House Energy & Environment [Apr 23, 2026]

Ms. Falco, please take the roll.

Presente.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Ms. Kust.

Here.

Presente.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Present.

And then do you want to announce that we're not doing?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank the many stakeholders who engaged with us on this incredibly important and complex bill. Whether you are with the labor union like IEBW, Climate Jobs for Colorado, to be in a utility like Black Hills or Excel, to be in a constituent with policy expertise in this area, know that your input truly reflects how essential the Public Utilities Commission is and the wide range of responsibilities it carries. So thank you for your feedback. And as a fierce advocate for labor, my heart lies in supporting our workers. I also want to give a thank you to my co-prime sponsor, Representative Wilford, for diving deep into the details of this policy alongside with me. Thank you as well to the PUC team and Director White for your ongoing work serving our state. And to our staff, our bill drafter, fiscal analyst, Dora's team, and the governor's office, thank you for your support throughout this process. Finally, thank you to the committee members for your continued engagement. I know many of you have been hearing from advocates and constituents, and that input has been an important part of shaping this bill. Since being elected in 2018, I've worked on legislation to modernize our energy grid, expand renewable energy, and support our workforce. It has been an honor to carry this bill, especially in my final year in the House, because the work of the Public Utility Commission touches nearly every Coloradan and informs many of the policies we pass in this body, including many of my own. With that, let's turn to the bill. House Bill 1326 is a vital measure that continues the Public Utilities Commission for another seven years as reflected in Amendment L-008. The commission housed within DORA regulates natural gas, steam, and water utilities, electricity telecommunications transportation and certain natural gas and propane pipelines In addition to the continuation this bill includes a wide range of updates informed by the sunset review process These updates span energy, transportation, telecommunications, water, and pipeline safety, reflecting both the scope and the importance of the Commission's work. Before you today, you have a full amendment packet. I hope each of you got those. amendment summary document and an unofficial pre-amend of the bill incorporating these amendments if you should have all those are we getting them now the fact sheet provides a clear breakdown of each recommendation and its purpose you will also see several amendments that make adjustments to the recommendations outlined in the bill many of these changes were brought forward by stakeholders to strengthen the bill and improve the commission's operations i do want to acknowledge that many of you have been hearing from advocates or constituents on some of the many complex energy-related topics, including third-party authorization, securitization, and more broadly, the makeup of the commission bench. While we do not have amendments on these issues before you today, we are actively working with stakeholders to find a path forward that streamlines our systems, increases affordability, and ensures workers are protected and heard. We look forward to continuing those conversations. Given the scale and complexity of this bill, we respectfully ask that any additional amendments be discussed with us offline rather than brought forward today. We have spent significant time working through these provisions and are very open to continued collaboration, but thoughtful amendments require time to properly vet. Members, we have the department that is also here to ask questions so you know they're ready to dig into the weeds of those so if you've got some of those please wait for the departments to come up and and testify with that I will turn this over to my co-prime sponsor representative Wilford

Thank you so much, sponsors. Members, do we have any questions?

Representative Wilford. Thank you very much. So just so everybody's on the same page, Section 13 makes a clarification that the municipal-owned utilities, electric co-op associations, independent transmission developers, and independent power producers have the ability to appeal a land use decision to the Public Utilities Commission. I am not entirely sure where the recommendation came from. All of the recommendations that were made by dozens of groups were provided to COFR, and they compiled the report as well as the recommendations. I believe that they are here today, and so you are certainly welcome to offer that question to them, and they may be able to provide some insight. and additionally I expect that the Public Utilities Commission staff would also be able to give you some information as to how many land use decisions we anticipate could be appealed to the Public Utilities Commission. My guess is not that many. However, when these decisions, the local land use decisions are appealed, I think it important to understand that energy is an issue of statewide concern The ability to build transmission lines additional generation is vitally important for the service of our utilities to Coloradans And so we want to make sure that they are able to reasonably and, you know, with as quickly as they possibly can build out additional resources. And so please, again, there will be an opportunity to redirect your question. Thank you.

My jury leader, Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like us to hold that question for our drafter. Thank you.

Representative Barron. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the bill sponsors, would you be open to a second reading amendment to expand the PUC board and to possibly have a better representation of different areas of the state of Colorado? That way the board members would be appointed and still be appointed, but to specify where they reside, where their expertise is at in five different areas of Colorado? I just feel like the PUC board is not a fair representation of all energy and all utilities in the state of Colorado. Northern Colorado is being ignored, and quite honestly, Southern Colorado has their own areas as well with coal, energy, and all that stuff. I just feel like we should have a better representation of the PUC. Would you be open to something like that possibility on the second reading?

Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I echo what my colleague, Majority Leader Duran, just said. I think what has been really interesting is the number of times that this discussion has come up. I mean, in previous PUC reauthorizations, I think this has been a very robust discussion around whether we move from three to five, whether there are geographical considerations, professional considerations. And, you know, I think similar to previous conversations on reauthorization, we're having very robust conversations right now about what that could look like. The other piece of information that I might offer for consideration is that expanding the commission will require some financial investment as well, both in terms of paying commissioners, expanding staff, as well as potentially internal office changes that may need to be made as well. And so that is not necessarily a consideration that comes with a zero fiscal note. And I think given our current financial state I think that part of what we wrestling with as well is trying to figure out financially if it feasible So again just wanted to share that for your consideration and know that we are continuing to have very robust discussions with all advocates to explore this idea and figure out what the best path is, at least for the next seven years of the Public Utilities Commission.

Director White. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Rebecca White, and I serve as the director of the Public Utilities Commission. I will be relatively brief in my remarks as I realize there's a long list of people here today to provide you with their thoughts. That being said, I cannot resist acknowledging a bit of historical synchronicity. As on April 12, 1913, the Colorado Legislature formed the Public Utilities Commission. So the PUC today is one week and 113 years old. According to AI, life in 1913 was a bustling, rapidly modernizing era on the brink of profound change characterized by the rise of mass production, urbanization, and international tension. It was defined by the widespread adoption of electricity, automobiles, and film. Well, here we are again. Today, the PUC is the only regulatory commission in Colorado subject to a sunset review. Through these reviews, the legislature has an incredible opportunity to ensure that the PUC is best positioned to meet the challenges of this bustling, rapidly modernizing era. When first introduced, House Bill 26-13-26 codified 23 sunset recommendations designed to better protect consumers, add efficiencies to our work, and advance the mission of the PUC. The amendments before you today strengthen the bill in many key ways. I am grateful for the hard work and long hours of Majority Leader Duran and Representative Wilford, along with many stakeholders that have worked to bring these ideas forward. and I look forward to further conversations in the days and weeks ahead. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

I am Managing Director of Policy, Keith Hay, from the Colorado Energy Office, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. I'd like to also thank Majority Leader Duran and Representative Wilford for sponsoring this essential piece of legislation. The Energy Office is here today to support House Bill 26-1326. The Colorado Energy Office serves as an intervener of right at the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to statute. That means we formally participate in commission proceedings to fulfill our statutory responsibilities and To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support the development of clean energy resources, maintain affordable energy bills, and promote electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and energy security. The Public Utilities Commission is critical to meeting all of these statewide energy goals. It is also critical to meeting the state's decarbonization strategy. This General Assembly, since 2019, has adopted more than 100 bills to meet those state energy goals. Many of those laws require utilities, both gas and electric utilities, to file plans with the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that that implementation is reliable and safe and cost-effective for customers. Public utilities today are required to file transportation electrification plans, clean heat plans, energy efficiency plans, and clean energy plans, just to name a few. House Bill 26-13-26 will reauthorize the Public Utilities Commission and has a number of provisions that will improve the process, benefit ratepayers, and ensure Colorado continues to meet our climate and clean energy goals. The Energy Office today is asking for an aye vote on 1326. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Joseph Pereira. I am Director of the Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, or UCA. I am here in support of the reauthorization of the PUC as presented in HB 26.13.26. In particular, the UCA points out our support for the affordability measures in the bill, securitization, third-party administration of some utility programs, and the standardization of income-based programming. As you know, Colorado utility customers are facing an affordability crisis. These measures afford the Commission new tools to address this crisis proactively. The PUC is at a critical juncture and it must have the tools and resources to meet the challenges. In addition, the UCA supports efforts to keep the PUC transparent and responsive to the public. Members of the public are paying closer attention to statutory and regulatory matters and should be made meaningfully aware of the proceedings before the commission, its decision-making processes, and given easy access to participate. UCA appreciates the work of the sponsors and understands conversations are continuing. I request members keep ratepayer interests in the primary position as these conversations continue. Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's my cue. I'm going to ask you a question that I asked before about the origin of Section 13 and how often do you expect it to be used.

I'm just curious on that piece. Can you talk a little bit, understanding that I think there is some concern in that space related to securitization, what and when the PUC would intend to use that for, like what assets, when you would intend to use it, And then can you speak to some of the concerns that we, I think, are going to hear later on related to impact on investments and infrastructure in that space?

Speaker Bertram Bosniger. Thank you. And thank you for that response. Could you speak to the impact on investment? And if you've seen that in other instances, perhaps there's other states that use this tool in a similar fashion and what that has looked like. Director Waite. Thank you. Yeah,

Representative, do I answer your question? Thank you.

Representative DeGraff? Thank you, Madam Chair. So Director White or Director Hayes, I'm trying to get, you know, we're talking about But well one I wondering why you know with the retirement of coal plants when we down 40 of dispatchable power last time I looked and that has been at an investment of 17 billion dollars And a couple of years ago, you told me the grid was so fragile that we wouldn't want to know how fragile it was because we couldn't afford to fix it. So with all these new loads that we're putting on, you know, $17 billion to lose 40% of our dispatchable power, we've got places like I think it's Westminster that are saying they're completely maxed out as far as their transformers go. So what is the, I guess, what is the plan to, one, get the grid up to, like, international NERC standards, where we're actually protected from minor geomagnetic storms? And how are we going to make up for that dispatchable power since solar and wind seem to have been the demise of dispatchable power?

