April 1, 2026 · Transportation & Energy · 12,806 words · 17 speakers · 193 segments
Good afternoon. The Transportation and Energy Committee will get started. Ms. Forbes, please call the roll.
Senators, Baisley.
Present.
Catlin.
Here. Exum.
Good afternoon.
Lindstedt.
Excused.
Mullica. Here.
Kelton.
Excused.
Sullivan.
Here. Ball.
Excused. And Madam Chair.
Present. All right, thank you. For the first item on our agenda today, we're going to have a confirmation hearing for Maria Garcia-Berry for the Front Range Passenger Rail District Board. If Mr. Pace is here, can you please come up? Of course you're here. And launch us.
Since I was here. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Sal Pace, General Manager of the Front Range Passenger Rail District. I was here two weeks ago and withstood the very tough questions and input from the committee. And thank you for referring the six other nominees who were here that day. I'm back because we saved the best for last, and Maria Garcia Berry is a nominee from the governor. As a reminder, this district and our board has a unique set of nomination protocols, a combination of nominees from local MPOs and from government entities, but as well as some nominees from the governor as well. So Maria is an expert in all sorts of things, transportation-related in Colorado. Maria has been involved with DIA and Union Station and getting fast tracks going, as well as important projects in our community, such as Colorado Rockies and the Denver Summit, among others. And I can think of a more qualified person to assist with front range passenger rail as we contemplate referring a ballot question and consider the possibility of delivering rail service from state line to state line from Fort Collins and ultimately to Trinidad. So I'm happy to introduce our next board of director, Maria Garcia-Berry.
That was a lovely introduction. Thank you, Mr. Pace. And please, welcome to the committee. Please tell us why you're interested in continuing this role.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm really honored that Governor Polis has asked me to consider serving on the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission. I have to tell you that my interest in transportation, believe it or not, I'm embarrassed to say this, started almost 50 years ago. I was raised in Senator Mullica's County, of Adams County. and so my first foray in my early 20s was to be appointed by the then board of county commissioners to the RTD board and confirmed by the municipalities when the RTD board was in fact an appointed board. Through the course of that I really became involved and understood the need for transportation and mobility throughout not only the metro area but also statewide through the course of my career I have worked on a significant transportation projects everything from T-Rex to Denver Union Station to the Northwest Parkway to fast tracks and as recently to the C70 project that goes to the city and county of Denver I've also worked in mobility issues in Tampa Bay, Nashville, and Atlanta. Well, I'm currently a resident of the city and county of Denver. I spent well over 15 years being a resident of El Paso County and Colorado Springs and understanding the challenges and hassles of reverse commuting when you work in Denver and you live someplace else. I understand and appreciate the need for alternatives to mobility throughout the front range. I believe that there is no, in fact, silver bullet to solve all transportation issues throughout the state of Colorado, but I do believe that any real solution to our mobility issues must in fact include passenger rail through the front range. We have to connect the front range of Colorado where over 85% of the population resides. So with that, I think I would be a good board member. I think I understand the issues and the challenges, but it would be an honor for me to serve on the commission, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions, any and all questions.
the committee may have. Thank you so much. Committee, any questions? Yes, Senator Malka.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess to start off, two things, Ms. Garcia-Berry. One, thank you for all your service to the state. I find it fascinating that you were appointed with, by the county commissioners for RTD, with input from the municipalities. I think that that's a very intriguing concept and idea. Subtle, subtle. Thank you for sharing that. But I do have a question for you and for Representative Pace. Last time when we were hearing from potential board members representing Adams County, I have a question on the taxing district and obviously the preferred route of the Front Range passenger rail and it shifted you know from the original plan and isn't really touching Adams County much at all if any and so you know I know that there have been discussions Representative Pace mentioned it that there's discussions would love if there's any update on that from you Representative Pace but also wanted to hear your thoughts around that too Ms. Garcia-Berry on you know really ensuring that impacted communities are the ones that are in the taxing district and not those who may not see as much benefit as those who are in maybe close proximity. Ms.
Do you want me to update first?
Do you want me to?
I have an opinion on it.
Mr. Pace?
Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Mullica. We do have a draft bill that we've been sharing with stakeholders the last few days. We can get that to you and members of the committee. That includes the redraw of the district boundaries. and just one point of clarification. The route alignment didn't shift. We studied three different route alignments and just settled on the western alignment. But I think your point is a valid point and we're trying to address that and that'll be addressed in a bill introduced next week, I believe.
Thank you, Representative. I apologize, Representative Pace. Thank you. Director's fine. It's fine. Ms. Garcia-Berry.
So Senator I do believe that we have to be very careful that in our first foray in going to the ballot that we not overreaching and that impacted communities are the ones that are going to be responsible for the taxing Because I have been around for a bit I seen attempts at times when wonderful ideas were put out, but the area was too broad and the people who were not directly impacted ended up defeating the purpose. So I do think for me, as long as down the road, if a community wants to be added back in, I think that's happening. because I was on the RTD board a long time ago I was in that board that actually Douglas County was originally put in, all of Douglas County was originally in the RTD district and then after a couple of years it became, even though the tax had passed there was an uproar and so most of Douglas County this was before even Highlands Ranch existed ended up de-annexing out of the county and then Lone Tree actually had to annex back into the district to be able to do that. As long as we've got the capacity to annex back in if you want to as a community, I think that's fine. But I think we should be deliberate and reasonable about our boundaries.
Any further questions? Seeing none, we need a motion.
I move. I move to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation the appointment of Maria Garcia-Berry to the Front Range Passenger Rail District Board.
That is a proper motion. Ms. Forbes, please call the committee, a poll of committee. Senators Bazley? Aye. Catlin? Aye. Exum? Aye. Senator Lindstedt is excused. Mollica?
Yes.
Senator Pelton is excused. Sullivan?
Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair? Aye. And Madam Chair?
Aye. That passes unanimously. Senator Ball?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I request that this appointment be placed on the consent calendar.
That is a proper motion. Any objections? Seeing none, this will be on the consent calendar. Congratulations, and thank you for your willingness to serve. I believe we have our bill sponsored here for House Bill 1079. Senator Bright. Whenever you're ready, please tell us about your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm here today to present House Bill 26-1079. This bill requires that minors under 18 obtain written permission from a parent or legal guardian before receiving a motorcycle instructional permit. This bill simply ensures that parents or guardians are involved in a young person's decision to engage in one of the most dangerous forms of motor vehicle transportation, balance on two wheels. It does not ban youth access to motorcycles. It promotes responsible oversight and informed decision-making. This bill matters because it's a public health issue and youth safety issue. Motorcycle crashes pose a disproportionate risk of severe injury or death, especially for younger riders. Motorcycles account for about 3% of vehicles, but yet 24% of traffic fatalities in Colorado. In 2024, Colorado experienced 165 motorcycle deaths. Approximately 80% of motorcycle crashes resulted in injury, often involving traumatic brain injury or permanent disability. This bill addresses the problem in this way. Currently Colorado law allows a minor to obtain a motorcycle instructional permit without approval sorry with approval from any adults over 21 years of age which is not necessarily a parent or guardian This creates a gap in accountability and can exclude parents from critical safety decisions affecting their children. Having been an avid motorcycle rider for my entire life, even when I was not of legal driving age yet, but yet respecting all the rules in the state of Colorado, I can appreciate that myself, my parents, in addition to my kids who also ride, would be in a much safer place with this provision and this bill as it exists. So I would encourage your support of House Bill 26-1079.
