Luis Valley in the midst of a prolonged mega drought. Our farmers are already reducing production by more than 30 percent due to our depleted aquifer. We simply do not have water to spare for large-scale industrial cooling demands that compete directly with agriculture and our fragile ecosystems. We also have deep concerns about cost shifting. Our residents are low income and many struggle with rising utility bills. We cannot afford to subsidize the infrastructure and energy demands of large load data centers, especially when those benefits do not accrue here locally. Senate Bill 102 is a critical step because it brings transparency, requires upfront disclosure of water and energy use, and helps ensure that these costs are not passed on to rural rate payers. Equally important, the bill affirms some local control. Our counties must retain the authority to determine what is compatible with our land, our resources, and our communities. We appreciate Sponsor KIPP and support this bill because it helps ensure that as this industry grows in Colorado, it does so responsibly with full transparency, fair cost allocation, and respect for fragile ecosystems and local conditions. So thank you and I'm glad to answer questions. Thank you so much for your testimony, Commissioner. Next, I will welcome Laura Howard. Good afternoon and thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Laura Howard. I'm a registered nurse, president of the Colorado Council of Black Nurses, a board member of Healthy Air and Water of Colorado, and a resident of Colorado Springs. Thank you for this opportunity. I speak in support of Senate Bill 102 because as a nurse, I care for patients whose health is directly impacted by the environment they live in. I see asthma attacks in children, worsening heart and lung disease, COPD, and the stress that comes from rising energy costs and unsafe living conditions. These are not abstract issues, their real health outcomes tied to policy decisions. As Colorado considers the expansion of data centers, we must be clear-eyed about where these facilities are often located and who bears the burden. Across the country, large industrial projects like data centers are frequently cited in disproportionately impacted communities. places that already face higher pollution levels, fewer resources, and greater health disparities. Without strong guardrails, data centers can increase air pollution, strain local water supplies, and drive up energy costs. And these are some conditions, like I said earlier, the heart disease, asthma, and other serious conditions that people are trying to overcome. In communities that are already overburdened with the additional pollution, it's just an inconvenience in compounding health risk. Senate Bill 102 takes an important step by establishing protections to ensure that large electricity users do not shift costs onto families, worsen air quality, or undermine Colorado's progress on clean energy. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we'll go to Jeff Acker. Acker. Oops, I don't, you're still muted, sir. In the meantime, we will give you the opportunity to try to unmute, and in the meantime, we're going to bounce over to Mr. Evan Anderson. Hey, everyone. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed. Excellent. Good afternoon, committee members, and thank you for your time. My name is Evan Anderson, and I'm a lead technical consultant for the technical service arms of a company called Applied Systems. We help and own insurance technology and help teams utilize their large amounts of data with emerging AI capabilities to better serve their customers. In tandem, my family and I have lived and worked in Denver, Colorado, in the Congress Park neighborhood since March of 2020. We active recreators across Colorado mountains and waterways and we here to support SB102 which would protect my neighbors from costs they could incur as large load data centers strain existing infrastructure To safeguard these places we recreate from air quality degradation and significant water consumption and pollution, and lastly to avoid increased resilience on carbon-emitting energy uses that an unregulated data center development can bring. As data center development accelerates, transparency and coordinated planning will will be essential to ensuring they operate responsibly in Colorado communities. In addition to low demands, rate payer affordability, and sustainability concerns, there is limited standardized reporting on key metrics including energy consumption, water usage, and backup generation practices. SB102 establishes consistent requirements that would improve regulatory oversight and enable more informed decision making. As data centers development and operations expand, Colorado is approaching the point where demand projects no longer align with the current infrastructure. Forecasts from Colorado's largest utility, EXCEL, indicate that large load growth could increase at a rate of 10 to 25 times higher than historical averages annually. As this demand accelerates, relying solely on new infrastructure becomes increasingly cost prohibitive while the existing system faces limitations for meeting projected peak loads. Addressing this challenge requires a grade that is clean. Thank you so much for joining us. Let's see. Let's go back to – is it Commissioner Aiken? Have you been able – let's see. Would it be possible to invite him to unmute? Thank you. All right, Commissioner, I believe our IT director, person, thank you, sir, has invited you to unmute. So there might be a little button that you can try and utilize. But what we might go ahead and do just to be cognizant as you are working through that we going to leave you up We go to the next panel and let see If you want to try and log out and then log back in and then we invite you on to the next panel would that work for you All right. Pop off and then pop back in and then let's see if we can get you situated this second time around. Thank you. With that, colleagues, what questions do we have for this panel? Go back in. Oh, whoa. Wait a second. There was an outcry from the crowd. Can you hear us? I'm back. Hey. Is that okay if I talk now? Magic of the Internet. Look at this. Can you hear me? We can. Go right ahead. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll start. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Commissioner Jeff Akin. I serve Gilpin County. I'm testifying in support on behalf of CCAT. Data centers are here to stay, and so is climate change. And how these intersect will have huge ramifications on our water and energy use. We don't have any data centers in Gilpin, but as these proliferate, they may cause water calls on our water from counties like ours upstream. Agriculture is our number one user of water and could be affected as they face calls or sell water rates for big bucks. Denver alone projects a 200% increase in growth, while utilities like Excel warn they may need $22 billion to upgrade and meet rising demand. A single AI data center uses as much electricity as 175,000 homes. Colorado has 60 already. Two-thirds of data centers built since 2022 were in water-stressed regions, including Arizona. To factor in health costs associated with the backup generators running on diesel is something we should look at. Senate Bill 102 will provide important ground rails for these centers, which need to be fiscally and environmentally accountable. I do understand the concerns of the electricians, but the argument assumes that these centers will be built in perpetuity. All the money you have can't buy water if there is no water. Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner, and thank you for your perseverance. With that, colleagues, what questions do we have for this panel of witnesses? See, no questions. Thank you all so much for your testimony this afternoon. We'll pass it back over to Chair Cutter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, we'll have Dwayne Nueva, Sarah Blackhurst, Raymond Gonzalez, and Brittany Morris-Sanders. Can you please approach? Thank you. All right, good evening. Is it Ms. Blackhurst? No, it's Ms. Sanders. Then Ms. Morris-Sanders, please introduce yourself and begin while we wait for the other folks. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of committee. My name is Brittany Morris-Sanders, and I'm the President and CEO of the Colorado Technology Association. CTA represents nearly 400 member companies and organizations across the state, representing more than 50 direct employees in Colorado technology sector CTA serves as the voice and champion for technology companies of all sizes including small business and startups all working to ensure Colorado remains a place where innovation and economic growth can thrive. I also want to note that this morning we hosted at the Capitol, Colorado Tech Day at the Capitol, where more than 200 members of Colorado's technology community were here, engaging with policymakers, and reinforcing the importance of a strong competitive innovation economy. Data centers are a critical part of that future. We believe thoughtful, clear, and consistent data center policies are essential to maintaining Colorado's competitiveness while balancing energy and community priorities. We appreciate the intent of the bill and share the state's commitment to clean energy. However, based on extensive feedback from our members, CTA's board of directors has voted to oppose Senate Bill 102 as currently drafted. At a high level, our concerns fall into three areas. First, cost and competitiveness. The bill appears to require data centers to take on the full cost of generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. This is a significant departure from standard models and creates financial exposure that could push investment to other states. Second, feasibility and flexibility. members raise concerns about the clean energy requirements, including potential hourly matching as well as long-term contractual obligations that do not align with current technology or grid capacity. At the same time, restrictions on backup generation limit the ability to support grid reliability during peak demand. Third, regulatory uncertainty and operational burden. Ambiguity around demand response participation, extensive reporting requirements are also a concern. Taken together, we urge a no vote for today, and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please go ahead, sir, and introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Raymond Gonzalez, Executive Vice President of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the President of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. The Metro Denver EDC represents 12 counties spanning from Pueblo to the Wyoming border, encompassing 90% of Colorado's population and GDP. I am here today in opposition to Senate Bill 102. Fundamentally, this bill sends a troubling signal about Colorado's approach to economic development. While the conversation today is focused on data centers, the implications are far broader, precluding an entire category of investment particularly one that underpins nearly every modern industry creates a precedent that colorado is willing to close the door on emerging and high growth sectors data centers are not a niche industry they are foundational infrastructure for finance health care advanced manufacturing aerospace and small businesses alike when we place prohibitive restrictions that are operationally unworkable, unattainable, and include no mechanisms to attract operators to Colorado in the first place, we are not just turning away one project. We are weakening the ecosystem that supports innovation and job creation across the entire economy. From a competitiveness standpoint, this is especially concerning. According to Metro Denver EDC's Toward to Morca Competitive Colorado report, Colorado's employment growth ranking fell dramatically from 16th to 46th in just one year, signaling a slowdown in job creation. At the same time, our overall tax climate ranking has declined to 33rd nationally, which is making it harder for Colorado to attract investment and development. continuing a downward trend impacting our ability to compete for business attraction. Policies that add barriers, whether through land use restrictions, regulatory uncertainty. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Well, thank you for obeying the beep. It looks like we've got Dwayne not, sorry, Dwayne Nueva online. Please begin your, introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Duane Nava, the President and CEO of the Greater Public Chamber. I'm here today in opposition of Senate Bill 102. Colorado should be working to attract emerging industries, not building barriers to push them to other states. Unfortunately, this bill sends a very clear message that companies looking at Colorado for data center investment, take your jobs, your tax base, and your infrastructure investment someplace else. Data centers are one of the fastest growing sectors in the global economy. They support AI, cloud computing, and advanced digital infrastructure. States across the country are aggressively competing to attract them because they bring millions in capital investment and long-term economic growth. But Senate Bill 102 creates one of the most restrictive regulatory environments in the nation. The bill requires large data centers to meet 100% renewable electricity annually and potentially match their energy use to renewable generation on an hourly basis beginning in 2031. This is an extraordinarily high bar that very few states require and one that will make companies think twice about locating here. On top of that, the bill forces operators to pay the full cost of infrastructure through long-term contracts and prohibits utilities from offering economic development rates. These are exactly the tools communities use to compete for major investment projects. For communities like Pueblo and many other states across southern Colorado, this legislation closes the door on the very type of high-tech infrastructure investment that could diversify our economies and bring new opportunity. Colorado absolutely should protect ratepayers and our natural resources, but we also must recognize the economic reality that businesses have choices. They make Colorado the most difficult place in the country to build these facilities. They simply will not build here. For communities like Pueblo that are trying to diversify our economy, this bill doesn't create opportunity. It eliminates it. Colorado can either lead the digital economy or regulate ourselves right out of it. Thank you, Mr. Nueva. Thank you for your testimony. All right, committee, do we have any questions for this panel of witnesses? Yes, Senadora Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I'm reading through the fiscal note, it's my understanding that there are 57 data centers currently in operation. But I am curious to Ms. Morris-Saunders if you can help us understand how many of those you would qualify as being small load versus large load as defined in the bill. Ms. Morris-Saunders. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. as I can get you that information and that breakdown and work with our data center. The representative that was here earlier, Dan DiOrio, would have that data. We'll make sure to get that to you. But I will say one of the points that I didn't get to in my testimony is that the bill's broad definitions really threw in some of those other types of data centers that you're speaking to. You know, we talk oftentimes about the large load, but many of our members who are banks and others also have data centers that are within the state Thank you Yes Senator Gonzalez Just as a follow so would you oppose any of these permitting zoning ordinances labor standards all of these different things just as a threshold matter, as a philosophical question, or hit a certain threshold and then yes, actually let's go and have this conversation. I'm curious. Thank you. Ms. Morris-Sanders. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Senator Gonzalez. No, we have looked at this bill in its totality and have the other issues that I've mentioned that is not size dependent. It was just that we did have a significant amount of members that came back and said under the existing language that we would have even more data centers that this would apply to. All right. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much to the panel. And we'll move on to Courtney Fieldman, Renee Chacon, Matt Salka, and let's have Commissioner Levy. Am I up? Sorry. It's all right. You can go ahead and begin, and we'll wait. Other people will be joining, I think. But please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Courtney Fieldsman, and I'm the Director of Utility Programs at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. Colorado is at a critical inflection point. Excel already has six gigawatts of new data center load requests that would cost over $22 billion to build and raise residential rates by at least 55% by 2029. Without this bill, Colorado families have no safeguards to hold the data centers accountable for those costs. This bill creates two specific protections, hourly renewable matching, which the bill directly includes geothermal, and 15-year contracts. Hourly matching is not just a clean energy provision, it is a ratepayer protection. Data centers use enormous amounts of power during the most expensive hours of the day, but purchase cheap overnight renewable credits to claim they are 100% clean and pass their expensive daytime costs onto grid customers. Excel's own projections show residential rates rising 30% by 2032, while commercial and industrial rates rise just by 2%. This is not a coincidence. It is the direct result of large customers avoiding accountability for their peak costs. Hourly matching closes that loophole. The 15-year contract requirement also prevents what can only be described as a hit-and-run risk. A data center announces it's coming, Excel builds expensive infrastructure, and if that data center later downsizes or leaves, Colorado families keep paying for the capacity they never used. Virginia is a case in point. They enabled incentives, they let data centers in, and now they are $1.6 billion in lost revenue, and the residents are projected to pay up to $450 more per year by 2040. We can't make the same mistake. Normally, technology arrives first and regulation scrambles to catch up. We saw that with the internet and social media. This moment is different. Colorado has the rare opportunity to get ahead of it and enable this technology responsibly and to set a national example for how to do it. Therefore, we urge for your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is Renee Chacon available? Are you online, Renee? Ms. Yes, I am. Okay please introduce yourself and begin your testimony Classico Matiomito Classico Matiomito classico Mati a totantiu tarso Mati tonantzin clali classico Mati abuelitos and all the ones that came before and all the little ones to come I'm Renee Miller Chacon. We live in the land of the Ute, the Cheyenne, the Arapaho, the Shoshone, the Kiowa, the Comanche, the Inde, the Dene, the Chicano, 48 tribes. I still now live in Commerce City, a disproportionately impacted community as defined by the Environmental Justice Act, on which I served as a task force member for cumulative impacts equity analysis. I'm here to actually go for a man because we need more protections for disproportionately impacted communities with an equity analysis of cumulative impacts before buildings for such large data centers and large industrial lows are ever permitted. Because I'll remind you that disproportionately impacted communities did not create ourselves. And now we're forced in regulations that we're trying to meet our 2030 climate goals. And this is the only way now to protect our lives and our living environment for future generations. Our communities are dealing with environmental harms of cumulative impacts of pollutions twice, both in our health and in cost. The example is GES being known as the most polluted zip code in the United States and having now three large extra data centers proposed with 12 to 13 diesel engines each adding further air pollution to an already known