For opening the graph. All right, so I'm curious. Are you saying we're not down 40%? Those are the stats. I can't remember the baseline year, but I think since like 2010, have we increased our baseline dispatchable power? Or, I mean, I know we've added electricity, we've added, you know, or it's been replaced, but is it actual dispatchable power?

And we are running out of time, and we have one more question from Rep Jackson,

Director White. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative DeGrasse. I am a political science major, so you got me on the math there. But I will say the job of the PUC is to implement state law, and that is precisely what we've been doing. And those statutes and laws that have been put in place by this body have directed us on a path to clean our grid. We've gotten there today with about 43% renewables with utility rates that are 5% to 6% below the national average. And we're doing all we can to keep us on that path.

Director White. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Jackson. Great question. So the way I look at what's proposed in the bill right now on securitization is really another tool. As mentioned earlier today, we are approaching a time in our build-out of our system and sort of the nature of what's going on with the international market, with tariffs, with everything else, where affordability is getting increasingly harder to maintain. We're at a very good point where we are below the national average, but the pressures are tremendous. Securitization is therefore just another tool to try to maintain affordability, particularly when we have these massive investments that are needed and things like retiring our coal plants, recovering from a wildfire. That is not to say it is the perfect tool for every instance. It absolutely is not. But what the bill suggests now is that it would allow the commission to exercise that tool when it sees that it's in the public interest. And areas of improvement,

Director White. Thank you, Madam Chair, Representative. So areas of improvement, and the company did bring forward securitization on their own accord in the wildfire mitigation plan, as I mentioned earlier. So they, too, recognize that this is a tool and have brought it forward before the commission. We'd like to continue to see that happen when it makes sense. and not in every circumstance might the utility go there naturally. Their interest is obviously in supporting their shareholders and serving their customers. Our interest is in the public interest in keeping rates low.

Good afternoon, honored chair and members of the committee. My name is Andrew Bennett, and I am the vice president of advocacy for Energy Outreach Colorado, or EOC. We are also here as members of the Colorado Energy Crossroads Coalition. EOC is a statutorily created and independent nonprofit that has legislative oversight via statutorily required audits that EOC must submit to the legislature every year for review. EOC is here today in a posed position, and I'd like to discuss why with you. First, however, I need to level set and make sure that we are all on the same page. for EOC. When we approach issues, we are looking at this from the perspective of an organization that has been providing energy assistance for over 35 years to the most vulnerable members of our community in every single county. Today, that looks like a single mother with two children living on $24,000 a year, basically $2,000 a month. And I don't know about you, but for me, that wouldn't even cover my rent, and I don't even live in a fancy apartment that's not very large and it's outside of Denver. So with all that, for all the EOC advocates for, that single mother is struggling to provide for her children and the difficulty that she faces whenever her bills or expenses rise is foremost in our thoughts. With the limited time available, I want to highlight some basics about the legislation that causes EOC concern. One, increased deferral to the PUC that is less concerned in our opinion with affordability and more about ambitious policy decisions regardless of feasibility or practical impact. Two, targeted programs that have proven track roads of success and giving them to the POC to determine implementation instead. And three, further diminishing the voices of consumers that are expected to pay or be disconnected if they can't afford every new policy decision and if there isn't enough assistance to help them pay their bills. for these reasons as introduced and with some of the amendments we've seen at this time EOC

hello panel um or commission we uh my name is Sarah Blackhurst I'm the president of Action Colorado and I want to make it very clear that we are not opposed to the PUC that we are questioning how far it's gotten with regard to this modernization. And the modernization absolutely needs to happen. We have been working on this for more than a year. For those who have been involved in this for a long time, they know that. But we have some very deep concerns about reauthorizing the PUC at this time. The problem I think that we see is that we've been bringing these concerns for more than a year because we knew this was coming. And none of the concerns that we have brought have been meaningfully reflected in the language of the bill or the amendments that we've seen. And we're tracking this very, very closely. So when we have asked for more than a year to consider going from three to five, you heard what the answer is. We'll talk about it. We'll talk about it. We've been talking about this for a very long time. When we talk about our concerns with regard to securitization, with all of the other cost stacking that we see in the PUC reauthorization, that has not been meaningfully reflected in any of what we done and we have had a lot of conversations on this like i said for more than a year when we talk about protections for communities and for workers and displacement of workers again it is not being reflected in the language of the bill all of these things bring us to one conclusion while we're trying very hard not to take it personally this is a pattern of disregard for anybody who brings an opposing thought or opposing what we see that needs to happen. In addition to that, there's been no performance audit done. How can we move forward? We do have time to do this right. It does not have to be done right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. My name is Bayer Espinosa. I'm also here representing Action Colorado. So some of the concerns, we have a few as we represent our organization. One of the main concerns we have is actually in Section 12. It's about the third-party authorization. So our concerns with that are a few. One, it's going to displace some of the jobs that are already being used by the utilities right now who are operating those different programs that are customer-facing. So it'll displace jobs. Another concern as to the third-party authorization is who's going to take up as those third-party. So I was told recently in a call with a representative of the Colorado Energy Office that the utilities right now have a blank check for these programs. And essentially what it sounds like is someone else is trying to take control over the blank check that the utilities are already spending on these programs. So the third party is going to be selected, and we're not sure how or who is going to be selected as a third party. That's unclear still. But who is trying to take over the operation of what the utilities are already doing? Some of the other concerns we also have from our organization is that the current CEP draft that has been shared out, it's been slimmed down to four pages from 65. we're concerned that some of those 51 pages are going to be put into this reauthorization of the PUC so we're concerned as an organization that this is not going to be as clean of a bill as we had hoped and as we've been told and again we reiterate we do think the PUC is necessary we want to move forward responsibly we want to make sure that our organization and members are being represented and heard so again over the past year we have been repeatedly bringing up some of our concerns about some of the third parties, the securitization is also a large concern for a lot of our members. Those are not being heard in the way we would hope or being reflected back in the