Thank you, Senator Bright. Committee, any questions? Senator Ball.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Bright, for bringing this bill. I have a question, which is, what does this look like on the automobile side, not for motorcycles? Like, if you're not of age, do you have to get parental consent to drive a car?
Senator Bright.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Senator Ball. I believe that at 16 years of age, you can get a driver's license. I feel like cars are a safer place to exist inside of the protective space that you're in with a car. Quite honestly, I'm not 100% sure if it requires parental permission. Hopefully we can get that answered in our testimony.
Any further questions? All right. Seeing none. Do we have any? I don't know that we have any. No one has signed up for testimony. Okay, I guess we can't answer that. Is there anybody in the room or online that has not signed up that would wish to testify? Okay. Seeing none, the testimony phase is closed. Please begin your wrap-up.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, I don't have any amendments. The bill stands as is. No need for that phase, absolutely. House Bill 261079 is a common sense bipartisan youth safety measure that strengthens parental involvement, protects vulnerable young riders, and promotes responsible public health policy without costing taxpayers or restricting responsible access. supporting this bill means we support youth safety, family engagement, and evidence-based prevention. I would encourage support for House Bill 261079. Thank you
Senator Bright. And just to be on the safe side committee, any amendments? I figured not. Okay, the amendment phase is closed and thank you already for your wrap up. Any closing comments from the committee? I will say I appreciate this bill. This seems like it makes perfectly good sense, and I would want my children to have to have parental consent as well. It's just a good common sense safety measure. So thank you so much for bringing this bill. With that, Ms. Forbes, if you can. We need a motion. Yes, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261079 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Now, Ms. Forbes, would you please pull the committee?
SENATORS BASELEY.
HI. Yes.
Exum. Aye.
Lindstedt. Aye.
Mullica.
Excused. Senator Pelton is excused.
Sullivan. Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That passes unanimously.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I request that House Bill 26-1079 be placed on the consent calendar.
Any objection from the committee? Seeing none, this House Bill 1079. will be placed on the consent calendar. Congratulations. Thank you so much, Senator Bright. Welcome, Senator Roberts. Another, you love our committee, don't I? Another visit with House Bill 1081. Please begin whenever you are ready.
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Transportation and Energy Committee. Glad to be here to present House Bill 1081, or known as the Colorado Grid Optimization Act. This bill is two years in the making, and this committee heard a similar bill last year that did not make its way all the way through the process, and a lot of work has gone into making some changes and doing some key stakeholding since last year, and really excited where this bill is. This is, rather than defaulting to costly, time-intensive new transmission projects, this bill requires utilities to rigorously evaluate advanced transmission technologies as part of their long-term planning. It strengthens coordination with the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority, also known as CETA, and ensures ongoing legislative oversight through transparent reporting, creating a balanced and accountable framework that prioritizes both innovation and fiscal responsibility. At its core, this legislation is about delivering real benefits to Colorado families and ratepayers, lowering costs, improving reliability on our electric grid, and accelerating access to affordable energy. By prioritizing these proven cost-effective tools that can quickly increase the capacity of existing infrastructure, This bill helps reduce grid congestion, prevent outages, and even mitigate wildfire risks, all without placing unnecessary financial burdens on ratepayers. House Bill 1081 ensures that before new expenses are passed on to households, every practical and efficient solution has been fully considered by a utility. It's a common-sense approach that maximizes existing resources, protects communities, and delivers cleaner, more reliable power faster and more affordably. I did hand over two amendments when we get to that phase that are the results of further stakeholding as this bill has worked its way through the process. We can go through in more detail when we get there, but with these two amendments and with the prior work that went on in the House, all of the major utilities in Colorado are going to be or already are in a neutral position. That includes Excel, Black Hills, and Tri-State. but I'm excited about the more adoption of the advanced transmission technologies in Colorado and that's what this bill encourages so look forward to the discussion
Thank you Senator Roberts Any questions for our bill sponsor today? Okay Senator Baisley
Thank you Madam Chair Thank you Senator Roberts I trying to understand if the need for the bill meaning that does the PUC are they resistant to using the new optimization technology In other words, do we need, as a legislature, to require that they make use of efficiencies or it doesn't look like there's any funding necessary? So I'm just wondering what our role is appropriately in directing the PUC to behave in a way that you would think they would just want to do anyway.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. So every utility company has to do a 10-year transmission plan that they file with the PUC. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that in that 10-year transmission plan that they already are legally required to do, that they fully consider advanced transmission technologies and then provide any justification for not using them even if they were cost effective. So they could either say, no, we're not using them because they're not cost effective, or no, we're not going to use them for this other reason. But we're trying to point the utility companies to fully and vigorously considering ATTs in the already existing 10-year planning process.
Thank you. Any further questions from the committee? All right. Seeing none, do you have any preference for testimony?
No.
Okay. Then I will call, let's see, we have got Ryan Hubbard and David Herbitt. Are you, are they online? Okay. And I'll also call Sarah Orange, Emily Olson, Dr. Harold Eister. and Jacob Richardson. All right. Ms. Orange, since you're in person, if you want to go ahead, you'll have three minutes. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Sarah Orange, and I am here testifying today on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force, or CATF, a U.S.-based environmental organization that takes a pragmatic approach to achieving a zero-emissions high-energy planet at an affordable cost. Our Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment Program works to reduce barriers to deploying infrastructure at the pace and scale needed to decarbonize. CATF understands the crucial roles transmission, build-out, and grid modernization play in the transition to clean energy economy and meeting Colorado's climate and clean energy goals. That's why we support this bill. CATF supports independent state transmission authorities generally to improve transmission planning and to support development of lines that are needed to improve grid reliability and affordability. We recognize Colorado as a leader in this space, having already established the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority, or CETA. This bill enhances CETA in several ways and streamlines coordination for transmission build-out and uptake in use of advanced transmission technologies. Thank you for your consideration of this legislation, and we urge a yes vote.
Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Orange. And let's call Ryan Hubbard online. Are you there, Mr. Hubbard?
I am. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can.
Please proceed. You have three minutes.