and viral screen disproportionately impacted community. If environmental justice was truly respected for this community, it deserves relief for being Colorado's sacrifice zone. 102 needs to be stricter with that. So they actually finally have environmental health analysis for rural equity as a priority for our health and safety. We need to be able to offer a clean environment for disproportionately impacted communities and create and hold big tech and large industrial loads, especially when they go unpermitted in spaces like this, a four-right permit, that is a large loophole on local government. And as a former Commerce City Councilwoman, I have seen many projects push through operations when it's just meant for industry. I ask that that no longer harms disproportionately impacted community, targets our ratepayers, and that we finally uplift our city. Thank you, Ms. Chacon. Thank you so much. Two minutes is tough. Commissioner Levy. Welcome again. Yes, thank you. It's nice to be back and I appreciate your long days. I'm still Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy and I'm here on behalf of Boulder County and counties and commissioners acting together, testifying in support of Senate Bill 102. This bill is not anti-data centers. What it does is ensure that air, water and public health impacts of large load data centers are minimized. The bill also includes ratepayer protections and mitigates climate impacts. It's also a critical next step in Colorado's commitment to environmental justice as it seeks to protect disproportionately impacted communities from new or expanding data centers. We support the air quality protections that would either require renewable energy resources for on-site backup power or require backup generators to be as clean burning as possible. Boulder County is in the metro area ozone non-attainment area, where our community and many others have suffered with polluted summertime air for far too long. Due to their contribution to unhealthy ozone levels, new, unmitigated sources of nitrogen oxides cannot be allowed in this area. Backup generators also emit air toxins and diesel particulates, creating hotspot concerns for communities living and working near these sources. Because these sources are often located in or near vulnerable communities, there must be strong commitments to protecting people from further environmental harms. Therefore we support the community benefit agreement concept in this bill. We support the local government provisions in the bill as well including the requirement that data centers submit plans to local governments demonstrating that they will fit within our land use planning framework as well as site assessments that include a water footprint and estimated air emissions We appreciate the explicit statement that the bill does not preempt the authority of local governments to regulate land use related to data centers. In addition, we value the language that says local governments should not allow data centers to be zoned as a use by right so that their impacts can be assessed before they are constructed. This bill is a critical step in the implementation of the state's commitment to environmental justice, environmental health and- Thank you so much, Commissioner. Thank you. Matt Salka, thank you for waiting and please go ahead with your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Matt Salka, La Plata County Commissioner, and I'm here today on behalf of La Plata County and CCAT, both in support of Senate Bill 102. Across Colorado, we are seeing growth in large load data centers, facilities that can consume as much power as an entire communities. This bill asks a simple question, who should bear the cost and impact of that growth? SB 102 makes that answer clear, not our residents. This bill protects ratepayers by requiring data centers to pay for the infrastructure they need, ensuring families and small businesses are not subsidizing large corporate loads. It also protects grid reliability, especially in rural areas like mine in La Plata County. We already faced system constraints and this bill ensures that new large loads cannot connect unless reliability is maintained and emissions don't increase. It also brings transparency and accountability. Data centers must report energy and water use and work with local governments through site assessments and engagement critical in water limited regions like Southwest Colorado. I also want to address local control. As a county commissioner that matters to me. This bill does not take away that local authority. We still approve or deny projects. It gives us a better information and guardrails so large-scale development doesn't overwhelm our communities. And importantly, this bill is flexible. It also allows the public utilities commissions to determine what is technical and economically feasible based on real-world conditions. Growth is coming. This bill makes sure we get it right. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner Salka. I think that's all for this panel. Does anyone have any questions for these folks? No. I will ask a question then. For local governments, this directs the Department of Local Affairs to publish model codes for data center development by June 2027, developed through a stakeholder process that includes local governments. What specific guidance are you hoping to see, commissioners, specifically in those model codes that your jurisdiction doesn't currently have the resources or the authority to develop on its own? Is there... Commissioner Levy? Madam Chair, thank you. I'm happy to try to answer that, but I'm not sure I actually have a good answer. So, you know, these are land uses that in Boulder County we haven't seen, and we haven't seen anything even remotely like it. And so for things like estimating vehicle trips per day, perhaps, or some of the other things that we just don't have the guideposts to understand, I think it might be helpful. But I also believe perhaps that might drive a fiscal note for the bill to require them to do that. And so I think for us, it's probably not something that we feel like we must have in order to be successful. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you panel. I believe we are done with questions. Have a wonderful evening and thanks again for your time. Let's see. We have next up. First, I'm going to call Sarah Blackhurst was online before but not accepting a promotion to panelists. So Sarah, if you hear this, we'll try to promote you again. So please come back if you can. Parker White, Rachel Beck, Andrew Wood, and Ethan Seewald. And Mr. Seewald, if you could please sign up in the back when we're done. We do not have you recorded as, you know, having signed up already. All right. Welcome, panel. Who would like to begin? Mr. Wood, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 102. My name is Andrew Wood, and I'm the Executive Director for TechNet Central Region. TechNet is the national bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy. TechNet supports responsible data center development and shares the commitment to clean energy, ratepayer protection, and equitable community outcomes. However, Senate Bill 102, as drafted, takes a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach that would make Colorado significantly less competitive for data center investment and singles out data centers for burdens not applied to comparable large energy users. Our concern spans several provisions. The bill's 100% renewable energy matching mandate beginning in 2031, restriction on combustion-based backup generation, prohibition on economic development rates, and the requirement to report hourly electricity and water consumption for all 8,760 hours of the year are technically unworkable and in key respects create competitive risk and jeopardize the reliability of critical downstream services. Several of the provisions function in practice as outright prohibitions. The bill's pre-interconnection emissions test requiring a utility to certify that a large load data center will not increase greenhouse gas emissions for 15 years is a standard no utility can satisfy for any significant new load. The bill also includes no incentive mechanism whatsoever. It imposes layered obligations with no tool to attract operators to Colorado in the first place. The practical result is not responsible development. It's development that goes to other states and communities instead. For these reasons, Tegnet urges the committee to oppose Senate Bill 102. Thank you. Good job. Okay, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. Rachel Beck with the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We all share the goals of ensuring that our communities have sufficient water and energy and that no single user claims too large a share of those limited resources. This bill has taken that protectionism to an extreme that means that data centers will not be built in Colorado. And maybe that's the goal. But here's why that's a problem. Each one of us depends on them to do things that we care about, and their geographic location is a huge component of the speed and reliability of information that we want to access for research and education, for communicating with communities online, for banking, for storing our cat photos. In other words, we are creating the demand for these data centers. They also critical for implementing ambitious goals that we have as a state for advancing science and innovation I give you a couple of examples Colorado has the largest cluster of quantum companies in the nation Over the next 10 years the state estimates it will generate 30 new jobs and many of those don't require any kind of advanced degree. What we're doing with that quantum technology includes things like next-gen GPS and clean energy advancements. We also have the highest per capita aerospace employment in the country. And again, the amazing things that we are doing in Colorado to send Artemis II to the moon, to research our solar system, and to bring new products to market that improve ordinary people's lives, not just astronauts, depend upon the speed and reliability of data that require data centers. So the bill lacks the balance that we need to ensure that we can achieve our dual goals of protecting resources and building that infrastructure that we're all using now and will in the future. Seconds to spare. Thank you so much. Mr. Seewald, please introduce yourself. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Ethan Seawald with Aurora Economic Development Council, and I oppose Senate Bill 102. Aurora Economic Development Council helps create new primary jobs through innovative deals, strategic partnerships, and by advocating for economically sustainable public policy. Aurora EDC is a private, not-for-profit 501c6 corporation comprised of business leaders of prominent companies in the metro area, the city of Aurora, Adams, and Arapahoe County. As economic developers, we appreciate the concerns expressed by the proponents of Senate Bill 102 related to the cost of environmental impact, but the goal of Economic Development Council is to support legislation that strikes a balance between jobs and the environment to create good-paying jobs and create tax revenue that doesn't currently exist, helping out local and state budgets. Unfortunately, SENSE 102 does not strike that balance, And in fact, we see this bill as it's currently written as a disincentive to invest, expand, and relocate to Colorado, not just for data centers, but for the businesses that they support. Aurora ADCs believes that we can do that and should do better in this policy. And we are committing ourselves to Senator Kipp and the proponents of 102 to keep working together to find a solution that's a win-win for Colorado. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Mr. White, please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. In classic, just life fashion, two bills at the same time. So thank you guys for indulging my sprint up here from the basement. Good afternoon. My name is Parker White. I'm the director of the Colorado Competitive Council, and we are here today in opposition of 26-102. C3 recognizes that virtually all of Colorado's future economic and job growth will depend on a rapidly increasing demand for data storage and computing power. At the same time, the state of Colorado is facing a roughly $1 billion budget deficit this year. Against that backdrop, this bill would effectively shut the door on what is arguably the largest new tax base of the 21st century, data centers. Data centers bring substantial property tax revenue, construction-related sales and use tax, high-paying jobs, and long-term economic activity. And currently, their development and implementation is highly mobile among the states. If they're not built here, they will be built elsewhere. And with them goes the job, the local community capital injections, and the tax base. At a time when we were talking about long state revenue health this bill moves us in the wrong direction as we plan for this growth our members believe policy should focus on three things Keeping Colorado open for business protecting our natural resources without overburdening rate payers and growing our electric grid in a way that sets future generations up for success. By our analysis, Senate Bill 102 fails on all three. It creates a regulatory environment that signals Colorado is closed to this industry, ignores ongoing technological innovation and risks limiting energy solutions that could benefit all Coloradans without clearly protecting ratepayers. The question isn't about whether data centers will exist. They will. The question is whether Colorado will benefit from them or send them and their opportunities elsewhere. We respectfully ask for a no vote on Senate Bill 26102. Thank you. Thank you. And we will call Sarah Blackhurst online. And Ms. Blackhurst, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sarah Blackhurst. I'm with Action 20 or Action Colorado, rather. We stand with our members, especially our labor cousins, in opposing this bill. Instead of repeating what you've already heard, I just have a few questions to pose to you. There is already a bill that's being considered that would address the issues and was heavily stakeholder for more than a year. So who asked exactly for 102? to? And what does it solve that existing processes or HB 261030 do not? If this bill is ready, why are we not voting on it today? What remains unresolved? Is it stakeholder alignment, cost protection, impact to existing utility structure? We've also heard very eloquently about jobs from actual workers. And so my question is, are we measuring job creation or net workforce impact act after displacement? If projects moving to Wyoming, how would this bill mitigate that outcome? And why aren't we including a job displacement study as standard in any of the energy policy bills? We've heard concerns about both protecting utility service territories and avoiding restrictive policy. Which framework actually achieves both? 1030, perhaps? This bill changes the decision-making structure in a way that could reduce local and system-level control, regardless of what we call it. If that's not the intent, where in the bill is that not control clearly preserved? Not assumed nor implied, but clearly preserved. Are we evaluating gross revenue or net public benefit after incentives and cost systems? Water was an understandable concern, but if the advanced mitigation systems, meaning closed systems, aren't enough, what exactly is or would be? If one approach attempts to structure these guardrails and another leaves them unresolved, Why would we choose the less certain path? And if there's already a deliberate option on the table, isn't that alone a reason for caution? With that, I thank you for your time. Nicely done. Thank you so much. Committee, any questions for this panel? No. All right. Seeing none, thank you all for your time and your testimony this afternoon. Have a good evening. Back in your homes. Let's see. Let's see. No, I'm in love. Laura Zoder, Aaron Barge, Ian Tafoya, and Pancho Espino. Try again um Pancho Espino Laura Zotter and Aaron Barge Are any of you here Then let see We'll go to Jamie Giesen and Morgan Brown. Oh, you know what? I apologize. We have somebody online. Thank you, Laura, and Aaron. Okay, so hold on. Okay, Mr. Tafoya, welcome. Please begin while we figure out the online folks. Might as well use your time. All right. Hi, everybody. I'm Ian Thomas Tafoya, the National Vice President of State Programs for Green Latinos, which includes Colorado, among other states. And I'm here today to testify in support of this bill. I also was the chair of the Colorado Environmental Justice Action Task Force. And beyond a lot of the things that I've heard here today, I wanted to really raise up this issue around DOLA, the Department of Local Affairs and land use. I spent several years as a community fellow at the University of Denver where I took a look at environmental justice concerns, industry, and housing. Really trying to figure out where in the Dr. Cog region we could find the places that were the most accessible and healthy to build. And what I have found is that we have these competing interests that are taking place. It's come up in this transportation-oriented development bills that we've worked on over the years. But we have legacy industrial zoning and a push for mixed-use development. And this is really clear in the rapidly gentrifying communities like North Denver, where I come from. And so this part of the bill that really is meant to help local governments get to the bottom of these land use pieces is really important to me. As I look at the core site in particular that I know many people have spoken about in North Denver, I think one of the most troubling parts of that construction was that these emergency generators were faced towards the community, an old folks home and a playground where we continually have these issues coming into problems with each other. And so I think this conversation with DOLA about down zoning of industrial facilities or industrial zoning and the adjacent properties for housing is something that I particularly wanted to raise for green Latinos. I also wanted to share that in many of the states, one in Illinois, for example, we're seeing an Illinois governor who's trying to take away tax incentives for these large data centers and instead put rules into place that will help them reach their climate targets, provide good jobs, and reduce pollution all in these localized communities. And so I just wanted to use that as one example why I think we should not be supporting 1030. Thank you, Mr. Tafoya, for being here. Online, do we have Laura Zotter? Are you there? Yep, I'm here. Okay, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Great. Hi, everyone. Thanks for your time. My name is Laura Zotter, and I'm a member of the Colorado Tech community who will be impacted by the development and management of data centers in the state. As data centers expand in our state, Colorado has the opportunity to set a national example by establishing guardrails for how they exist and are integrated in our communities. With conservative projections showing that data centers will use 430 trillion watt hours by 2030, just for context, that's enough to power the city of Chicago 16 times over, managing their expansion is critical. For this reason, we ask that you support the passage of SB102. With thoughtful guardrails, we can ensure that data centers cover the true cost of the infrastructure and energy they require so families, small businesses, and ratepayers aren't left to PUC data center being built in Aurora will alone become Excel's largest single customer, requiring energy equivalent to powering 80,000 homes. With plans for more data centers like it, Colorado's PUC reports that residential customers could see rates increase 20 to 30 percent by 2027, and again with a 55 percent increase in 2029. Please support the passage of SB 102. By requiring accurate demand projections and preventing overbuilding, we can avoid unnecessary costs and ensure our energy infrastructure is built efficiently and responsibly. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony this afternoon. Do we have Aaron Barge online?