hi let's talk about the elephant in the room first this bill extends the puc public utilities commission for 11 now seven years to september 1 2037 or 35 The same or whatever year I got it wrong The same commission not elected but appointed by the governor currently presiding over the total devastation of our energy policies in Colorado, and based on false clean air programs mentioned throughout this 44-page bill, that one, what could possibly go wrong? Governor appointments opposed to as opposed to elected leads to partisan controls. The same commission that allowed Excel to go after farmers with eminent domain before actually having approval to do so, even when Albert shot it down. Had we not shut down working coal plants, sabotaged oil companies, intact natural gas production of hundreds of years of resources left yet, all of our sustainable, reliable energy sources traded in for fake, renewable, unsustainable, unaffordable and environmental outrageous sources, we wouldn't have the rationing now. The bill expands the powers of the commission. Too much power vested in unelected people. That's kind of scary. Now you want to go into transportation, schools, railways, communication barriers for other failed renewables and non-public communications and all that mess. Shouldn't you be accountable or transparent to the people who pay the bill? We got false policies based on a vision of supposed clean air that allowed millions to be given to label nuclear clean. Setting up Colorado for a huge future fail and our children to pay a huge price. AI data centers eating electricity and land and energy and everything. the dangers that are being set up by unelected people and grid vulnerability, centralized power, high power transmission lines, all this mess is destroying our state.

I'm just frightened to death. You need to go back to the drawing board, reassess. This is a mess. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Blackhurst. Sorry, thank you. In terms of the rural communities that your organization represents, how does the securitization affect long-term rate payer costs versus short-term bill impacts? Ms. Blackhurst.

Thank you.

chair and members of the committee my name is Raymond Gonzalez and I'm here on behalf of Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation to speak on on House Bill 26-13-26 and the future of the Public Utilities Commission. At the Metro Denver EDC, our mission is straightforward, grow jobs, attract investment, and make sure Colorado remains a place where businesses want to plant roots and families can build their futures. Economic development is not an abstract concept. It is paychecks, opportunity, and the tax base that really funds public service, transportation and public safety. Oh my goodness. A strong economy benefits everyone regardless of industry, geography or political perspective and maintaining that strength requires thoughtful balanced regulation that keeps Colorado competitive. An effective public utilities commission is essential to that balance. Businesses making long-term decisions about where to locate, expand, or hire rely heavily on predictability and transparency in utility regulation. Energy cost, infrastructure timelines, and regulatory certainty are often among the top factors companies evaluate when choosing between Colorado and another state. When those decisions involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, uncertainty becomes a risk many companies simply won't take. We are concerned that expanding the scope and authority of an unelected regulatory body moves Colorado in the wrong position The business community values and respects the PUC expertise We are also learning with increasing regulatory environment that companies...