Excellent. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. Tri-State, as you're likely aware, is a not-for-profit generation and transmission cooperative owned by the members we serve with a mission of providing reliable affordable and responsible wholesale supply of electricity to our members Said differently our primary goal is to reduce cost while maintaining reliability to the members we serve and that own us. In recognition of this, our rates are currently not regulated by the state of Colorado. And with this mission in mind, as of today, Tri-State has turned over most of our transmission system to the Southwest Power Pool or SPP. They are a regional transmission organization. Importantly, Southwest Power Pool will be performing transmission planning for Tri-State, Platte River Power Authority, Colorado Springs Utilities, WAPA, and many other utilities across the Rocky Mountain region, including Colorado. And this analysis they will be performing includes evaluation of advanced technologies that can reduce costs and improve reliability. Said definitely, Tri-State's 10-year transmission plan we'll be submitting under the planning rules as written today will effectively come from SPP. Tri-State's goal is, again, to reduce costs, and so for us to do an independent analysis, which would duplicate SPP's effort, would be redundant and would kind of be counter to our mission to our members. The way to think of SPP is they are an independent, not-for-profit entity. They are an air traffic controller whose goal is to minimize costs, improve reliability, and maximize benefits for the geographic footprint they are overseeing. And so when I say SPP performs all this analysis, they perform a very detailed analysis that any stakeholder can be actively involved with or involved in. And so with this proposed legislation requiring regulated electric utilities to consider ATTs in our tenure transmission plans and to identify strategies to reduce costs, this will be done to a large extent by Southwest Power Bowl for Tri-State and for other utilities in the state. And we really appreciate the bill sponsor working with on proposed amendments on this to help reduce duplication of work or increase cost burdens to try sitting our members. And we will look forward to continuing to work with the bill sponsor and monitor this bill moving forward.
Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. David Hurlbut, are you ready to testify?
Yes, ma'am, Chair. Thank you very much. My name is David Herlbutt. I'm with the Colorado Renewable Energy Society, and I'm speaking on behalf of Jim Gilbert, who unfortunately could not make the meeting today. He has proposed a technical amendment to the definition of advanced conductor. He's discussed the draft bill with experts on advanced conductors, and many of them expressed concerned that the language does not currently adequately address Colorado's unique altitude and pressure and wildfire risks. So the revision to the definition is as follows. Advanced conductor means a high performance conductor used in the transmission or distribution project that possesses the following beneficial characteristics relative to a traditional aluminum steel conductor reinforced conductor of a similar diameter A higher strength B at least 20 lower direct current electrical resistance based on established resistance standard at standard pressure and at temperature of 20 degrees Celsius or meets higher performance standards recognized by the commission to account for evolving technologies and transmission system needs C, continuous maximum operating temperature high enough to allow for at least 50 percent higher ampacity or meets higher performance standards recognized by the commission to account for evolving technologies or transmission system needs. And D, reduce SAG for safety and reliability considerations of wildfire risks of facilities to be reconductored in place with advanced conductors that are not otherwise mitigated by undergrounding. Specifically, SAG of the reconductor facilities must be considered at planned expected minimum to maximum operating temperatures and wind speeds over installation service life. and I'd be happy to facilitate a meeting with Mr. Gilbert if there are any questions on this.
All right. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Hobart. Do we have Emily Olson online?
We do, and I'm ready to jump right in. Please. So much. Yep. Please begin. Hello, committee members. My name is Emily Olson. I'm here today on behalf of Advanced Energy United, a multi-technology association of advanced energy businesses. We're here today in strong support of HB 1081, and we very much appreciate Senator Roberts' leadership on the bill. HB 1081 is a practical response to the realities of our aging transmission system. Our grid is not prepared to deliver affordable, reliable energy at the speed and scale that today's economy demands. As electricity costs and demand rise, we must utilize every possible tool to maximize the dependability and resilience of the infrastructure we already have. This bill recognizes that advanced transmission technologies or ATTs are ready now. In many cases, these technologies can be deployed in a matter of months to a couple years and often at a fraction of the cost of traditional upgrades. Boosting the performance of existing transmission lines with these least regret solutions lets customers access low-cost power faster while protecting ratepayers from unnecessary rate impacts. To be clear, ATTs are not a silver bullet, and they don't replace the new transmission that's still needed, but they can deliver real near-term benefits, like deferring more expensive build-out, limiting community impacts, and making sure that no electrons go to waste while longer-term infrastructure is waiting to be built. Also, critically, this bill is not a deployment mandate. Rather, it improves the transparency and quality of information provided in existing transmission planning processes. The required evaluation will provide a more complete understanding of where ATTs are competitive with traditional capital investments and why they are or are not selected by utilities. It will also ensure that the best available technologies are evaluated on a consistent ongoing basis. Better information means that regulators at the PUC will be better equipped to ensure that transmission investments are cost effective and truly optimized in the best interest of rate payers across the state. And with that, we respectfully request your yes vote.
Thanks. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Mr. Well, I guess Dr. Eisler, are you online? Ready to roll? Welcome.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Harold Eisler, and I'm with the Nature Conservancy in Colorado, a global nonprofit working to conserve the lands and waters in which all life depends. I'd like to thank the sponsors to bring in forward this sensible legislation. Thank you. and I'm here today to testify in support of this bill. Across Colorado, the Nature Conservancy is advancing science-based pollution and smart policies to accelerate a clean energy transition that reduces pollution, protects wildlife and biodiversity, and supports local communities. Colorado's electrical transmission grid is old and was designed to serve a large greenhouse gas emitting coal plant. We need new investment to enable a rapid, reliable, and affordable transition to clean energy and ensure cleaner air and water for Coloradans. However, new transmission lines can also damage wildlife habitat prevent wildlife like elk from moving between habitats and bird in local communities. Fortunately, cutting-edge tools known as advanced transmission technologies can strengthen our existing grid without needing as much possibly new development, impacting wildlife and may even help prevent wildfires. These modern technologies include things like dynamic line ratings and advanced conductors. Adopting advanced transmission technologies will increase grid reliability and enable more affordable clean energy to be built. They can unlock those benefits without requiring costly new transmission corridors that can cause habitat fragmentation and impact wildlife and communities. Moreover, these modern technologies can improve public safety and lower wildfire risk. I'm here today to express support for HPE 26-1081 because we'll help ensure that Colorado can maximize the use of our existing grid, thereby increasing reliability, producing wildlife, stabilizing energy costs, reducing wildfire risk, and tax on climate change. In short, by passing this bill, Colorado can strengthen grid reliability, protect wildlife and communities, and accelerate cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy future for everyone. I urge all of you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Dr. Eister. Jacob Richardson, if you're available, are you there?
Yes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Jacob Richardson, and I'm the Senior Transmission Policy Advisor at Western Resource Advocates. We're going to advocate for policies that enhance transmission planning, a modern electric grid with efficient use of the existing transmission system, and needed transmission. WRA supports HB 1081 and would like to thank Senator Roberts for bringing this bill forward. The bill would enable critical and much-needed improvements in transmission planning by accelerating the use of grid-enhancing technologies and simultaneously empowering the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority, or CETA, to coordinate closely with the state and regional planning processes. Specifically, WRA endorses the bill for these key reasons. It creates opportunities for optimizing the transmission system that improve grid resiliency and enable greater situational awareness during times of extreme weather events. Investment in such tools to modernize the grid will offer economic benefits and also support locally impacted communities. By evaluating grid-enhancing technologies and exploring ways for the findings to influence future 10-year transmission plans. It facilitates much-needed reform in transmission planning. It also encourages utilities to seek lower-cost upgrades for transmission and make full use of existing transmission lines. It also enhances the role of CETA for future infrastructure projects by allowing engagement in state and regional transmission planning efforts. Lastly, it creates avenues for the Colorado PUC and CETA to work closely by offering the PUC Director of Voice on the seat of board. These are all organizational efficiencies that will promote greater transmission planning collaboration. For these reasons, we urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1081 as amended to preserve Colorado's progress toward a modern, cost-efficient, reliable electric system. Thank you committee members for
your attention. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Richardson. Committee, any questions for this panel?