Please introduce yourself and proceed with your two minutes.

for your testimony. Jamie Giesen, are you there? Yes, I am. Hi. Thank you. Hi. Please introduce

Thank you. Thank you. Lovely. You gave us some time. Thank you so much for your testimony. I believe the remaining person online is Ms. Pearlstein. Sarah Pearlstein, if you are ready, we're going to give Ms. Pearlstein a little bit of extra time for an issue that she has. So please begin and we look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you joining us today and providing testimony. Panel, or yes, committee, Senator Mullica.

Mr. Tafoya.

Okay, any further questions? No? Seeing none, thank you all for your testimony. For the next panel, we'll have Nathan Cooper. Okay. Ray Rivera. Dennis Doherty Laura Long and Nate Bernstein Okay. Who would like to begin? Looking at you, Ms. Long.

Is there a way we can get the mic closer? I can't hear you.

Thank you, Ms. Long. Thank you. Mr. Bernstein, if you are ready, please introduce yourself and begin. Oh, did I? Wrong one. Cooper. Wait. No, that's right. I'm looking at the list. Please. But I do know who you are. Please introduce yourself and begin with your two minutes. Do that.

Thank you, Mr. Bernstein. Thank you. Ms. Forsyth, who is not Dennis Doherty. He had a massive makeover. Yeah. A very, very good makeover. Please begin your two minutes.

Thank you very much. Okay, that's all for this panel. I see a question over here from Senator Linstead.

The question relates, as I understand it, does it require, do labor standards require incentives? That's not my understanding, just to put it quite clearly. But I am not an expert in this space, but I've certainly looked at other states, and they don't require that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the question, Senator Lindstedt. It's my understanding that there does need to be a nexus between government involvement and the imposition of the stricter labor standards that would protect union jobs. I could have the numbers wrong here, but this is directionally correct. I believe there have been a lot of less and less challenging labor standards on projects that do not have some sort of government involvement with some kind of money, whether it's incentive or direct compensation. and that about two-thirds of those have been in the public.

Thank you. I should also mention it depends on the labor standard and it depends upon the state involvement and incentive. But thank you for the privilege to speak up again.

Senator, thank you for the question. We have coalitions in states across the country, and we certainly advocate for clean energy build-outs to be built under strong labor standards so that those can be built with ideally union jobs. So we, for example, have done a lot of work on the East Coast to ensure that offshore wind development moves forward, and we've done that with union labor. It was one of our biggest projects in New York, multiple gigawatt project built under project labor agreements. We are doing that in other states as well. Illinois, Minnesota, several other states. And so absolutely we're big proponents of clean energy. We're big proponents of renewable energy, and we believe those things should be built with strong labor standards as well.

Senator, I think it's a very good question, because absolutely we want to ensure that workers have the ability to pay their bills. And at the same time, we all require clean air. We all require water stewardship. And it is a difficult balance at times. But from my standpoint, these things are not run in conflict. And we can strike the right balance. This particular bill does not strike that balance. It absolutely disincentivizes development in a way that I think is really harmful to working people and certainly I think there a better policy that we can strike in this state Okay thank you Senator Malka Thank you Madam Chair

Ms. Worseth. Yes, we have had many of our union labor recruited out of state into Wyoming, Arizona, anywhere they're building data centers, So neighboring states are definitely recruiting skilled workers into their states in order to build out data centers.

Senator Putin. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you say skilled laborers, like – especially like electricians, like we heard earlier, I mean, it's less than 8% is the labor unions, and then the rest of them are other skilled laborers that are non-unions. And so you're just talking about union members that were recruited and not non-labor union members?

So, yes. All right. Thank you, panel, for your time and your expertise this evening. I will, let's see oh, Ms. Forsyth, please sign up at the back too just make sure you sign up Morgan Brown Andrew Zotter Kevin Nugent Shannon Hoffman and Sierra Guerrero Do we have any of those people online? Okay. All right. Would you please begin? You sat down first. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes.

Thank you so much. That was lovely. If you'd like to introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Okay, off to a strong start.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We have online here, Sierra, Ms. Guerrero, can you