Good afternoon. Thank you, Representative Duran and Representative Wolfer, for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. I'm Robert Kenney. I have the privilege of serving as the president of Xcel Energy Colorado. Before that, I led regulatory affairs for a large utility in another state, and before that I served as the chairman and commissioner on the Missouri Public Utilities Commission, and I served on the board of directors of our national organization. I say all that to say that my thoughts and opinions are informed by experiences in three different states on a national level and observing best practices in public utility regulation for almost the last 20 years. we only get this opportunity once every seven years let's not squander it let's be bold in meeting a moment in our industry unlike any other we've experienced in the last 20 30 or 40 years we've been successful in meeting our shared goals of driving down carbon emissions and adding renewable energy all while keeping bills and share of wallet the lowest in the state and among the lowest in the country this hasn't happened by accident it's been on purpose and it's been by having access to low-cost capital, which brings us to our biggest concern about the bill, giving the PUC the ability to securitize our infrastructure investments. Securitization is not a magical tool that will decrease energy costs, despite what you might hear today. It's a tool that's not widely used by utilities nor other state commissions using it expansively. It's used sparingly, discreetly, and at the discretion of the utility. Securitization could have the consequence of not only increasing energy bills in the long run, but slowing down momentum on clean energy efforts. I'd like to now move to what's conspicuously absent from the bill. Despite having submitted comments to copper, none of our recommendations are reflected in the bill. We should increase the number of commissioners from three to five with adequate staffing for the agency. The decision to have three commissioners made in 1913, we're a hundred years removed from that. We need to modernize the commission and its processes to meet today's challenges. Adding two commissioners is not intended to escape regulatory oversight and by itself won't make the commission work faster, but it will lead to better public policy outcomes. by increasing diversity of thought and perspectives. I welcome your questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Cecil Courtney. I'm the business manager of Pipefitters Local 208, and I'm also the business manager of Rocky Mountain District Council 5, representing over 4,000 members of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters in Colorado and Wyoming. I am testifying today in an amend position. We have been engaged on this bill as a member of the Colorado Energy Crossroads Coalition and have offered eight specific amendments for consideration through that coalition to the sponsors, but I would like to flag one of the key issues we are trying to address. The bill, as it was filed, would allow Colorado PUC to force our regulated utilities to securitize any asset at the discretion of the commission. Current practice allows the utility to securitize certain assets to save ratepayers money but this proposed change will give that discretion to the PUC As a trade union with hundreds of gas fitters and other pipe fitters that build utility projects we are very concerned about the chilling effect this would have on our infrastructure investments by our investor-owned utilities. PUC staff or the environmental groups proposing this change have not sufficiently identified which projects they believe need to be securitized and why they believe this policy change is needed and for what reason. These major changes are being sought for a specific purpose. I don't know why we all can't understand what that is. We are skeptical of the PUC and their clean heat ruling, and we are frankly very concerned that this is an attempt to force the securitization of our natural gas system assets. This could have very negative impacts for hundreds of our members, and we believe this provision needs to be removed. We appreciate that the amendments being addressed today are largely technical, but to get us to a support position for the PC sunset, we need to see this issue addressed. We will continue to work with sponsors and other stakeholders to make sure this issue gets resolved. Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Chair. My name is Owen Brigner. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 99% of Colorado's cities and towns. testifying in an amend position on House Bill 1326, specifically on the request to remove Section 13. Section 13 of this bill changes the appeal process in 2920-1085 of the CRS by expanding who can appeal denials to the PUC. Under current law, that process is tied to regulated utilities operating under a CPCN, meaning the state has already made a determination that a project serves a statewide interest. That's what gives the PUC a clear role in balancing state and local consideration. Section 13 extends the same pathway to additional entities that may not have that same statewide determination. That creates a mismatch between the legal standard and who can invoke it. CML's concern is that this creates an alternative pathway to the PUC for entities that already have access to district court but under a different standard, one that can override local land use decisions on significant matters for which the state has specifically recognized the importance of local decision making. That is a meaningful policy shift, not a clarification. CML would respectfully ask that section 13 be removed to maintain the current structure and avoid unintended consequences. Thank you

Thank you madam chair and I good afternoon committee members My name is Katie first I'm the legislative director for Colorado counties Inc the statewide association of Colorado's County Commissioners CCI 2 is in an amend position on House Bill 1326 and specifically regarding Section 13. Counties do not share the interpretation that this section is a clarification of current law. Admittedly, current statute refers to public utilities and power authorities whose definition is ambiguous. However, current statute is clear that the appeal shall, and I quote, balance the local government interest with the statewide interest in the location, construction, or improvement of major electrical or natural gas facilities. But the PUC determines the interest in electricity for regulated utilities, and the boards of municipal utilities and electric co-ops determine the interest in their electricity generation and development. So how can the PUC balance those interests when they have not made that underlying determination It like being sent to the principal office but the principal office is in an entirely different school district And that is not to say that these entities do not deserve an avenue if they disagree with a local land use decision They do have that ability through district court. So for CCI, again, Section 13 is not just a clarification. And as for the state need for power, if that is the standard, then municipal utilities and co-ops should then also be regulated by the PUC, and independent power and transmission developers should have a power purchase agreement with the utility again, which determines the need for that electricity. Thank you.