Senator Ball Thank you Madam Chair A question for Mr Richardson or any of our other panelists who would like to answer So it sounds like advanced transmission technologies are a great way to improve the existing grid without having to invest in new transmission lines and a pretty cost-effective way to do that. So why don't we see this happening organically? Is it a question of misaligned incentives from the utilities, or are there cost-benefit factors at play?
Who would like to take that? Anyone?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, this is Ryan Hubbard. I can speak from a utility perspective. Tri-State does consider ATT in our transmission planning processes today. We've implemented ATT where applicable. where it makes technical sense and financial sense. And so I think it'd be, I think it's important to understand that it is considered in transmission planning. It's already required to be considered as part of FERC, transmission planning requirements and generator interconnection requirements. And so it's not that it isn't done today.
Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for this panel? seeing none thank you all so much for your time this afternoon the rest of our witnesses are remote it looks like so we'll go ahead and get them all on there Mr. Cullen Howe Jody Hartman Ball Faith Ryan Catherine Goff Ann Sultan and Dolly Edmonds take a minute for everyone to populate here. Okay. All right. Colin, how are you online and available? Ready?
Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please begin your testimony.
Great. Thanks so much. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Colin Howe. I am a senior advocate at the National Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization that works to protect public health communities and the environment. At its core, this bill is about saving Colorado ratepayers money by getting more from the power lines we already have. It doesn't pick technologies or mandate deployment. It simply asks utilities in their 10-year transmission plans to evaluate practical lower-cost options before building new lines. These options include real-time sensors that show how much electricity a line can safely carry, higher-capacity conductors, power flow control devices, topology optimization software, and energy storage for congestion relief and peak management. These are practical measures that can deliver real savings. Southern California Edison avoided rebuilding a transmission line by upgrading conductors and saved approximately $85 million. That's the kind of common sense outcome this bill would promote. In other words, consider lower cost upgrades before committing customers to much larger and more expensive projects. These technologies can also improve safety and reliability. better real visibility lets operators reroute power reduce load or dispatch storage before lines overheat helping to reduce wildfire risk and prevent outages during extreme weather conditions Here in Colorado Excel use of dynamic lines ratings found that lines could safely carry power about 85 percent of the time, carry more power about 85 percent of the time, allowing more power to flow during peak demand without building expensive new transmission corridors. This bill is already aligned with practices adopted by states such as California,
Minnesota, Virginia, and others. Importantly, it does not force deployment or remove regulatory oversight. It only requires consideration of cost-effective options, and the commission retains final authority. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote yes on HB 1081. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Howe. Jody Hartman-Ball, are you ready?
You there? Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Jody Hartman-Ball, County Commissioner for Clear Creek County. I'm commenting on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, a coalition of 48 local governments committed to strong state policies for a livable climate and transition to clean economy. CC4CA represents one-third of Colorado's population. We are in full support of House Bill 26-1081 because it provides a cost-effective route to increasing Colorado's transmission capacity. This bill is a key step toward full decarbonization of the electric grid. In 2023, CC4CA supported the successful Senate Bill 16, which directed the Colorado Electronic Transmission Authority to conduct a study assessing the need for expansion transmission capacity. Released last year, the study identified a minimum of $4.5 billion in necessary transmission investments in the next 10 to 20 years. The study also found that approximately 80% of Colorado's transmission needs to be addressed by upgrading existing infrastructure and leveraging existing right-of-way. CC4CA's members are eager to see the state's grid updated to meet electrification needs. As the state sees more adaption of electric cars, heat pumps, and other methods of moving away from fossil fuels, we expect an increase in energy demand on our electric grid. At the same time, local governments feel pressure of ever-expanding land use needs and the importance of ensuring excess affordable energy for our residents. Fortunately, this bill shows that these are not zero-sum issues. House Bill 26-1081 addresses all of these concerns by encouraging adaption of advanced technologies and upgrading of existing transmission lines. The CETA study shows that the vast majority of Colorado's energy needs can be met using these strategies. They add capacity to existing corridors, help minimize land impacts, and keep costs low for utility customers. Rarely do we get a win-win-win bill in the legislature, but this is one of those times. On behalf of CC4CA and especially our many members that are counties where transmission projects are most likely to occur, I urge this committee to support House Bill 26-1081. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much, Ms. Hartman-Ball. Faith Ryan, are you ready to testify?
Yes, I am.
Welcome.
Thank you to the chair and the committee for hearing my comments today. My name is Faith Ryan, and I am an energy policy analyst for the city of Westminster, and I am speaking in support of HB 1081 on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action. CC4CA is a coalition of 48 local governments representing one of Colorado population Westminster has already come up against the limits of Colorado current transmission capacity and we know that the state needs to take any cost chance to improve our energy system Westminster is well-placed to be a leader in sustainable development powered by renewable energy, but our electric utility, Xcel Energy, is struggling to keep up. Shortly after the B-line commuter rail extended out to Westminster, our City Council adopted the Westminster Station area-specific plan that promoted dense, all-electric, transit-oriented housing near the station. Six years after this adoption of the Westminster Station plan, we stood on the precipice of success with the project ready to be built. But Excel said there would not be enough electricity to power the development area. They needed to build a new transition line, and they could not complete the new infrastructure until the end of 2026. Even now, it's not clear if the project will deliver the needed energy, since most of its capacity has already been committed to other customers. This series of events shows that local governments can set goals, make plans, fully set up a project for implementation, but we need the state to prioritize cost-effective construction of the energy infrastructure for these projects. It is clear that electric transmission systems are essential to achieving Westminster's economic development, housing, transit, and climate goals, climate goals, as well as maintain grid reliability and resilience. HB 1081 will help the state prioritize upgrades to existing transit infrastructure, as well as new transmission lines along existing routes. These strategies avoid land use conflicts, reduce costs, and deliver needed power to support a new renewable energy future. Please support this bill.
Thank you so much, Ms. Ryan. Ms. Goff, Catherine Goff, are you online and ready to proceed? Yes, I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Catherine Goff, a city council member for North Glen. Our exceptionally warm winter accompanied by red flag days and historically low snowpack should be clear alerts that climate change is already here.
North Glen is already considering moving to mandatory water restrictions. The only way to address these realities of a warmer climate is to address them head on, which is why North Glen has set ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions. To do that, we are electrifying both as many of our buildings and our transportation as possible, but are slowed by the existing infrastructure around our community. We desperately need updated transmission capacity to meet this rising demand. I would like to add that anything that helps build needed electric transmission capacity while reducing land use sounds like a great approach to a landlocked city like North Glen. Transmission upgrades require both money and space. Fortunately, we have a way forward that both saves people money on their electric bills and reduces the need for new land to be appropriated for infrastructure. A study conducted by the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority found that 80% of Colorado's new transmission needs can be met by using existing rights-of-way and upgrading existing infrastructure. Knowing this, why wouldn't we take such an efficient approach to transmission improvements? HB 261081 creates the pathway to ensure utilization of these strategies for improving our energy grid. While it may be more profitable for a large corporate utility to build brand new infrastructure, that money comes out of the pockets of ratepayers. As elected officials, whether at the local or the state level, we need to look out for our constituents' energy bills while we build the grid that will carry us into the future. into the renewable energy future. I'm sorry. HB 211081 is the tool to accomplish that goal.