is the absolute bare minimum to protect our watersheds and groundwater as these centers take off. We also have to talk about what many of these centers actually do. We're being asked to subsidize and accommodate the infrastructure of mass surveillance and an extractive attention economy that profits from our data, erodes our privacy and fuels addictive algorithms. Why would we bend over backwards, creating more ecological destruction and raising energy bills for our neighbors to build an industry that actively harms our social fabric? I'm a working class person with kids, too, but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility I have for the ecological impact my job has on the world around me. Data setters want to build in our state. They must not be allowed to drive up fossil fuel use to pollute the air, which belongs to either everyone or no one. And they must be transparent about how much water they're using. This bill is asking that this industry acknowledges the living earth that it and all of us depend on. How long will we allow the illusion of security promised by economic growth to blind us to the real costs to our air, our water and our lives? Please vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Guerrero. I see. Is this Mr. Espino, Pancho Espino? Is that you up there? Okay. You got promoted. Go ahead, please, and begin your two-minute testimony. Thank you. Hello, my name is Alfonso Espino. I am a born and raised resident here in Illyria in Swansea, the heart of where the next data center is being built. CoreSight, representatives of that company are probably in the room as we speak with you all, and I lament that I couldn't be there in person. I really urge this committee to vote yes on this bill because this is the floor of how we should be looking at the impacts of the environment, but also the public health of communities like my own. We are talking about these companies coming in and building these massive data centers with the PR line that they are providing a service to society because we use Netflix, because we have cloud services, things like that. But the true driver of these data centers and the necessity for this amount of capacity to build these hyperscale data centers is all being driven by the corporate greed of the multi-billion dollar class of Silicon Valley owners who are in essence trying to push these technologies and AI not to serve the everyday need of people, but to make millions of jobs obsolete, poison the communities where they're setting these up in. And they are building a data center right now, Coresight, in a neighborhood that on average lives 10 years less than the rest of the city, where we have the highest rates of rare forms of cancer. We have some of the highest rates of asthma. So it's not just about protecting the environment. It's about protecting the public health, which all representatives are charged to also do. And in conclusion, I think that it's a shame that there isn't more of a conversation about how some of these companies are trying to also push nuclear energy as a clean source of energy because the utility companies can't keep up and they seek to impose small nuclear facilities. Thank you so much, Mr. Espino, for your testimony. Does anyone have questions for this panel No seeing none Thank you all very much for your testimony You have a good evening Let's call, let's see, we have a panel of Benjamin Elwood, Jason Wardrip, They should be online. And Angelique Rodriguez and Ronald Booth, if you're here in person. There we go. Okay. Angelique Rodriguez. Well, since you're sitting here in person, sir, you please introduce yourself and begin. Two minutes. Once I get my notes. All righty. My name is Ronald Booth. I'm here today to represent myself. My name is Ronald Booth. I'm here to represent myself today and future generations. I want to thank the authors of this bill for bringing it forward. However, I'm here today in a position to amend. And the friendly amendment I would like to offer is that we consider an amendment for a three- to five-year moratorium, much different from a ban. One of the primary arguments from the data center lobbyists, other than the promise of jobs, short-lived jobs, is that the United States must build out this infrastructure to remain competitive. My view is one from about 30,000 feet and less local as the local issues have been pretty well covered. The United States, last November, had about 4,100 data centers. Already, just a few months later, we're up to over 5,400 data centers. That accounts for over 46% of the data center capacity on the entire planet. Our closest actual competition is Germany, with less than one-tenth the number of data centers that we have in the United States, where we have less than 5% of the population of the planet. Morgan Stanley and other economists and experts far beyond my capacity have projected that big tech globally will spend roughly $3 trillion by 2028, less than two years from now, and about one-third of that is going to be spent right here in the United States. Most of that trillion dollars is being heavily leveraged. The companies are not paying for this out of their profits. they're borrowing heavily from banks. And it's expected that by the end of next year or the following year, certainly within the next three to five, we're going to see the next major crash. Thank you so much for your testimony. I must finish. The profitability is through the flow. We've been, I'm sorry, we've been holding. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, I appreciate that. We've been holding everyone to the same standard, so we need to do that. Thank you for your time. Let's see. Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. Thank you My name is Angelique Rodriguez I am coming speaking as the people for the people and with the people I would like to invite some new perspectives that I haven heard today some considerations that are not in either bills, and some of those would be the geopolitical protections that have not been designated or provided. We don't know if these data centers are providing air gaps. Who are the clients of these data centers? and what is the safety of carrying this type of information for specific data centers like in GES where the rail cars are right there and there are civilians and people 70 feet away from these data centers. Also another thing that's not being considered is the health implications. We look at the research that is out regarding the infrasound and the low frequencies which have been noted to create severe health issues with the collagen and elastin growing over itself. These tests are different than anything else. There's no inflammation. So basically what I would like to say is that there's a lot of things that aren't being considered, like the carotid event, the EMFs, and the discharges, the computer chips, the replacements. What does that all look like? None of that is being set out. So my thought is, can we let this be the opportunity and the pivot for Colorado as a whole to step into these new technologies? We don't have the medicines. We don't have the tests. We don't have the monitoring. Every one of those is a potential industry for our state. And this could be an actual extreme, extreme pivot for us in the nation. And what if we didn't have those data centers or as many? well that might mean that people come back to colorado to vacation that they'll be able to clean go down a clean river and be able to breathe some fresh air unlike anywhere else in this nation thank you thank you so much ms rodriguez and benjamin elwood i believe we have online if you want to introduce yourself and begin your two minutes thank you madam chair members of the committee i'm here today as a champion of clean energy, yes, clean energy, those sources which include renewables, and also those whose innovative technologies offer Colorado a vibrant future, so long as we take a stand against this sneaky activist-laden policy. I, too, support responsible growth and protecting ratepayers, but I must oppose Senate Bill 102 in its current form, not because its goals are misplaced, but because of its structure, and I'd like to focus on one aspect that has not been sufficiently addressed. This bill quietly, and yet somehow still blatantly, removes the very tools at our disposal that can secure reliable, affordable, zero-carbon power for Coloradans with a grotesque strategy that aims to kill two birds with one stone. By limiting compliance to intermittent resources, it not only excludes nuclear, which was recognized as clean by this legislature last year, and by, I believe, most of the members on this committee, but also kneecaps the economic opportunities offered to Colorado by the burgeoning data market, by imposing stringent load limits, and an unrealistic timeline. What's clear to me is that as more people realize that advanced nuclear technology is the key to synthesizing the growing demand of the AI industry with environmental responsibility. It seems that more convoluted and regressive policy and legislation is conjured to keep it out of our reach. I'm at a loss to explain why this bill, which explicitly mentions clean energy seven times would subsequently exclude nuclear by instead requiring 100 renewables Page 5 states quote operators of large load data centers should help Colorado meet its clean energy and climate goals I could not agree more. So let's ensure we're supplying them with all the clean energy resources at our disposal. If we get this approach wrong, we'll not be regulating the future. Thank you very much, Mr. Elwood. We appreciate your testimony today. Senator Malka has a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for sticking around to testify. I've spoken with both of you at community events, and I have a question for you, Mr. Booth. When you referenced water, and I've heard that in testimony today in a number of the conversations I've had, I just want to give you an opportunity to talk or to really kind of focus on, has the technology advanced in a way for these data centers that the way they use water is they recycle the same water to cool these servers? And so with this technology that allows for that, is there less of an impact on water that we're hearing about with those advances in technology? Mr. Booth? Thank you for the question. I would say if the most advanced technologies are applied across the board, but I see nothing that requires that. In fact, if you look at what's happened in California, it is left-leaning as Governor Gavin Newsom seems to appear. There's no transparency for water usage there. He actually vetoed a bill that required data centers account for the water that they use. But if I could have the indulgence of the chair for about 30 seconds, the point that I was trying to make is one that has not been raised by anyone yet today. And I think it's important to look beyond the boundaries of just Colorado. Because what we're building towards in this moment is the next major recession and the possible collapse of our banking system because it's been so heavily over leveraged. which means that if our banking system fails once again, we the people are going to be on the hook for bailing that out. This is a cycle that repeats about every 15 to 20 years. And every time it does, when the banking system goes down, it's followed by bankruptcies, foreclosures, homelessness rising, jobs lost, and more. And do we want to be a part of contributing to that? Do we want to jump on the bandwagon with these other states, or do we want to stand alone? because sometimes it's more important to stand alone and be on the right side of history than jumping on board of the bandwagon and have everything. Thank you, Mr. Booth. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your indulgence. Anyone else have any questions for this panel? All right. Seeing none, thank you all. Appreciate your time this evening. Thank you. Do we have Sadie Squire? Let's see. Sadie Squire, Morgan Brown. Morgan Brown? We already did. You're probably right. Okay. Jane Ard Smith. Dr. Beth Gillespie, Lauren Swain, Sarah Kuntzler, Do I see Sarah? There she is. Okay, and it looks like Jane Ard Smith and Beth Gillespie, maybe aren't here. All right, please, who would like to begin? Sadie, would you like to begin? I'm sorry, Ms. Squire. You'll have two minutes, so please begin when you're ready. Okay. My name is Sadie Squire. I'm a resident of the Oakland University. Oh, okay. It was already green. Okay. My name is Sadie Squire. I'm a registered voter and I've lived in Colorado for 49 years. I'm testifying in support of Bill SB 26102. I wrote a bunch of stuff, but after listening for a while, I thought that perhaps just some of my personal experience might be more helpful. I've actually worked on private jets for the last 20 years and even though I've signed more disclosure forms than could fill this room I can say that this kind of thing makes me question the need for these data centers. I feel like the people who are generally pushing this agenda, a lot of the people that I have worked for for a long time are more concerned about sustaining a specific lifestyle than how the results will end up. We've very frequently seen that promises that they have made have not turned out exactly the way they've said. I mean, whose car is driving itself? And we end up paying the cost of it every time. The jobs don't come, the tax breaks come, and the destruction seems to always happen. I noticed in the 20 plus year that I worked in there, the mass amount of money that has gone in that direction. It has been insane. And the unsustainability of it as well. And I am concerned that this is not because we need all of this technology. I'm not saying that a lot of this should still be looked at and regulated, and we should be asking ourselves, is this actually in our benefit? than how quickly we can force this into being and create money for us or maybe just for them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight. Ms. Künstler. All right. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sarah Künstler. I'm the Colorado State Director for Mountain Mamas, an organization that works with moms across the state who want clean air for their kids and energy bills they can afford. Many Colorado parents are hearing a lot about artificial intelligence. That mic might have a little bit of an issue. Maybe, yeah. We had a little... Stop the clock. We'll give you a couple. Yeah, all right. Thank you. Many Colorado parents are hearing a lot about artificial intelligence, whether it's showing up in our kids' schools or the tools we use at work or home. But what many families don't realize is that the rapid expansion of AI is also driving a nationwide boom in massive data centers that require extraordinary amounts of electricity, water, and infrastructure. Across the country, this surge in demand is already leading utilities to consider new gas plants, delay coal plant retirements, and rely on fleets of diesel backup generators. These decisions mean more pollution and higher electricity bills for everyday people Colorado is not immune to this trend Xcel Energy has estimated that large load growth and new data center development could increase peak electricity demand on its system by more than 40 by 2035 Families in our state are already feeling the strain of rising energy costs. They should not be forced to subsidize the enormous power needs of some of the wealthiest companies in the world. The companies building these facilities should be responsible for paying for the power and grid upgrades they require. We also need transparency and accountability. Communities deserve to know how much water these facilities will use, what the local environmental impacts may be, and how projects will affect nearby neighborhoods. In an estate already struggling with air quality and drought, we cannot ignore the pollution from diesel generators or the heavy water demands of these facilities. Colorado families have fought hard for clean air and meaningful climate action. As new industries grow here, they must do their part to meet those goals, not push us backward. That's why we urge you to support Senate Bill 102, which establishes common sense safeguards to protect families, communities, and our environment as this industry expands. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you so much. Please go ahead and introduce yourself, ma'am. You have two minutes. Thanks for your consideration, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Lauren Swain, Program Director for Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado. We advocate for evidence-based policy that protects human life from the health impacts of fossil fuels, the climate crisis, and exposure to toxic substances. We ask you to make an evidence-based decision to pass SB 102 because this bill acknowledges the science demonstrating the unacceptable cost of continuing large-scale data center development without mitigating the negative impacts on human health, community living conditions, the climate, and consumer rights. PSR Colorado prioritizes health because people need health to live and earn a living. Data centers may bring some temporary construction jobs, but without passing 102, many of Colorado's 3 million workers in all sectors will struggle to make a living and care for their families as they miss more work days suffering from excess, asthma, lung cancer, and premature deaths predicted by studies modeling the air quality impacts of unregulated data center growth. Harvard Business Review cites a recent Virginia study in reporting the following. One, diesel backup generators and the extreme energy demands of data centers elevate levels of particulate and NOx air pollutants, resulting in respiratory health impacts estimated to cost the U.S. $20 billion each year by 2028. Exposure to these pollutants for as little as 30 minutes can trigger breathing problems, especially for those with pre-existing lung conditions, and wind can blow these pollutants hundreds of miles away, degrading air quality in communities far from the emissions source. These are but a few reasons why Coloradans need this bill to limit diesel generator use and require data centers to provide their own renewable energy. The bill also provides evidence-based water, labor, and consumer protections. We can't afford policy failure that denies the science and ignores the data center impacts. Thank you, Ms. Swain. We have to have you wrapped. Thank you so much. Dr. Gillespie, are you online? Thank you, Madam Chair. Please introduce yourself. You have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Beth Gillespie. I'm a physician in Denver, and I here testifying on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado in support of Senate Bill 102 Sam Altman of OpenAI is quoted as saying AI won replace humans but humans who use AI will replace those who don This phrase sounds even more ominous when you think about how data centers threaten human lives and well-being. Lest we deem certain Coloradans as expendable, it is essential that we adopt guardrails for data centers operating in our state. A recent U.S. study that has been mentioned here estimated that data centers could be responsible for 600,000 asthma exacerbations and 1,300 premature deaths by 2028, partially related to the fine particulates and ozone precursors released from backup generators. In addition to respiratory illness and death, these pollutants harm us by causing other known medical complications. Unregulated generators are run for many reasons, including to offset demand of power grids during peak hours. The health toll of these practices has been measured in Virginia, where data backup generators could already be causing 14,000 asthma related exacerbations and about 16 deaths a year. One or two limits the hours diesel generators run and requires them to use the cleanest fuel available. Because of high energy demands, we're also seeing more pressure to control or to keep coal power plants online, which burdens communities that live and breathe nearby. Energy security is another issue. According to the Colorado Energy Office, nearly 30% of Coloradans experience energy burden. MyHEAP is only funded to help 20% of eligible households across the U.S. avoid energy shutoffs, and these shutoffs can be a death sentence for people that rely on oxygen, refrigerated medications, and powered medical devices. 