You have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm Carolyn Elam, and I'm here on behalf of the City of Boulder. Boulder supports the amendments requests put forward by CC4CA on behalf of a multi-party coalition and really appreciates the work the sponsors have done to advance those priorities. I would like to take this moment to focus on two topics, quality of service and improving the efficiency of delivering voluntary customer programs. For years, our utility, Xcel Energy, has implemented a robust quality of service program that provides transparency into the customer experience and those they serve. It is this program that creates the rigor for how Excel analyzes, presents, and seeks to remedy disparate experiences of customers. We applaud their leadership in building out this program and request that legislation memorialize this model and set the expectation that quality of service programs be required for all regulated utilities going forward. As our infrastructure ages, it has never been more important to have transparency into the inequities in service delivery and customer experience, as well as where our system is beginning to fail us. The other topic that I would like to address is third-party implementation. There has been some confusion about this topic that I believe has created some unnecessary tension. This is not to displace jobs, but rather to leverage a different delivery model for voluntary customer programs that helps reduce duplication of efforts across utilities and streamlines the experience for customers and the contractor industry that implements energy improvements. The coalition request is to create the authority, not require its use. The goal is to ensure this tool is available when it is appropriate or necessary. It is not cost-effective to customers, nor necessarily fair to expect utilities to implement programs and hold them accountable for delivery of things that may not be core to their business or interests. We want this tool to be available so that it is there to help utilities be successful. We are proud to have one of the best commissions in the country and appreciate efforts on this important legislation to keep us a leader in how we regulate our utilities. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kenney, I do have a question for you of what you have already said, you already stated, but kind of noticed you were cut a little short at the end there. Do you want to elaborate a little bit more on your thoughts before I ask your question?

Representative Barron. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I totally agree with you. I just want to add before the question that the technology for energy has advanced over the years, over the 100 years. And I do believe, I do agree with you that we should be able to have better representation of that advancement in technology for energy. and we should have a better understanding and representation in the commission itself for those advances. Now, my question to you is, you did mention something about decision-making on investments. Do you think it would be a better idea to use the PUC commission as an advisory to the legislature to make those investment decisions from elected officials instead of appointed ones?

Representative Barron. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the last one, I promise. Mr. Gonzalez, I know you didn't have an opportunity to finish your statement. I wanted to go ahead and give you that opportunity right now.

Representative DeGroff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kenney, I appreciate giving us the background so that you've had the extensive background in across the utilities. And one of the things that I'm concerned about is this accelerated with coal plants lasting around 50 years, this accelerated decommissioning of coal plants. And we just know that one was supposed to be taken offline this past December and now to, well, it seems to be the, to defer the effects of the loss of that coal plant. It's been deferred until after the election, until next Christmas, I guess. That will be great. What is your thoughts on actually taking apart these? I know some of these coal plants, hopefully not all of them, are actually being decommissioned and taking out of, you know, being able to be used as like emergency backups. What is your thought on that? Does that, I mean, it seems unwise to me, but I'm just wondering with your more extensive background. Mr. Kenney.