I respectfully ask you to support this bill. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony today. And next we have Ann Sutton. Are you online and ready? Yes, I am. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. My name is Anne Sutton. This testimony represents the position of the League of Women Voters of Colorado in support of HB 1081 as amended to reflect each utility's load planning in their recent electric resource plan and to reflect each Utilities' next wildfire mitigation plan. The rules proposed are intended to increase the capacity of electric utilities to connect to renewable and clean energy resources. The League supports a predominant reliance on renewable energy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a key characteristic of advanced conductors is their ability to withstand the high conductor temperatures that occur when heavily loaded but without excess thermal sag, which can result in unsafe conditions. The League supports actions by appropriate levels of government to encourage energy conservation through funding for research and development. We ask the committee for their continued support of energy efficient technologies. Thank you for your time and attention.
Thank you so much for your testimony. And last on this panel, we have Ms. Daly Dolly Edmonds. Welcome.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair Cutter, Vice Chair Ball, and respective committee members. My name is Dolly Edmonds, and I am representing Audubon Rockies, the regional office of National Audubon Society. We serve approximately 35,000 supporters and members across the state of Colorado. And you may be asking yourself, why does a nonprofit that works to conserve birds and their habitat care about this bill, even going so far as to testify in support of it? While birds can die from collision with transmission lines, the construction and maintenance of them also disturb and fragments habitat, attracts predators, reduces nest success, and causes displacement due to human activity, traffic, and roads. Since joining Audubon's rank in 2009, I've worked alongside countless developers, agency staff, community leaders, and other NGOs to find solutions that minimize the impacts of high voltage transmission lines. As these, as I've just shared, can have significant impacts on important avian habitats, behaviors, and even survival. This past fall, I participated in a Western Governors Association workshop that took place right here in Denver. I was on a panel that shared insights from passage of HB 25-1292, which now allows a co-location of high-voltage transmission lines and state highway rights of ways. Audubon was among those that helped this bill cross the finish line because we wanted to support ways in which the footprint of new transmission lines could be reduced. That same day, there was a panel on how to improve grid resilience and modernizing our existing infrastructure. House Bill N81 is doing exactly what experts talked about doing, using advanced transmission technologies, infrastructure, hardware, and software to increase the capacity and resilience of the existing transmission line. We don't need or want a whole bunch of new transmission lines. We need to improve the ones we have get them up and operating safely at a higher capacity And this needs to be done quickly for those transmission lines where this is feasible We also importantly need to be thoughtful about where we build new transmission lines because while ATTs will not solve all of our needs, they are an important tool that Colorado needs to harness. Improving the capacity, efficiency, reliability, and resilience of transmission lines, while saving taxpayers' dollars, is something Coloradans, including Audubon members, can easily get behind. Minimizing the amount of new transmission infrastructure across our landscape is something that will benefit not only the 500-plus bird species that call the Centennial State home, but also a wide range of wildlife and Colorado residents. With that in mind, Audubon Rockies respectfully asks you to vote in support of House Bill 26-1081.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Committee, do we have any questions for this panel? Seeing none, you told them everything they need to know. Thank you so much for your time this afternoon. If the bill sponsor is ready to come back, that exhausts our, well, I will say, is there any other, any folks in the room or online that would like to testify that have not yet signed up? Okay. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Welcome back.
Thank you.
Would you like to explain your amendments?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L-008 clarifies that utilities should evaluate financing and cost reduction strategies in light of the specific transmission projects in their filing while still preserving consideration of CETA bond financing where applicable. This amendment is the result of conversations specifically with Black Hills but would apply to all utilities. Committee, any questions?
Would you? Yeah. Senator Ball.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-008.
That is a proper motion. Committee, any objections to Amendment L-008? Seeing none, L-008 is adopted.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-009.
That is a proper motion. Now would you like to explain your amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. L-009 is reducing some of the duplication concerns that you heard specifically from the witness from Tri-State. They are in a unique situation where they're governed by the SPP and are doing a lot of this work already. And so that's what this amendment seeks to do is ensure that there's no duplication of efforts, but also that Colorado still receive information as to how Tri-State is deploying, or how Tri-State is considering ATTs and potentially deploying that infrastructure. So I want to thank them for working with us on this amendment, and I think it gets them to a good place and would appreciate your support.
Great committee. Any questions on this amendment? Any objections to L-009? Okay, seeing none, L-009 is adopted. Committee, any additional amendments from you? Committee, any amendments for this bill sponsor? All right, seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Please share your wrap-up, Senator Robertson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for hearing the testimony today, and thanks to everybody who came to testify. As I mentioned in my opening, this is a bill that's actually many years in the making. I think you heard briefly the value of ATTs. What this is about is using our existing infrastructure and modernizing it in a cost effective way both for utilities and for ratepayers We know we need to build new infrastructure and we need to build out our grid more but we should be modernizing the grid we do have in light of increased energy demands increased population, and things that put more strain on it. As was mentioned, this is technology neutral. This is energy neutral. This is not picking winners and losers. This is just simply saying we have a grid to deliver energy to Coloradans, and we should modernize it in every attempt that we have, but not placing any strict mandates or cost burdens on anybody while doing so, utilizing an existing 10-year planning process to encourage and deploy more of this technology. So I would appreciate your support, and I want to thank everybody that's worked really hard on this piece of legislation.
Thank you, Senator Roberts. Committee any wrap-up comments okay Senator Baisley I'm gonna be a note
today but I may change my mind after I do a little bit of research on all this respectfully okay I thank you for all the work you've done this is it looks like a great bill and I will be happy to support it today seeing oh Senator Ball
Oh, yes, okay. No more comments. Go ahead and make the motion, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1081 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Ms. Forbes, would you poll the committee?
Senators, Baisley.
A respectful no. Catlin.
Yes. Exum.
Aye. Lindstedt.
Aye. Malika.
Yes. Senator Peltman is excused. Sullivan.
Aye. Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That passes 7 to 1. Congratulations.
Thank you, Senator Roberts. Hey, did you hear what she was saying about the RTD board and how it's done? Why did they go away from that? It seems like it's a gift on the right picture. By the communities that are in that day.
Okay, next up we have House Bill 1237. Senator Lindstedt, please tell us about your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members. I know that this bill was a short read over the weekend, 60 pages. The bill, while long, is actually pretty simple. It does three things. The first thing it does is clarify that winter traction requirements for drivers in our state statute are limited to traction requirements and not drivetrain of cars. It's a small change but a necessary one because snow tires generally ensure safety regardless of the drive train of a car. It also prohibits parking in bike lanes and strengthens the laws that law enforcement authority to clear obstructions from bike lanes and roadways. And then the final piece is it updates terminology in all of our statutes to change accident to crash or incident, which aligns Colorado with federal standards and the language used by traffic safety professionals nationwide. The term accident implies that no one is at fault and crash or incident better reflect the reality So a good public safety bill makes some tweaks to make our transportation system safer and more efficient Thank you, Senator Lindstedt.
Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, we will move on to witness testimony.
Senator Lindstedt, do you have a preference for the order that we go in?
Wonderful. Then I will call our first witnesses.
We have Skylar McKinley, Emily Hadaway, Jocelyn Reimer, and Peter Piccolo. If you are here, please join us or online.
Thank you for joining us.
Ms. Reimer, why don't we start down on this end. Please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify. Great. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, thank you. My name is Jocelyn Reimer, and I'm the Director of Victim Services for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 26-1237. Every year, MAD advocates walk alongside families across Colorado who have had someone taken by an impaired driving crash. According to CDOT fatal crash data, 236 Coloradans were killed in impaired driving crashes just last year, which was a 10% increase from 2024 and the worst total since 2022. These are not just statistics. Each number represents a person, a parent, a child, a friend, whose family and loved ones are left grieving. Too many Coloradans have been personally impacted by traffic violence. With MAD, I walk families through the criminal justice process, often when they are still in shock, still unable to eat, still asking why. I watch them sit through hearings where they must relive the worst moments of their lives. They navigate a legal system they never expected to need, carrying grief that most people will never understand. Through all of it, they are looking for one thing, acknowledgement that what happened was not an accident, that the person they love was not simply lost to an unavoidable event. One of the first things I hear from nearly every family is their reaction to the word accident. They see it in news coverage. They hear it from well-meaning friends. Sometimes they find it in the very court documents that they are supposed to rely on for justice. And every time something shifts for them, a quiet message from the law that what happened was nobody's fault, that accountability was never really on the table. This bill replaces accident with crash across dozens of Colorado statutes, aligning our law with NHTSA, the NTSB, and the language that law enforcement already uses in every crash report that they file. Accurate language shapes how we assign accountability, and accountability is the foundation of every enforcement strategy, prevention program, and legal proceeding that MAD supports. For the families that I work with, this is not a legal abstraction. Across dozens of statutes, the word accident has been sending grieving families a message that accountability is not something they should expect. This bill changes that. It is the difference between a system that recognizes what happened and one that quietly erases it. I urge you to support House Bill 26-1237. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Reimer. Next we'll go to Ms. Hadaway. Please state your name and who you represent.
You have three minutes to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Linstead, for bringing this bill forward. My name is Emily Hadaway, and I serve as a legislative liaison for CDOT. I'm here today to speak in support of HB 261237 transportation safety modifications. The bill contains a variety of provisions that CDOT is happy move forward. The bulk of the bill updates statutory references to traffic collisions from accident to the term crash, a long overdue change, that aligns the statute with current practices. NHTSA has recommended the use of the neutral term crash since the 90s and state agencies use the term crash in daily practice. For example, the document agencies referred to as the crash reporting form is still called the accident reporting form throughout Colorado state statute. This change standardizes statutory language to the preferred language of safety advocates and state agencies. Regarding Section 1 of the bill, the need to further clarify tire chain and alternate traction device requirements on a state highway emerged over the interim. Last year, HB 25069 updated passenger vehicle traction law and clarified that all-wheel drive and four-wheel drive vehicles must be equipped with winter tires when traction laws are in effect. However, this change inadvertently caused confusion about how two-wheel drive vehicles should comply with the traction law as references to two-wheel drive vehicles were removed. This amendment would clarify the law to reflect the original intent of HB 2569 and make it easier for all drivers to understand. Lastly, CDOT is particularly supportive of Section 3, which updates state policies around abandoned vehicles. Vehicles abandoned on the shoulder and gore points of highways create numerous problems for other road users. Stationary vehicles are a safety hazard and have caused fatalities when other vehicles, not expecting an obstruction, crash into them at high speeds. Abandoned vehicles also create noticeable traffic impacts. When drivers observe an object or another vehicle on the side of the road, it creates congestion. These slowdowns and last-minute lane changes contribute to unsafe driving conditions. Currently, abandoned vehicles can be moved from the right-of-way only when they obstruct traffic or highway maintenance. The belt allows a vehicle to be moved if it's either obstructing or impeding traffic. I'm happy to answer any additional questions on that as well. Thank you so much for your time today, and I urge a yes vote on this legislation.
Thank you, Ms. Hadaway. Mr. McKinley, thank you for joining us.
Please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Thanks to the sponsors for bringing this bill today. I'm Skylar McKinley. I'm here on behalf of AAA and our nearly 800,000 Colorado members. We're the state's largest membership association. We're the nation's leading traffic safety organization for over 125 years. In this building, we and you guys spend a lot of time thinking about how to save lives. I think you also spend a lot of time thinking about how to respect taxpayer dollars along the way. That's what excites AAA about this bill. Changing accident to crash seems small. It costs nothing, but it really does matter. That's because the language that we use to describe things shapes the value judgments that we make about acceptable behavior. And as a result, how we behave. So when we call a crash an accident, we imply that these tragedies are inevitable, that they're beyond human control, they're beyond influence. After all, we tell ourselves accidents happen. When it comes to car crashes, that's not the case. Federal research suggests that about 94% of crashes relate to an error made along the way. That's tens of thousands of people who die on American roads each year because people made a bad choice. This sounds pedantic, and I get it, but look at the data. academic research finds that the word accident shifts blame onto victims and prevents people from treating these deaths as the preventable public health crisis that they are. That same research concludes that removing accident from our lexicon has, quote, the potential to save human lives and prevent injury on a large scale. That's significant given that road crashes are one of the things most likely to kill you if you're under the age of 54. That why NHTSA stopped using accident in official communications in 97 The Rand Corporation and the National Safety Council formally recommended the change The Michigan and Maryland Departments of Transportation have made it official policy The New York City and San Francisco Police Departments have dropped the word. Republicans in the Nevada Legislature changed every statutory reference from accident to crash in 2016. That's why the AP tells journalists don't use that word accident because it exonerates the person responsible. Colorado would be in good company on this. And a final note, when a plane crashes, we don't call it an accident because we demand answers. We demand that doesn't happen again. This bill asks Colorado to hold car crashes to that same standard. It is a plane crash, not a plane accident. It's a car crash, not a car accident. Accidents happen. Most crashes don't have to. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. McKinley. Now we will go