102 helps prevent energy insecurity and protects our health by requiring that data centers secure their own renewable resources. We need to consider health costs of data center construction and operation and make sure the burden is carried by operators rather than Coloradans, especially at a time when we're facing more than $500 million in federal cuts to Colorado Medicaid. I ask you to vote yes on this bill, and I thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your testimony. Oh, shoot, where am I? Jane, is this Jane Ard Smith online? Ms. Smith? Uh-oh. I'm here. Sorry, I was unmuting. Can you hear me? Yeah, absolutely. It looks like it might be frozen, but we can hear you, so that's what we need. Well, that's the important thing. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm calling you from my car, so I apologize. My name is Jane Art Smith, and I'm here to speak in favor of SB 102. I live in Colorado Springs. I'm concerned about the energy and water needs of data centers and the impact that they may have on our local community without this bill. According to public reports, my utility, Colorado Springs Utilities, we've received 10 inquiries for power from potential data centers over the past two years. Together, those requests seek a combined 1,420 megawatts of additional electricity and 66,000 to 117,000 additional acre feet of water per year. For perspective, that increased electricity demand is about what Colorado Springs Utilities currently generates for all of its customers. And for water, we have access to about 95,000 acre-feet of water. We use about 72,000 acre-feet a year. So if all of those data centers were to come to fruition, Colorado Springs Utilities and its rate payers would need to essentially double our electricity production and water access. Even if only one or two of those centers were to come to fruition, the impact on electricity rates would be devastating for rate payers. We're already facing a 6.5% per year increase in electricity rates over the next few years, and given the low snowpack and drought conditions we facing the water impacts could be even more problematic Personally I not opposed to data centers in our community but the cost should be borne by those who will profit the most This bill is a step in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I believe that exhausts everyone on this panel. Does anyone have any questions? Committee? No. No, thank you all so much for hanging out and sharing your testimony with us this evening. Next panel will be Desi Parker, Matt Gose, some of these might be online. Oh, there we go. Eric Franckowski. I see Dr. Jan Douglas right here in person, and David Knight online as well. Jan Douglas, did you hear? You're up, you're up. All right, we might have, let's see, I'll call again. Matt Gose and Eric Franckowski and David Knight. But Dr. Douglas, if you want to just introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Jan Douglas, retired family doctor, and I am testifying for myself in support of Senate Bill 102. As a physician, I am particularly concerned about the effects of data centers on human health. As an example of something for now, which Dr. Leslie also cited, using the EPA community. The mic is bad again, so we're going to pause. Okay. All right. We'll give you a few extra seconds. I'm going to start. As an example, a study from Cornell using the EPA co-benefits risk assessment showed that emissions from burning fossil fuels to power the electricity demands of data centers and their backup generators will lead to an excess of 1,300 asthma deaths per year, which is over a third of the total number of U.S. asthma deaths per year, not to mention the misery of an excess of 600,000 asthma cases per year. Asthma is personal to me. I've developed asthma as an adult. But in addition, so many times I've witnessed the pain and fear of parents as they watch their children with asthma struggle to breathe. Of course, the criteria air pollutants from burning more fossil fuels will not only increase asthma rates, but also contribute greatly to cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, COPD, stroke, cognitive decline, and overall premature mortality, leading to further widespread health and economic impacts. Given that data centers tend to be built in disproportionately impacted communities and the emissions from backup diesel generators and their health effects will be concentrated in these communities, I strongly support the cumulative impact studies that this bill requires when a data center is proposed in a DIC. Data centers throughout the West are projected to increase energy demands by over 50 percent by the middle of the next decade. Colorado should be a leader in requiring that that demand be met by renewable, clean energy, energy that doesn't increase the emotional and economic trauma of preventable disease. Thank you. Please support. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Dr. Douglas. Let's see. Do we have Desi Parker online? Yep. Please introduce me. Use yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you. Awesome. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Desi Parker, and I'm here with a foot in two worlds. As someone living in the San Luis Valley, which is an incredibly rural area of Colorado, and someone with real ties to the tech world. I'm not at all anti-technology. In fact, I've spent my life in the world of computer science and computer engineering with deep connections to bleeding edge tech and organizations such as Google, HP and Cray. And I've been involved in computer science research at CU Boulder. I understand that technology is essential and I know that data centers are a part of modern life. What I support is responsible growth. Colorado is uniquely situated to lead the way. Other countries have found smart ways to make this tech work, and we shouldn't be behind the curve. Colorado families pay for the electricity they use, and what makes sense to me is that billion-dollar companies pay for the electricity and water that they use. We see over and over that data centers raise utility prices in the communities where they are located. It just doesn't seem to make sense that communities would be left with more air pollution, more water strain, and not receive the protection or benefit from the data center neighbors. That's why I support SB 26102. This bill does not ban data centers. It sets fair, common sense rules so that new large load data centers are accountable for their energy demand, their infrastructure costs, their pollution, and their impact on communities, which is especially important for disproportionately impacted communities. I know enough about technology to say this clearly. Good systems require guardrails. Transparency, accountability. We should expect the same from large data centers. Colorado should not subsidize pollution and higher utility bills in the name of innovation. Please vote yes on SB 26102. Thank you very much for your testimony. Matt Gose? Are you online? No? How about Eric Frankowski? I am here. Can you hear me? I can. Please begin your two minutes when you're ready. Excellent. Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee. My name is Eric Frankowski. I've lived in Colorado most of my life, the past 27 years in Longmont. I work for an energy-focused nonprofit, but I'm speaking to you today as a private citizen, deeply concerned about Colorado's future. There's no doubt a wave of data centers is barreling at us and reshaping our lives, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Regardless, it is coming, and you have the responsibility of making sure Colorado proceeds along a common-sense path that welcomes responsible tech development while protecting consumers, communities, our air, and water. I want to focus on one aspect of this issue I haven't heard yet, the connection between data centers, power needs, and coal. Last year, Excel proposed a massive build-out of its generating resources, saying it needed to spend billions, tripling the amount of capacity it currently has, with the majority of it specifically to meet new data center demands. During hearings, an Excel executive testified that residential rates were projected to balloon 50% in the next five years to pay for the build-out. Meanwhile, large users like data centers would see rates rise by almost zero. Thankfully, the PUC viewed XL's growth as highly speculative and conservatively pared down the amount of new capacities allowed to build. Fast forward a few months, and XL is now blazing a path for an end around to the PUC's decision that would allow it to use coal to fuel data center demand As I sure you aware Unit 3 at the Comanche Coal Plant broke down in August and Excel asked for permission to keep Unit 2 running past its December retirement date Now Excel is hinting it would like to run all of its coal units through the end of 2030 rather than retiring them on schedule over the next two years. Excel is drooling at the potential profit margins of hundreds of megawatts of coal capacity being available for data centers. These are power plants Colorado families have already paid for and keeping them operating will let some of the richest companies in the world off the hook for their fair share of the cost of new power. This would be a huge step backward and is one of the many reasons why fair common sense safeguards such as this bill are needed. It's the legislature's job to put those guardrails in place. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Mr. Fronkowski. David Knight, do we have Commissioner Knight? Yes, I am here. Please begin when you're ready. Thank you, Chair and Committee members. I am Basalt Mayor David Knight speaking on my own behalf and that of my constituents today. I'm in an amend position because I see a need for additional guardrails on this bill, especially around water and energy use. While data centers present an economic opportunity to the state of Colorado, they're not the only industry that must be considered. Basalt is in the Roaring Fork Valley, where much of our economy relies on a healthy outdoor recreation industry. This year's devastatingly low snowpack has been an economic hit to our communities. When people don't come here to recreate, they don't eat in the restaurants, they don't sleep in our hotels, and jobs can be lost across the economy, and the people who live and work here lose their ability to support themselves and their families. If climate change continues at its current pace, our valley could see major economic losses, and data centers operating on fossil fuels will only worsen the conditions we're already experiencing. Why should the needs of the data center industry be more important than the needs of other industries that have driven jobs for Coloradans for much longer? Economic opportunity must not come at a cost to our climate and our residents' jobs, health, and lives that depend on it. Just as all other industries in Colorado must meet certain requirements in order to operate, data centers must also be carefully regulated. I look forward to seeing amendments to this bill that are under consideration that propose additional common sense guardrails for large load data centers. We can ensure that this industry does real good for all Coloradans. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Knight. Appreciate your testimony. I believe that is all. Do we have questions for this panel? Senator Molleca. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not a question. I just want to thank Dr. Douglas for being here. I worked with your husband quite a bit with Tri-County Public Health, and I just think your family is great. We're lucky to have you here in Colorado. So much. I would second that. Thank you all. Let's see. We'll have now Paul Sherman, Jordy Matthews, Jamie Hankins, and Karen Soberg. Are they? I think so, man. If you, I think some may be popping in online, so please introduce yourself and begin. Thank you, Chair Cutter and members of the committee. My name is Paul Sherman, Climate Campaign Manager with Conservation Colorado. We work to protect Colorado's climate, air, land, water, and communities, and I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 26102. As Colorado works to reduce pollution and meet our climate goals, we will need to carefully consider innovative technology and new ideas. But we also must balance the need to clean up the grid quickly, affordably, and equitably. As such the regulation of new technologies must include robust protections for ratepayers and the communities in which they will be sited This legislation takes a reasonable common approach toward protecting Colorado ratepayers and communities over the interests of wealthy tech corporations In the wake of the AI boom, other states have shown that it is possible to advance modern technology without sacrificing the safety of surrounding communities, nor our much-needed transition to renewable energy. According to recent polling, 8 out of 10 Coloradans support our state taking action to hold corporate polluters accountable to reduce air pollution. Voters agree that while the federal government rolls back decades of climate progress, state leadership must take a proactive approach to protecting our air, water, land, and communities. Colorado has worked for years to fight ozone pollution, which could be made worse by diesel generators used for backup power for data centers. What's worse, these effects will be felt in communities who have been hit hardest by industrial pollution for generations. We must learn from our mistakes, not just by cleaning up our air and water, but by ensuring that we do not hand out blank checks for new industries to develop without regard for Coloradans. Across the country, state leaders on both sides of the aisle, from Arizona to Maryland, Oklahoma, Texas, and beyond, are proposing regulations to ensure responsible oversight of the wealthiest industry in the history of the world. We are at a turning point, and this legislation presents a critical opportunity for Colorado to continue to lead in the responsible development of new technologies. Please prioritize the needs of Colorado's people and environment above those of big tech by voting yes. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let's see, online. All right, Ms. Soberg, and please correct me if I'm pronouncing your name incorrectly, and you'll have two minutes. Thank you. It's Karen Sjoberg. My name is Karen Sjoberg. I'm from Mesa County. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm the chairperson of Citizens for Clean Air in Grand Junction. And we are here today because data centers are expanding so fast. And they use enormous amounts of electricity, as you know. The International Energy Agency reports that global data centers consumed about 415 perawatt hours of electricity in 2024, roughly the annual power use of an entire mid-sized nation. And that demand is expected to more than double by 2030. This is not an abstract far-off issue. issue. The rapid growth of data center energy demand has real consequences for communities like ours, where increased electricity use translates into higher strain on local grids, more pollution from peaker plants, and greater pressure on already stressed air basins. When we talk about protecting public health, especially for children, older adults, and people with heart and lung disease, these decisions matter. A recent Bloomberg analysis found out that in areas with heavy data center activity, monthly electricity costs have jumped to 267% in just five years. That's a huge burden on households and small businesses, and it's a warning sign about what happens when energy demand grows without guardrails. Senate Bill 102 puts common sense guardrails in place to protect our communities, to help Colorado households and small businesses, and to excuse me, I lost my place to help Coloradans meet our climate goals and keep energy safe and affordable for the people who live here I urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 102 Thank you Protect Colorado communities Thank you so much for your time Ms Schoberg Is it Jordy Matthews that we have online? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. My name is Jordy Matthews. I am a small business owner in Grand Junction, Colorado. I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 26-102. I want to be clear about something. I'm not anti-tech. I use AI in my business every single day. And I think it's actually one of the most exciting tools that we've seen in a generation. But excitement doesn't mean we get to skip accountability. These large data centers that power AI and cloud computing have to go somewhere, and tech companies are looking at Colorado. And that's fine. But what's not fine is asking everyday Coloradans to subsidize their energy costs through higher utility bills. Accel Energy's own estimates show data centers could drive 40% or more increase in peak power demand by 2035. And that's not just a hypothetical. It's a real number with real consequences for families and small businesses like mine that are already feeling the squeeze. This initiative doesn't block data centers from coming here. It just says if you're going to operate at this scale, you pay your own way, you use clean energy, and you report your water usage. and you don't get it past the bill to the rest of us and then walk away. As someone who works in tech every day, I believe innovation and responsibility are not at odds with each other. They go hand in hand. The guardrails in this bill are exactly the kind of common sense protections that make sure that growth benefits Colorado communities instead of burdening them. I urge you to support the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Committee, any questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you all. Appreciate your time and your passion this evening. Thank you. Let's see, Tom Acker, Ann Borholt, Andrew Forks Gudmundson, and Ricky Cook. Looks like some people are joining us online, but you're here. I'm here. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Okay. So this, I don't see a green light. It's on. It's on. Okay. Thank you, Chair Cutter and members of the committee. My name is Anne Bornholt. I'm a Colorado resident residing in Castle Rock. I'm testifying today representing the Colorado CR Club and its thousands of members in support of SB 26102. We've seen unprecedented growth in data centers along with their huge impacts on electricity, water, air quality, and communities. Bringing in data centers like bringing in the resource needs of a small city. The core site in Elria, Swansea is projected to draw up to 60 megawatts of power, which is like the Denver airport. It's also expected to use over 800,000 gallons of water a day, the amount of water a small town uses. Residents, communities, and municipalities have concerns that in the rush to build data centers, corporations will spread the cost of data centers' enormous energy and water needs across residents and other businesses' utility bills. SB 26102 provides needed common-sense guardrails for new large data center developments, including requirements to pay the full cost of investments for their needed power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure, and for long-term contracts for power supply to protect against stranded costs so that other customers won't be responsible if the data center is not completed or if it ceases operations early. To obtain power from clean, renewable energy sources and that backup generators meet stringent emission standards. And also prevailing wage and other labor standards so that the data center development supports workers and their families. annual reporting on energy use, sources of water supply, water use, and water use efficiency. Development of model code. Okay. Whoops. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and for obeying the beep. Let's see. Mr. Forks Gudmundson, I believe, is online. Please begin. Yes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I guess it's rapidly becoming good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Andrew Forkus Goodmanson. I'm the Senior Manager for State Policy at Earthworks. Earthworks is in support of SB 102 for many reasons, but first and foremost, because many of the community groups we regularly work with across the state are asking for the protections it contains. You've heard from many of them today and throughout the stakeholder process for this bill. Earthworks and myself are not experts on AI or utility scale power development, but what we are experts on is large industrial emission sources moving into neighborhoods and communities. And we can tell you that putting loud, disruptive, emissions-intensive facilities near where people live, work, and play is a terrible idea. Other experts have spoken very eloquently and in great detail about the disaster these facilities pose for our grid and our climate goals, so I will just make one Earthworks-y point here. The backup generators and on-site power sources these facilities rely on are dirty, loud, and disruptive and have no place near people. Earthworks staff have filmed the pollution from these sources with OGI cameras in other contexts across the country and in Colorado, and the evidence is beyond compelling. We need the strongest possible guardrails in place to protect the most vulnerable people and the climate from these sources, and I therefore urge you to please support SB102 and put those guardrails in place today. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Does anyone have questions for this panel? No, seeing none. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Now, let's see. Neil Smith, Randy Willard, Jamie Valdez. Alex Piper Carl Kosser Zoe Mattioli Paul Kulman Kulman Okay, we're loading up. All right. You can share the mic it fine Okay who would like to begin Please go ahead introduce yourself and you have two minutes Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Paul Colnan. I'm here representing myself in 350 Colorado. I'm on the board of 350 Colorado. Normally, Heidi Leithwood, our policy analyst, would be sitting in this chair, but she's several time zones away today. So I'm taking her place. She wrote a little statement that I could read, but it basically reiterates a lot of points that have already been made. Several hours ago, Senator Kipp gave us a master class on data centers. And I suggest you all go review that because you've probably forgotten it by now. I couldn't tell you everything that was in there, certainly. So my main concern for being here is climate change. So, yeah, we've got water issues. We've got siding issues. But we need to power these things with clean energy. imagine that your neighbor puts solar on their roof that's a good thing right now imagine another neighbor puts solar on their roof and a diesel generator in their backyard that wouldn't be so good I don't think any local jurisdiction would allow that so that's what we're dealing with here doing this halfway saying, you know, we're going to do 50% renewables and 50% fossil fuels makes the climate change problem worse. That is not an improvement. Let's compete with neighboring states on having a clean environment. Let's compete on saying Colorado is a wonderful place to bring your business because we have clean air and clean water. and, you know, the mountains. So thank you. Thank you so much for your time and your testimony. Please introduce yourself and begin with your two minutes. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Alex Piper, head of U.S. policy for Energy Tag, a global nonprofit with technical expertise in hourly clean energy matching, hourly energy tracking infrastructure, and corporate energy purchasing. We support this bill, and its important feasible clean energy matching requirements. While 100% annual matching of clean energy production to consumption is good, it is actually quite achievable with today's clean energy costs, especially for the richest companies in the world. And for these companies with outsized impacts on grid reliability, electricity costs, and emissions, more should be required. That is why the hourly matching element of this legislation is so important. Ensuring hour-by-hour matching of clean energy to the energy usage of data centers is critical. According to the International Energy Agency, 100% annually matched power using only solar can equate to as low as 40% hourly matching across the year. The other 60% of hours could still be powered with gas and other expensive electricity and be considered clean under an annual matching structure. This is bad for emissions and affordability. A U data center that is instead 80 hourly matched can be three times cleaner and would cover more of its true electricity demand reducing the data center freeloader effect that often drives up costs for ratepayers And here the kicker The IEA finds that 80 hourly matching is cost competitive with 100 annual matching today Hourly matching ensures investment in innovative new energy technologies like storage and geothermal. It's an economic boon to the state. Hourly matching is already the goal for companies like Google and may soon be required by international emissions reporting standards. Google's announcement in Michigan yesterday brings 2.7 gigawatts of new clean energy storage, demand flexibility, and that's the kind of development that can be achieved when LR matching is the goal. Thank you so much for your time. Happy for your questions. Wow, within one second. Very well done. Thank you. Please introduce yourself and begin. Thank you, Madam Chair Cutter, members of the committee. My name is Carl Kozer, representing myself. I'm a constituent of Senator Ball, and I've worked in the electric power industry for six years. I'm testifying in support of this bill. 100% annual matching of clean energy by 2031 is very reasonable and necessary. All four big tech companies already meet this standard today. At minimum, they should not be allowed to backtrack, so this requirement should arguably be immediate. However, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the authority on corporate clean energy buying, 100% annual matching equals only 50-60% hourly matching day-to-day. That's why this bill's hourly matching requirement from the PUC is critical. It makes data centers secure, reliable clean power and storage all day, not just 100% clean on paper via annual matching alone. Think storage and geothermal. Bloomberg also reports that data center companies especially are already thinking hourly. Google and Meta have calculated they're around 83% to 88% hourly matched today in nearby grid regions like Wyoming, Utah, and the plains to our east. Sophisticated and well-resourced tech companies can absolutely track clean energy hourly, just not annually, not just annually, and they are already putting their money where their mouth is, buying these clean resources like others have said. Hourly matching requirements ensure reliable clean power gets built to support, not harm, Colorado's clean energy targets and repair protection goals. Soon, Colorado should consider hourly matching for its own clean power targets, in my opinion. For now, though, I ask a yes vote on this bill. We must act. And given the feasibility and importance of hourly matching, the requirements should be effective as soon as possible. Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Go ahead and please introduce yourself and start. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Zoe Mattioli, and I am a member of the Denver Hub of Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate action organization. I'm here to speak in support of SB 26102 with a call for amendment. My primary concern is the unrelenting forced adoption of AI and its products. There is no actual imminence or inevitability from AI products other than the devised urgency created by the small percentage of those who financially benefit from it. The forced adoption of AI has caused many problems for many people, myself included. As a creative professional, it works to delegitimize the quality of my work and my career. As a woman, the unregulated access to generative AI makes me afraid to exist in online spaces. And as a person born and raised in New Mexico who now calls Colorado home, I have known drought and wildfires my whole life. It fills me with fear to think about rushing to green light an industry that exponentially exploits our greatest vulnerabilities. My dream is that Colorado puts its foot down on the forced adoption of AI and construction of data centers requires comprehensive regulations and demands that AI and tech industries work for our benefit My hope is that Colorado centers people and not data as it considers long opportunities for meaningful, resilient growth. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates a minimum of $6 trillion in required annual spending in development finance, $4 trillion more than current spending, in order to keep up with climate resilience and adaptation in the U.S. There are seemingly endless opportunities for better investments for both workers and communities. My amendment is that we enact these regulations as soon as possible and not in 2031. Let this historic and deadly heat wave and the social turmoil from war and authoritarianism please be enough to convince you that our futures cannot wait. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let's see. We have online. Hold on a minute. Oh, okay. Okay. Neil Smith, are you there? Yes. Do you hear me? Yep, definitely. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Yes, my name is Neil Smith. I am Nealium Plumbing, LLC, here in Colorado, San Luis Valley. I was brought here by the Natural Resources Water Division for a geothermal thing that I was very much going for, which is the capitol building which has 400 feet past bedrock drilled into where it's in the confined aquifer and this will be an enclosed water system and stuff like that so i've been doing this for 33 years um work for rk mechanical i have not seen any mechanical guys on the hydronic side or anything speak up and know what's up i did nsa databases uh from 2005 to 2008 i know what the water consumption was all about and I heard the rumors from my outfit that I work with that did Utah in 2009 how much water was being used yes it might be enclosed in systems and that's great if it's possible to do that but we know with any type of strains that you're going to lose by not saying yes for this and not not putting a hold or control you're going to lose the opportunity to not able to stop it. And the water is about half empty going about empty. And I speak really basically from San Luis Valley where we're losing farmers. Where you know what junior water rights is? Junior water rights is you don't own the water no more. I was a supporter of that when I came here. And when it comes to the writing on the wall, it's already there. And if you lose this control of not able to mandate on renewable, like liquefied air storage battery that I just came out last week just to help out on this bill. In other words, cool data centers, because it exhausts air, and it's stored by off-peak or dead times or whatever, renewable energy or whatever. It could be done when there's not energy. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you so much. Mr. Valdez, please introduce yourself and begin. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jaime Valdez and I'm the Colorado Transportation and Energy Advocate for Green Latinos. I'm here today to strongly support SB 26102, the measure to ensure accountability for large load data centers. Colorado is at a crossroads. As the demand for data centers grows, driven by the AI boom, we cannot allow our state to become a wild west for developers. Without the guardrails in this bill, these massive facilities which can can consume as much power as 80,000 homes and millions of gallons of water daily. threaten to drive up utility bills for every Colorado family and strain our already stressed water systems. A strong mandated community engagement process is not just a formality. It is essential for responsible growth. SB 26102 correctly identifies that local communities must have a seat at the table before a permit is issued. This ensures that siding decisions consider the real-world environmental impacts on air quality, noise, and local infrastructure, rather than treating them as an afterthought. Most critically, this bill provides vital protections for disproportionately impacted communities. For too long, low-income neighborhoods and communities of color have borne an outsized burden of industrial pollution. By requiring cumulative impact analysis and the negotiation of community benefit agreements, SD102 ensures that these residents are no longer excluded from the decision-making process. It moves us away from status quo where companies move in and residents are forced to play catch-up to understand the threats to their health and livelihoods. By requiring data centers to pay their fair share of grid investments and match their energy use with 100% renewable resources, we protect our clean energy progress. Let's ensure that data center development works for Coloradans, not at their expense. On behalf of Green Latinos and our members across the state, I urge the committee to support SB102. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. Six seconds to spare. Mr. Willard, I see that you've joined us online. Please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Randy Willard. I'm a resident of Aurora, speaking on my own behalf tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. As a citizen that has been fighting oil and gas for years, I take the influx of data centers very seriously. Colorado, as we all know, is a drought-ridden state that is already having problems with water. Many communities are already in short supply of this critical resource. Add to this the use of over 11 billion gallons of fresh water last year for fracking in Wilde County alone, and you see the extent of the problem. Citizens in our state have no say in many of these decisions, no matter what the state says and no matter what laws like SB19-181 intended. So when you see citizens supporting this bill, know that this is the only way that we feel we can impact these critical decisions. Now let's look at this bill and the competing bill from the House. This bill will require affordability for the people, not the big tech supporters. SB 26102 requires fair protections for consumers. Given that no one in the state has any choice where their power comes from, this protection seems essential. Next, this bill takes into account the real impacts on our environment and on public health. The House bill prioritizes making things easy for big tech. If you're not informed on the health impacts of data centers in urban and suburban situations, do a Google search on data centers in Phoenix and see how much fun they're having down there right now. Much like the constant hum of oil and gas equipment, data centers drone all the time, 24 hours a day. There are impacts from this noise. Next, Les, we need to remind you, the state has climate targets, and every data center will impact your ability to meet these. Between the water required for cooling and the power required to run the coolers and the servers that the AI devours, the needs of data centers are extreme when compared to housing or even standard commercial buildings. This bill will require those wishing to build in our state to bring their own power and water, both things that are necessary in order to minimize impacts on citizens. Imagine holding an industry accountable for its impacts on humans. What a shocking thing that would be. Oil and gas, are you listening? Finally, unlike oil and gas, the public needs to be part of this discussion from the start. The impacts from data centers are real and affect everyone. Please support this bill and give Colorado and its citizens a chance to impact these unacceptable threats. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Willard. Committee any questions for this panel No All right Thank you all for coming out this evening and your perspectives You have a good evening Let's see. You know what? I want to call anyone who's left in person because I think there's only a few people. I know Moshe Kornfeld is here, is in person. Anybody else that signed up? Nicholas Lenson? If you have signed up in person and I haven't called you yet, would you please join us? All right, and then we'll call to Zoom land Tanya Ishikawa, Maury Wolfson, Council Member Taisha Adams, and Finn Jackson. Do you think they're all? Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. Welcome. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 26102. My name is Moshe Kornfeld, and I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Jewish Climate Action. I was going to leave, but then I realized that I'm probably the only person who's going to be talking about the Bible. So I'll start with the Garden of Eden. And God placed the human in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it. And God commanded the human of every tree of the garden you are free to eat. But as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it. Colorado is our Eden. And we are responsible for working and guarding our land. And as a leader who comes to climate activism through my faith, I couldn't help thinking about data centers in relation to the tree of knowledge. We are confronting technological developments that allow us to do things that were unimaginable just a few years ago. In a sense, we are confronting our own tree of knowledge. We must be fully aware of the opportunities and pitfalls. And like the biblical Adam and Eve, there are serious consequences of eating the wrong fruit. The manipulative snake is trying to push our hand into thinking that our current path is inevitable. However, it is ultimately up to us to decide how data centers will unfold here in Colorado. We must ensure that data centers do not undercut our climate inequity values and goals. We must ensure that energy remains affordable and that low-income Coloradans are not left holding the bill while the richest people in the world reap the profits. The members of this committee are responsible for crafting regulations that will ultimately determine if data centers develop in line with the public interest or in the interest of the tech oligarchs. The poignancy of the biblical stories crafted thousands of years ago serves as a Reminders that the decisions we make now are not only for the next year or the next political cycle, but for our children, grandchildren, and future generations. Thank you. Well, I'm glad you hung in there for that. A different twist. Because you're the only one in person, I'm just going to, does anyone have any questions? And then we can let you, we can release you to your family. Anyone? No? Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for hanging out. All right. We have some folks online. I'm going to see if we can get a few more people to join the panel. Is Anna Hinojosa? Maury Wolfson? Let's see. Finn Jackson. He's up there. Casey Butcher Santana? All right Well I called some folks up We see But in the meantime let have Council Member Adams introduce yourself and begin your testimony Thank you. Oh, goodness, you're on mute. So please, we'll start you over with two minutes. We won't ding you. No. No. Oh, we cannot hear you. Oh, now we can. We heard you. Okay, wonderful. You got it? Okay. Please. Thank you so much for your patience. Of course. My name is Councilmember Taisha Adams, and I am a member of Boulder City Council. I am also a former commissioner for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. I am zooming in today from Washington, D.C., attending the National League of Cities Congressional Conference. where I serve on the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Council. The lack of data center guardrails have resulted in major challenges for my council peers across the country. I heard firsthand from city council representatives from Georgia in the aftermath of by-right large, low data center development and many local representatives who were unaware of the development plans. I'm here today on behalf of the City of Boulder in support of Senate Bill 102. too. Boulder has long been a leader in clean energy and environmental stewardship. In 2016, Boulder City Council voted to commit the city to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and 80% reduction in community greenhouse gas emissions. We have been working towards that goal ever since and making real progress. In 2023, Boulder surpassed our local renewable energy targets seven years ahead of schedule, and yet we know that that is enough. Why? Because the time is to meet this moment, and we are making real investments in our community, and these investments align with SB 26102. Without common sense guardrails around data center development, these projects can play significant risk on residents, small business, and local rate payers. A single large load data center could strain a grid investment our community has worked for years to build. This bill would make Colorado a leader in enshrining consumer and environmental protections in statute, ensuring responsible energy growth. Boulder strongly supports this vision. Thank you so much. I'm sorry I have to stop you. That is no problem. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time this evening. And Mr. Jackson, are you online and ready to begin? Yeah, can you hear me? We can. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Finn Jackson. I'm also a member of Sunrise Denver, but speaking on behalf of myself today. I support this bill because if data centers are going to pop up in Colorado and in disproportionately impacted communities, no less, We have to be sure their development will not exacerbate severe drought, worsening air quality, and increasing energy costs on consumers, all issues straining Coloradans today. Most of my testimony has been said, but if we're worried about our economic development in Colorado, remember the issues stated above also impact our economy negatively. Most folks I know who've left Colorado haven't left because of lack of opportunity. It for other reasons like how expensive it is to live in certain parts of the state Making data centers cover costs for some additional grid development they requiring would mitigate this Local governments in Colorado will be placing water restrictions on their constituencies this coming year. Why would we not hold data centers to a similar standard? Industrial use accounts for far more water consumed than personal use, and since large industries have higher impacts on natural resources and influence on local politics, requiring data centers to track water usage at the state level doesn't seem unreasonable. And to clarify, this bill doesn't necessarily require that data centers generate an equivalent of 100 percent of their energy use to put back on the grid. It requires the PUC assess what the highest percentage of data center energy use that's feasible to generate for renewals. So this could be 80 percent or 70 percent. This bill is not choking AI or whatever people have been saying today. It's a bare minimum necessity going forward. So thanks for your time today. And yeah, thank you. Thank you. Let's see, who else do we have online? Ms. Butcher Santana, is that correct? Okay, please welcome and please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Casey Butcher Santana, and I am here in support of Senate Bill 26102. I am not a policy or a technology expert, but I am a Colorado voter and the mother of a five-year-old child. I actually need to go read her bedtime stories. But first, I want to advocate for the kind of world I want her and all of her peers to grow up in. Really, what can I say that the young poet didn't say earlier? But to me, there is no new technology, no money to be made that would be worth risking clean air to breathe, water to drink and to grow crops, and a livable climate for the future. With growing concerns about an AI bubble and the buyers from more states such as Virginia are already expressing toward large-scale data centers, our community deserves the protection that Senator Kipp's bill provides. I am gravely concerned about the threat that the construction of large load data centers would pose to our air, water, and our state's climate goals. I worry about the impacts the demands for electricity would have on everyday rate payers, especially as we are already in a cost of living crisis. Additionally, in a day, large scale data centers can use one to five million gallons of water. Here in Colorado, Governor Polis just had to activate the drought task force because of our snowless winter. We simply cannot afford the impacts of these data centers to our resources and on our grid without the protections in place so that the data centers have to do their fair share to fit into our infrastructure. We need these ratepayer protections so that we do not have to fit the bill for a tech oligarchy that many of us do not even support. We need guardrails around the resources used by these data centers and the negative impact they will have on our ability to meet our clean energy goals. So I ask you to please vote yes on Senate Bill 26, excuse me, 26-102. Thank you. Thank you so much. A few seconds to spare. Appreciate that. Do we have any questions for anyone on this panel? No? All right, seeing none. Thank you all so much for hanging out and testifying and being here with us tonight. Appreciate your participation. Have a lovely evening. We have, let's see, Kathleen Jarocca, Shana Oliver, Sebastian Castro, Stephanie Jacobson and Alexandra Cruz. Thank you. All right. I see one person online. I think we're working to get the others loaded. Some people are coming up. That's okay. All right. I apologize. I cannot see your names. But there was a woman that popped in first with a black and white blouse on. If you want to introduce yourself and begin, apologies that I can't see your name from here. You'll have two minutes and welcome. No? Okay. Okay, whoever wants to begin, please jump in, introduce yourself and begin your two minutes of testimony. Oh, do you want to go, Sebastian? Okay, I can go. Thank you. Hi, good evening all. My name is Alexandra Cruz and I'm a resident of Thornton. I'm here in support of SB 102. I come from a hardworking family and community. Every day, I see my dad and my neighbors putting long hours to build a better future for their families. But I've also seen what happens when communities like mine are promised economic growth only to be left with the consequences of polluted air, polluted water, and industries that diminish our quality of life. Are we really going to lower our standards to protect jobs that don't exist? Why do we continue to make my community pay the price when we could make billionaires industries do it? Why not use them instead of my neighbors? My dad, the hardest working man I know, would never sacrifice my health and my future for a job. Why are facilities that carry environmental burdens like Carina, Suncor, and now data centers so often placed in communities like mine? Why are we the ones expected to sacrifice our health? Data centers are being framed as job creators, but in reality produce very few jobs and many that require specialized skills. Meanwhile, my community is left with long-term impacts, including the strain on our energy grid, higher utility costs, health, and environmental risks. These families who have worked so hard to take care of their children and our futures are not just thinking of short-term construction jobs or tech jobs. They, we want dignity, long-term stability, and well-being for our communities. SB102 is about accountability. It is about protecting my hard-working community from the damage these data centers have done to other communities in other states. Please do not let them do the same to us. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Castro. Questions for these? I apologize. Sebastian Castro, I apologize. No. Yep. That's right. Please, Sebastian? Ms. Castro? Okay. Please introduce yourself and begin My name is Sebastian Castro I a resident of Aurora I here in support of 102 Already our rates from Exile Energy are far too high adding in the pressure of even more potential increases to residential rates due to the high demand and the usage from the data centers. This is a financial hit most families can't and shouldn't have to take. To not pass this bill that provides basic safeguards from impacts that these centers will create, you're essentially telling us you don't care that Coloradans are struggling. Why care about them when there's money to be made for these massive companies asking not to be held to basic regulatory standard? The pockets of entities deserve to stay full while the people the very state you live in struggle to keep a single dollar in theirs. Allow me to share this. Already I struggle as head of house to afford necessities. This forces me to make hard decisions that are frankly depressing to think about. Many times I must prioritize whose health is more important. The insulin from my brothers and my mother must stay cold so obviously that light bill has to be paid and that bill can leave me pushing off my own health insurance premium. Health insurance that's already its own struggle to pay. Unfortunately I'm too ill to not need it. You honestly think that these predicted rate increases aren't going to harm my family even more? Not even mentioning that that extra air pollution is going to do to our health. I have a family of asmatics of course. I can tell you this my story is not at all uncommon. I hear it every day. I hear it from the people I work with. I hear it from others in my community from even from strangers that I come across in my day-to-day life. This is a reality that many more people are going to find themselves in. If you don't do something about this now, you're going to have plenty more health-related bills to sit committing on later than the physical and mental health issues that playing catch up every single day causes on a person. Show Colorado you actually care. Vote yes on 102. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony this evening. We have, I think it's Ms. Oliver, Shana Oliver, is that you that joined us? Yes. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you so much for being here. Please begin. You'll have two minutes to share. All right. Shana Oliver, Indigenous Peoples' Rights Advocate, field organizer for Moms Clean Air Force Colorado and Eco Madres, a national organization of parents united in fighting for our children's health against harmful air pollution with over 44,000 Colorado members. We urge your leadership to take consideration of children's health by ensuring data centers adhere to transparency, accountability, and alignment with Colorado's greenhouse gas reduction goals and prioritizing benefits to disproportionately impacted communities. communities like Gloville, Elaria, Swansea are already environmentally burdened with a history of redlining, gentrification, and ongoing affordable housing struggles. As a tribal affiliated Native American parent of four and family of six living in northeast Denver, I know firsthand how challenging it is to find affordable housing in a safe environment. My family faces increased air pollution like NOx and particle pollution that worsens asthma. According to the American Lung Association's State of the Air Report, Denver Greeley Aurora ranks six of the worst communities in the nation for ground-level ozone pollution. Data centers pose serious new threats to communities. Two-thirds of the additional power needed for data centers is expected to come from fossil fuels. Diesel-powered generators emit known carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde, worsened ground-level ozone and increased risks of heart attacks, respiratory infections, asthma attacks, and death. Importantly recent studies show that low noise pollution emitted by data centers can harm public health On both their physical and mental health CDC warns a noise not loud enough to cause hearing damage can still cause stress anxiety even heart disease when continuously exposed to it This type of noise pollution is among the most difficult and expensive to address. Monteclain Air Force Colorado and Echo Madres urge you to support Senate Bill 102. to minimize cumulative health impacts and prioritize benefits to DI communities. Thank you very much, Ms. Oliver. Thanks for being here this evening. Does anyone have any questions for these folks? No? Okay, thank you so much. We appreciate your time and interest this evening. All right, let's call Mr. Jerry Berg, Mr. Jeff Ott, Tracy Burnett. Ms. Elizabeth Smith, Brian Rogers, Velma Campbell, Laihua La'a, I'm sure I said that incorrectly. I hope you tell me how you pronounce that. And Daniel Howard. I'm going to wait a minute and let's see if some people load on here. And then, well, since you're ready and look ready to go there, Ms. Burnett, why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and begin your two minutes? Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm former Colorado State Rep. Tracy Burnett. You know, most of my career was in the computer industry, and I'm not opposed to data centers. and I use AI on a regular basis. But I also care about protecting rate payers, our environment, and the health and safety of all Coloradans. I'd like to briefly talk about what I've learned since leaving office a few years ago. When I was in office, I was prime sponsor for several bills that resulted in PUC proceedings. And since then, I've testified both at public comment hearings, as well as a PUC intervener with CRESS and the PSR Colorado. Now, some legislators might think their work is finished once a bill is passed and signed into law, but that's not necessarily the case, especially with complicated issues that involve powerful, well-funded interests like public utilities and large tech firms. To ensure the letter of the law and the intent of the law will be followed, a bill must contain three things. First, specific requirements that the developer and operator must follow, such as contract provisions and consumer and environmental protections. Second, that provisions give authority to commissions and communities to approve or deny development. And third, enforcement provisions for noncompliance. SBU 102 is a step in the right direction because rather than preventing data centers, it specifies how data centers should be developed in a responsible way. It is, however, soft on authority and on enforcement provisions. In other words, it's a good start and I'd say a reasonable compromise for now. So I urge a yes vote because it gives data centers a chance to demonstrate that they are good corporate citizens. But after this bill becomes law, it will be critical for communities and commissions and all Coloradans to keep a watchful eye on whether these data centers follow both the letter and the intent of the law. Otherwise, Coloradoans will be coming back to the Capitol demanding more action. Thank you so much, Ms. Burnett. It lovely to see you former Representative Burnett And let see Dr Velma Campbell would you please if you ready would you please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes Hello. Thank you very much to the committee and Madam Chair for hanging in there to hear from all of us. My name is Velma Campbell. I'm a medical doctor specializing in occupational and environmental health. I live in Pueblo, and I'm co-founder of the environmental justice organization Roots to Resilience, as well as a board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. I'm speaking in support of this important bill for rational guardrails on data center development regarding public health considerations. Regulation of large load data centers must include not only transparency of information, but meaningful public participation from the earliest consideration of each data center, as well as cumulative impact assessment for each project because of potential health and other impacts, resulting in better outcomes. In Colorado, some communities proposed for these facilities are already, excuse me, are already disproportionately impacted by environmental and health disparities. The bill's requirement for renewable resources is vital because data centers use of fossil fuels produce harmful emissions, even when meeting permit requirements. As previously mentioned, studies have found increases in particulate air pollution around data centers equating to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential health costs. Also, nuclear power coded as clean energy is not a viable or healthy option due to water use, nuclear waste, and other issues. Data centers' noise pollution is audible hundreds of feet away, and low-frequency sound also is created that travels much further. This causes or aggravates multiple medical conditions and requirements for noise abatement are essential. Thank you so much. I'm sorry. We have to dig to the two minutes. It had already been mentioned. Thank you so much, Dr. Campbell. Let's see. Who do we have? Lahua. Please pronounce your name for me and begin. You said it perfectly. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My name is Leihua La'a. I am a resident of Mesa County and apologies I had to block out so I wouldn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm here today as an indigenous person of Hawaii and I just want to remind people that Colorado is on stolen land. In doing so, I urge you all to vote yes on this proposal because as somebody who is an active river user, we saw some of the lowest levels of the river this year or this past year. Like our May levels were looking like our late August levels. We have currently 57% snowpack. And in Hawaii, the word for wealth is vai vai. The word for water is vai. So to have extraordinary amounts of wealth is something that Colorado does have access to by being so close to the Rocky Mountains. And I urge our lawmakers today to vote yes to this beautiful bill. Make sure that we have the ability to have a clean and safe drinking water and to protect our future nations. I see there are a lot of lawmakers, and I was listening earlier, a lot of people were caring so deeply about jobs. and how much money that we could be making. But you cannot eat money. You cannot drink dirty water. And that is what will happen if we do not put these safeguards in place for our data centers. I yield my time. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Does anyone have questions for these folks? No. Thank you very much. You all have a lovely evening. I appreciate your testimony. All right. We will call some more online folks. We've got Robert Louis Grossman, Dr. Grossman, Lisa Ali, Mr. John Clark, Ms. Lynn Sullivan, Ms. Molly Jacobs, Mr. Joe Antas, Ms. Julia Remnant. And let's go Dr. Alex Golia as well. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call some more names. We've only got two folks up there, so let's see if we can get Nancy Mattis. Kevin Winker. Daniel Glatter. All right, we'll go with that. Apologies, there's one woman on the panel and we cannot see your name. Can you, do you, are you ready? Okay, it's Molly. Molly Jacobs, thank you. Ms. Jacobs, are you ready to testify? All right. We're going to go to Kevin Winker and come back to you if you're still there, Ms. Jacobs. How about you, Mr. Winker? Are you ready to testify? Okay. Hello? There you go. Yes, please introduce yourself and begin your two minutes. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I am Kevin Winker. I'm a resident of Lakewood. I am here today to testify in strong favor of 102. I think we've heard a lot of good points, so I will try not to repeat what has been said. And what I would like to emphasize is the crux of the issue, obviously, is incentivizing job growth or incentivizing the green energy and sustainability advancements. when we talking about data centers obviously there not very many long job growth opportunities And Colorado biggest industry is tourism So we really just biting off our own hand if we giving out these incentives for data centers just for two to three years of construction when we hurting our overall tourism industry I urge our legislators to think about that. as they vote on this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's see. Dr. Grossman?

Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Molly Jacobs, are you there?

Yes. Ah, fabulous. Please introduce yourself and start your two minutes.

Thank you very much, Ms. Jacobs. Do we have Joe Antus?

Yep. Please begin.

Wow, I was going to give you a couple extra seconds for dog sneezing, and I didn't even need to. Thank you so much, Mr. Hannes. Daniel Glatter. Daniel Glatter, are you there?

I can. Please. We can. Please begin. Very good Okay Thank you Thank you Madam Chair and committee members for sticking around for me and to listen to those of us who are here late I am coming to you as a resident of Grand Junction Mesa County

But I'm going to have to wait. I'm sorry. Whoever is not on mute, I think Daniel Glatter is speaking, but everyone else should be on mute, please.

Please proceed, Mr. Glatter.

Now, you know, you're interrupted. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. True testimony. Dr. Alex de Golia.

Thank you for hearing me. Thank you for your testimony. We're we're a family friendly committee here. We've heard dogs, kids. I believe we heard from a cat earlier. So thank you. Thank you all for joining us. OK, I believe we've exhausted everyone online. Anyone have questions for this panel?

OK. All right. Thank you all very much for joining us this evening. You have a lovely night. Jesse let's see we need Jesse Dudley Nick Torres Kelly Bartell Bennett Apparently there is no one else online to call from this very lengthy list. So Ms. Curry

Good job. Yes. Thank you so much, Ms. Curry. Nice to see you. Appreciate your testimony.

Yeah We got let see Dustin Clark and I think that will wrap us up Please Mr Clark begin

any questions for this last panel? No? Alright. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Oh, yay! Another young citizen learning about democracy. Thank you so much Ms. Curry and thank you both for your time. You have a great evening. Well, that Okay is there anyone in the room that would like to testify that has not signed up No we feel pretty certain of that Okay that should conclude our witness testimony Senator Kipp that right you the senator Thank you, Madam Chair.

We may. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't think anyone has any burning thing. We can wait. Thank you so much, Senator Kipp. And I just want to say for the thousands of people listening online still, it's a long day when we're listening to lots of testimony, so it gets a little exhausting. But also, I'm just reflecting on what a privilege it is to be able to hear from so many people from their homes, coming in in person, bringing their kids, and participating in the process because this is something they care about, whichever side they're on. It is a real privilege to be able to be a part of that, and I'm glad we had so many folks out sharing their thoughts. So thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Kipp. We will see you soon. Oh, I apologize. We are laying over Senate Bill 102 for further action. And with that, committee is adjourned. Thank you.