online to Mr. Piccolo. Thank you for joining us. Please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Pete Piccolo, and I serve as the executive director of Bicycle Colorado. We are a nonprofit supported by 10,000 members that advocates to expand access to safe biking and walking across the state. I am here today testifying in support of Hospital 26-12-37. We're particularly excited about, we support the whole bill, we're particularly excited about two provisions, the accident versus crash, as well as the bike lane provision. I just echo what you heard regarding the importance of replacing accident with crash in statute. I cannot say it any better myself, so I'm just going to focus on the bike lane component. So this provision in the bill is important for a couple of reasons. First, it aligns with existing safety, traffic safety principles. We already prohibit, for example, blocking vehicle travel lanes, stopping in crosswalks, parking and fire lanes. Bike lanes are designated as travel lanes. Treating them differently sends a message that they are optional and undermines the legitimacy of that space. Number two, it undermines by obstructing bike lanes and not prohibiting the obstruction of bike lanes. It undermines investments in safety infrastructure. So numerous communities across the state have invested in bike lanes to create predictable space for people biking, to reduce conflicts between users and to overall just encourage safer travel behavior. When those lanes are blocked, the infrastructure no longer functions as intended and the public investment is diminished. And then finally, and perhaps most importantly, when bike lanes are obstructed, it puts our most vulnerable road users at risk. When a bike lane is blocked, people riding are forced to merge into moving traffic and navigate around vehicles unexpectedly. And this creates one of the most dangerous situations on the road, unplanned mixing of fast cars with people on bikes. And so clarifying in state statute that obstructing a bike lane is prohibited is just good policy. And we strongly, strongly support it. And we strongly support House Bill 1237 and ask for your support as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Piccolo. So committee members, any questions for our witnesses? Senator Sullivan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and certainly thank you all for coming. Ms Reimer thank you for doing your best to try to alert them to this I can tell you this is my eighth year here First this is even before we had before we got into the session we were here for SmartAx and all of that kind of stuff And I had to sit here and listen to somebody going through something, giving me his bullet points and telling me how he was targeting things. I asked him at that point and let him know how impactful those words to me were. Eight years later, those continue. The people that sit up here won't stop themselves. The people that sit there won't stop themselves. And when you remind them of that, watch their eyes roll back. They can't understand why somebody who's in the position of the people that you represent understand that something like that is hurtful. And when you remind them a second time, then they become angry with you because they don't understand what you're going through. So, I mean, maybe these are the kinds of words I should maybe try to find a way to work in to the statutes that we do here so that the gun terms that are constantly used to remind us who have been impacted by it are in the daily lexicon of people that are here in this building. And good luck with trying to do this. And I appreciate it. And you need to do more. I can just tell you it's very, very difficult because these people just don't understand what people have been through, who have lost people in incidents like that.
And all you'll be met with is anger and frustration and fear from them.
But certainly good luck putting that into statutes, and we can only hope. I appreciate that and I'm sorry that you have
that personal experience and thank you for your service to the legislature and to the state of Colorado. Committee members, any additional questions for our witnesses? Seeing none, thank you for joining us. We will call up the next panel, Ms. Claudia
and Mr. Millar and if there is anybody else online or here in person who wishes to testify on this bill please come forward
we will start online with miss claudia thank you for coming to this hearing please state your name and who you represent you have three minutes to testify thank you chair and members of the committee
My name is Jacqueline Claudia. I lead the White Line, which is a Colorado nonprofit founded to honor Magnus White with a goal to end vulnerable road user deaths by 2035. Magnus was 17 years old, a Team USA cyclist, and he was killed on Highway 119 outside of Boulder on July 29, 2023. Magnus didn't die in an accident. A driver made a series of horrifically bad choices, and Magnus paid for it with his life. That distinction between an accident and a crash is why we're here today. Words matter. They shape how society assigns accountability, and when a law calls a preventable collision an accident it tells every family waiting in a hospital room or planning a funeral that what happened was inevitable No one really responsible That just what roads do But it not Crashes are caused They have contributing factors. A choice to speed, a choice to text, a choice to drive impaired. The engineering community has used the word crash for years. The only place accident has persisted is in our statutes, and this bill fixes that. The change is not symbolic. When our law uses accurate language, our data improves. We can see where crashes are concentrated, who's being at the greatest risk, and what interventions are working. The data drives policy, it drives funding, and it saves lives. Colorado's roads are not equally dangerous for everyone. A cyclist, a pedestrian, an e-bike rider, they share the road without the protection of two tons of seals. They are vulnerable road users, and they die at disproportionate rates. Including vulnerable road users and our state's definition of crash is a crucial step. But I urge you to go further, to classify, to count, and to track crashes involving vulnerable road users using the same urgency as any other traffic incident. Too many are undercounted, underreported, and then underacted upon. Finally, a bike lane that a car can park in is not actually a bike lane, it's a trap. When a vehicle stops in that lane, a cyclist has two choices. Pass between the car and moving traffic or merge suddenly into a lane of drivers who don't see them coming. Either option can be fatal. Crosswalks, sidewalks, and fire hydrants are already protected by statute. It's pastime bike lanes deserve the same protection. The white line was filled on urgency because every day we wait, it's another 24 lives lost on American roads. This bill's not a symbolic gesture. It's a real concrete change in how Colorado Names crashes and in how we protect people most at risk and what our law signals about accountability. I ask you for your yes votes on HB 26-1237. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Claudia. Next, we will go to Mr. Millar. Mr. Millar, we have you down here in a neutral position. Please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Dave Millar. I'm here representing myself, but I'm coming from the perspective of a professional transportation engineer who has worked extensively with CDOT, State Patrol, and other local agencies, law enforcement, on roads throughout Colorado. I have drafted various portions of previous changes to the commercial vehicle traction law. I recently did a survey of traction law compliance of motor vehicles on I-70, and it is from that perspective that I urge you to amend Bill 1237 to direct CDOT to procure a comprehensive, unbiased, and objective study of Colorado's motor vehicle chain laws and traction laws. This is a very complex and nuanced subject. It's not well suited to be debated at this level. There are many nuances that won't be covered. This law has been revised several times recently, which is evidence of how difficult it is to get it right. I don't believe the intent of previous versions to include four-wheel vehicles was accidental. It was very intentional, and there were reasons for doing that. That's just one example of why we might not want to move forward unless we're going to of good factual data. There are a lot of stakeholders that are affected operationally, financially, and that includes motor carry industry, rental car agencies, CDOT and their implementation of it, state patrol and the judicial system, how they enforce it, equipment vendors, and of course everyday motorists who have to buy tires or traction devices. The current law has gaps. There are other states that have provisions for vehicles pulling trailers. Colorado does not. Other states have provisions for commercial motor vehicles have chains on the trailer axles. Colorado does not. Any of those changes would be complex and have impacts, and it needs to be studied. Tire technology is evolving. There are very different circumstances now. The mud and snow designation is an extremely low bar. The winter tire three-peak mountain snowflake symbol is a much better indicator of suitable winter performance. Another reason we have to study those issues. Colorado is not facing these issues alone. There are other states who have similar laws. We need to study them, find out the efficacy of their programs, and incorporate them. So my urge is that you amend the law to direct CDOT to do a study, and the outcome would be recommendations for you to implement. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Millar. Committee members, any questions for our witnesses? Senator Pelton.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for you, sir. Sure. When we talk about chain laws and chains, there's two types of chains, where you have the ones that are actually on the vehicle that you put on the vehicle or the kind that come out underneath the vehicle and react with the tire and throw the chain out in front. Do you think that makes a difference as well? Mr. Millar? No, and those are generally commercial vehicles, and I think those have been proven to be as effective as chains you put on your tires and I don't think there's any need to amend that provision to allow those kind of chains.
Committee members, any additional questions for our witnesses? Seeing none, thank you for coming. Last call for any witnesses in the room who would like to testify on House Bill 1237. Seeing no one else who wishes to testify, the testimony portion of the hearing is closed. Senator Linstead, the bill is on the table for amendment. Are there any amendments?
I have no amendments.
Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is concluded. Senator Linstead, any wrap-up comments?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to briefly address the last witness we heard. I think that a study of all traction issues and tires is a great idea, but I don't know how we could afford that this year. And the incremental step in this bill I think makes sense, but I do completely support what was said I think it makes a lot of sense to do a full review of that in the future and I love to help participate in that effort Simply put I think the terminology adjustments in this bill and the safety improvements in this bill are a step forward for our state and will save lives, and I encourage a yes vote.
Before we proceed to final action, are there any comments from committee members? Seeing none, Senator Lunsdod, would you like to move your bill?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1237 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Ms. Forbes, please call the roll.
Senators Baisley.
Aye. Catlin.
Aye. Exum.
Aye. Winstead.
Aye. Mollica.
Yes. Elton.
Aye. Sullivan.
Aye. Cutter.
Excused. And Mr. Chair.
Aye. That passes unanimously. do we have a request for the consent calendar? Any objections to placing this on the consent calendar? Seeing none, this will be placed on the consent calendar. Thank you so much for coming. And we will move on to our next bill, House Bill 261208. I see we have our bill sponsors here. Who would like to begin? Senator Exum.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which required environmental protection agency, EPA, to establish science-based standards for air quality and directed states to develop and adopt enforceable plans to meet those standards. In 1990, Congress made substantial revisions to these statutes to focus in part on small business compliance. In 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments required states to form programs to help small businesses comply with air pollution regulations. states must designate agencies to serve as an ombudson for small business and they must also create a compliance advisory committee no less than seven members. As a result of these federal mandates, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 97. In 1992, the bill established a small business assistance program which housed in CDPHE in the Air Pollution Control Division. The program provides resources, guides, support, and education to help small business stationary sources in Colorado to understand environmental regulations. Here's where we find ourselves in a difficult position. For more than a decade now, the Compliance Advisory Panel has been struggling to fill member spots with appointments, make quorum, and hold meetings. We've run legislation over the last few years to try to address this extending terms of members to three years, staggering terms, all to help good members on the panel, but it hasn't worked. In response to these challenges, since 2023, CDPHE has been shifting the responsibilities of the panel away from the panel to the small business program itself, or CDPHE itself. Despite these struggles with the panel, the underlying small business assistance program remains highly successful and continues to serve and cover our business effectively. That compliance advisory committee is set to sunset later this year. And even though it hasn't met in years, and even though its responsibilities have been transferred to other parties, we can't get rid of the panel. It exists and is mandated by federal law by the Clean Air Act So the recommendation of the sunset review report is the panel be renewed indefinitely with no sunset repeal date in the future The panel will exist so long as it is required to exist by federal law The bill before you today, 26-1208, partially adopts and implements the recommendation from the Sunset Review Panel. The bill extends the life of the compliance advisory panel for another 10 years until 2026. The bill is about maintaining federal compliance and protecting Colorado's options for the future without expanding government or creating new costs. And the bill has no physical note and would urge an aye vote. Thank you.
Senator Linstead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is kind of an interesting bill. The panel that we're talking about hasn't actually had regular meetings since 2020, but we are mandated as a state to have it under federal law. So let's stay in compliance in federal law and continue the panel's existence as needed. I ask for an aye vote.
Any questions from committee? Seeing none, we will proceed to the witness phase. We have two witnesses, one in person, one testifying remotely for questions only. So I'd like to call up Carlin Gray. and online we have Rachel Roussel Diamond appearing for questions only. Let's start in person. Ms. Gray, thank you for coming. Please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Karlyn Gray. I am the Public Affairs and Policy Director with the Air Pollution Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. I am here today to read the testimony of our technical expert, Jessica Furco, who is unable to be here today. With that, good afternoon. On behalf of Jessica Fricco, the Planning and Policy Program Manager with the Air Pollution Control Division at CDPHE, we are here today in support of this bill, and we thank Senators Linsta and Exum for their leadership. The Compliance Advisory Panel was established by the Colorado General Assembly in 1992 in order to comply with the mandates in the Clean Air Act. The purpose of this state-level panel is to support CDPHE's Small Business Assistance Program, which helps small businesses comply with air pollution regulations. The program provides free, non-enforcement, technical assistance to small businesses across Colorado and has received national recognition of excellence. When it was first formed, the compliance advisory panel played a key role, but it no longer meets regularly, and there are no members currently appointed. This is true for many small business compliance advisory panels in other states. The Environmental Protection Agency no longer enforces this program and instead focuses its efforts on national coordination. However, it is still required under the Clean Air Act. Passage of this legislation achieves three critical objectives. First, it ensures Colorado continues to meet its obligations under the Clean Air Act. Second it preserves the advisory panel as a tool allowing for its reactivation should new air quality challenges or emerging industries require specialized small business assistance and third it provides a no low burden solution for the panel's continuation I'd also like to note that we are supportive of a 10-year sunset for this program the department respectfully asks for your yes vote and I thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Ms. Gray. Mr. Russell-Diamond,
we have you down for questions only. Is there any testimony that you'd like to present or just questions? No, sir, just here for questions only. Great, thank you. Committee members, any questions for our witnesses? Seeing none, thank you so much for testifying. We'll now call Anybody else in the room who wishes to testify on House Bill 1208? Seeing none, the witness portion of this hearing is closed. Sponsors, there is a bill on the table for amendment. Do you have any amendments? Many members, would anybody like to propose an amendment? Seeing none, the amendment portion is closed. Wrap up comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A needed bill of all chance.
Senator Linstead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's keep Colorado in federal compliance.
Vote yes. Committee members, any comments before we take final action on the bill? Senator Mullico. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the sponsors for bringing it.
I just, I want to go without saying my appreciation. Senator Sullivan and myself and I think Exum and Linstead, we all got to work with Ms. Gray in the House before she transferred over. And so she was pretty amazing when she worked with us in the House and pretty neat to see her moving on. And so I didn't get a chance to say while you were testifying, but thank you for being here today. And so she put up with us, and so I think that says a lot.
Senator Sullivan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would second that. I know we don't do seconds here, but certainly appreciate Ms. Gray coming and certainly helped lighten and brighten the insides of this meeting room, and we're only going through it so quickly because apparently they all want to get out of here quickly or we could have talked longer, but thank you again.
Any additional comments? Seeing none, would you like to move your bill?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 261208 to the Committee of Whole with a favor of recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Ms. Forbes, please call the roll.
Senator Baisley?
No. Catlin?
No. Exum?
Aye. Lindstedt?
Aye. Mullica?
Yes. Elton?
No. Sullivan.
Yes. Senator Cutter is excused and Mr. Chair.
Aye.
That passes five to three. That passes five to three. And that concludes our business here in T&E. T&E is adjourned.