I'd say two things. We made a decision in 2018. We made very bold commitments to reduce carbon emissions, and we believe that that can be done consistent with reliability concerns as well. So having said that, what we're seeing is because of onshoring of manufacturing, because of electrification of transportation, buildings, data centers that are coming online that add economic development opportunities to the state, that we're seeing more rapid load growth than we've historically seen. So that's why we asked for an additional extension of the Unit 2 of our Comanche plant down in Pueblo. We do still think that it important to meet our climate goals and it why when we ask for through our electric resource planning process for more megawatts of renewables we also ask for natural gas combined cycle or combustion turbines to accompany those renewables So we do think that you can add tremendous renewables reduce carbon emissions We can also add some smaller amounts of thermal generation meet our climate goals, and run a reliable system. We don't think those are mutually exclusive. 100% with the graph. Well, then I have to ask if you can actually tell me what our climate goals are so I can actually do a cost-benefit analysis to see, so we can see how much money we're paying to achieve exactly what? Because I know we keep interspersing this climate goal with carbon goal. So if we're going to have a carbon goal, it should have an actual effect on climate. So I'm just wondering if you can tell me what that is, since it's clearly an area that you've been doing cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Kenny. So I think in 2025, the last complete full year, we have added about 46% renewables to our system, and we've achieved about a 56% reduction in carbon emissions. The reduction in carbon emissions is tied to limiting global temperature rise to one and a half degrees Celsius. So the carbon emission reduction is tied to limiting global temperature rise. Representing the graph, we have 33 seconds, so this is your last question. So 1.5 for, so Colorado is 0.125 billion tons. Globally, it's 33, and they're over 3,300 billion tons in the atmosphere. So I'm just always looking for exactly what reducing by 46, because we are talking about loss of jobs. We are talking about increasing costs on the citizens of Colorado. So what can I tell my constituents of that 1.5 degrees that has already been passed, but that's okay, from the pre-industrial ice age recovery, what exact temperature are these goals going to accomplish? Mr. Kenney. So I'd say two things, and I'll say it very rapidly. I went to law school so I wouldn't have to do math. But to really answer your question, I'd say two things. We've retired coal plants across all of eight of our states, and we haven't had to do layoffs. We've been able to find different work for our coworkers. I'd also say that as we've retired coal plants, we were also saving our customers $700 million in avoided fuel costs by virtue of using renewables. And at the same time, just to be clear, I'm not against fossil fuels generally. That's why we've asked in our electric resource plans for natural gas-fired plants while we're retiring of the coal plants. Representative Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Kenney. As I understand it, adding more commissioners would increase time for deliberations and require additional staffing. And I'm just wondering, can you explain how adding more commissioners would increase the commission capacity instead of taking more resources? And right now, as you know, Colorado is cutting, cutting, cutting. And I'm concerned about the increased cost of expanding the commission. Mr. Kimme. So we know that there's some concerns about increased costs by adding two additional commissioners. Let me just first answer your first question. I don't accept the premise that it will make processes longer. I haven't seen any evidence of that fact. So I don't agree with that part of the question. Whether it would require additional resources the commission work is infinitely more complex today than it was in 1913 And I don think there any debate about that fact In addition to being concerned about climate emission reduction we are bringing on new technologies We are seeing load growth in the last five to seven years historically substantially different than anything that we've seen before that. So I do believe that by adding two additional commissioners and the accompanying resources that would be necessary, We can do that within the limits of Tabor, and we've got a proposal for how to do that that we can share with those sponsors. So we think there's a way to do it. We think ultimately it leads to better public policy outcomes by virtue of expanding the two commissioners so that you have greater ideological diversity. And I think that that has been shown in this body. By virtue of being able to test your ideas in the crucible of the legislature against your fellow legislators, it allows us to get to better public policy outcomes. And in an environment where the public policies that we're dealing with are so much more complex than they were in 1913, we can't help but get better public policy outcomes by having more expertise. Thank you so much. And we're going to call our next panel. Thank you for testifying. Jeremy Ross, Megan Dollar. Mike Harrington Lauren Swain Emily Byer Anita Seitz Jeff Roberts Tim Regan Porter Nina Waters Kelly Crandall Mr. Jeremy Ross, please introduce yourself, and you have two minutes. Hello, my name is Jeremy Ross. I'm here today representing IBW 111 and the Colorado Energy Crossroads, and we are in an amend position. One of our big concerns is third-party management of the customer-facing programs that is likely to directly impact some of our membership that works for the utilities that operates and works on executing a lot of these programs. it's hard to tell exactly what the impact is because we haven't had a clear definition of which programs are having issues and why there is a need or a or a desire to you know give get these programs out from under the utility and into a position and of being managed by a third party and then i think generally we have an interest in the PUC taking into account impact to workforce broadly as it makes its decisions. As we've seen and heard throughout the process, there's a lot of impact to workforce in this transition. And so we just want to make sure that workers and the impact to workers is considered when any of these decisions are being made. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mike Harrington, you have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Michael Harrington. I'm the director of regulatory for Black Hills Energy. Black Hills Energy is a regulated utility here in Colorado. We serve approximately 320,000 customers throughout Colorado. 100,000 customers for our electric utility, and about 220,000 customers for our gas utility. First, before I start, I'd like to give our appreciation to the PUC, their staff, their team. They do a lot of dedicated work, their dedicated staff. There's a lot of complex issues facing the Commission these days, and we appreciate the work and the attention to the filings that the utilities present to the Commission. I'd like to highlight two key priorities for Black Hills through this bill. First, you've heard a lot about securitization. Black Hills shares the concerns that you've heard about securitization. Securitization can be a useful tool, but it's not universally beneficial, and especially for a smaller utility like Black Hills Energy. It can be less efficient, more expensive, more costly to our customers, and we oppose legislation that would allow the public utilities to force or mandate the company to implement securitization. Securitization should be brought forth by the utilities as we see it being potentially beneficial. We have used securitizations in the past, not in Colorado, again, because of our smaller size here in Colorado. It's not beneficial for our customers here in Colorado. The second one I'd like to highlight, just piggyback a little bit, We have some concerns about forcing the utilities to use third parties to implement various customer-facing programs. We've heard that from a number of sponsor witnesses today. So we have our similar concerns for that. And then lastly, we would like to support some of the amendments that we've seen on the renewable energy standards. We have now adopted many new clean energy technologies. or we have clean energy plan legislations. And so updating and modernizing our renewable energy standard is appropriate, and we support those changes. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Megan Dollar, please introduce yourself, and you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Megan Dollar. I'm the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, and I'm also here as a member of the Colorado Energy Crossroads Coalition. We are in an amend position on House Bill 26-13-26. Colorado's path forward on energy policy must carefully balance innovation with economic stability, ensuring that decisions protect jobs, support communities in transition, and preserve the state's competitiveness. At its core, this legislation represents an opportunity, an important opportunity, to modernize the Public Utilities Commission to meet rising expectations for good governance, transparency, and accountability. Colorado's energy system is becoming more complex with increasing demand and higher stakes for reliability and affordability. As a result, the PUC's role in overseeing decisions that directly impact every household and business has never been more consequential. Additionally, we would love to see amendments, the first being the expansion of securitization financing. We believe it risks transforming a targeted financial tool into a substitute for standard regulatory investment. That could potentially lead to increasing long-term costs for consumers and, of course, limiting the future flexibility of policymakers. Similarly, we do have concerns with section 12's allowance for mandatory third party administration of consumer programs. That raises concerns about workforce impacts and administrative efficiencies and diminished accountability. Additionally, the chamber encourages targeted amendments that reform the governance structure and procedures to enhance transparency expertise and timely decision making For examples we would support increasing the number of commissioners from three to five, and also mandating in-person meetings as well. With that, I will wrap up my comments. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I just want to call the people in the panel again, in case people didn't hear their name, Erin Overturf, Jessica Guerrera, Lauren Swain, Emily Beyer, Anita Seitz, Jeff Roberts, Tim Regan-Porter, Nina Waters, and Kelly Crandall. And ma'am, if you could please introduce yourself, and you have two minutes. Thank you, Chair. My name is Emily Beyer. Oh, is it on? No. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. My name is Emily Baer. I am a council member in the town of Erie. I'm here to speak on behalf of CC4CA, which is a diverse representation of one third of the state's population. um i'm stepping or i'm supporting amendments to the puc sunset bill that ensure equitable representation of colorado during puc proceedings reduce burdens on disproportionately impacted communities and increase benefits to those communities the puc's proceedings are among the most difficult to access and understand for the average coloradan the highly technical documents that accompany a PUC decision can be nearly impossible to decipher and even difficult to find in the state's database. Yet these decisions have real impacts on so many aspects of Coloradans' lives. They affect our energy bills, which in turn affect our cost of living and quality of life. The PUC's decision also affects whether we will have a livable climate in the future since they are responsible for ensuring that our utilities reach their greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals. People need to be able to influence these decisions, yet our public comments cannot be considered as evidenced by the PUC. This is especially dire for disproportionately impacted community members who experience undue pollution burdens in areas that are often selected for additional polluting facilities, including power plants. However, we have ways to alleviate these issues. Representatives of disproportionately impacted communities should be compensated for the expertise they offer to the PUC. This can be achieved through clarity around intervener compensation and through assuring a funding source. Utility companies can be required to provide plain language summaries of their notices and documents. The PUC can ensure that all notices are issued in relevant languages relevant languages to the people affected and perhaps most importantly PUC decisions should consider the health impacts of energy generation as well as just the cost I ask that the committee and the sponsors to consider amendments to address the equity issues at the PUC thank you thank you uh Erin Overturf please introduce yourself and you have two minutes Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am the Clean Energy Director at Western Resource Advocates, where I oversee WRA's work to decarbonize the electricity, buildings and transportation sectors in the interior west I have substantial experience representing WRA at the Colorado PUC and prior to joining WRA I served as counsel to the Commission WRA is deeply invested in the reauthorization of the Commission and we thank the sponsors for their work on this important bill. We come before you today in an amend position. WRA is supportive of many aspects of the bill, and we strongly support reauthorizing the Commission, but we do have some concerns. First and foremost, improving the effectiveness of the PUC starts with ensuring this critical agency has adequate staffing, resources, and expertise. Recent legislation, rulemakings, and industry evolution have dramatically increased the workload of the PUC without a commensurate increase in analytical and advisory staff. Further, the PUC has a growing need for staff dedicated to outreach, engagement, and equity to ensure that decisions appropriately incorporate public input and address equity-related concerns. WA also urges you to maintain the current size and structure of the commission. Expanding the commission from three to five commissioners would not improve efficiency or result in better regulatory outcomes. Rather, it would increase deliberation time, delay decisions, create new workload for already overburdened advisors, and increase costs at a time when Colorado is facing budgetary constraints. We urge you to reject efforts to drastically change commission structure. And finally, transparency is critical for the PUC's work. One aspect of this is ensuring that commissioner deliberations remain public. As introduced, the bill would allow for private deliberations among commissioners. The PUC's work is too important to be conducted in secret, and accordingly, we urge you to adopt Amendment 11 and keep the commission's important work publicly accessible. In sum, we urge you to vote to amend House Bill 1326. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff Roberts, you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Roberts. I'm Executive Director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, which helps journalists and the public understand and use Colorado's Sunshine Laws. CFOIC appreciates the sponsors listening to our concerns about Section 3, the Open Meetings Law Exemption. The PUC makes decisions that affect millions of Coloradans and billions of dollars in energy infrastructure and related costs to the public. Its rulings determine electricity and gas rates and shape how Colorado addresses challenges such as grid reliability, electrification, wildfire mitigation, and large new electricity demands from data centers. When a regulatory body exercises authority of this magnitude, the public has a strong interest in understanding not only the outcome of decisions, but how those decisions are reached. Although evidence in commission proceedings is developed during formal hearings, the most critical phase of POC work occurs when commissioners deliberate about how that evidence should be interpreted and applied. Observing that process allows the public to see how complex technical evidence is evaluated and how PUC commissioners weigh tradeoffs among affordability, reliability, and long-term planning. Because the commission regulates entities with substantial economic power and resources, public oversight is particularly important. Public deliberations also promote accountability and public trust in regulatory decision-making. Rate increases infrastructure investments and long planning decisions can have significant economic consequences When those decisions are made in the open the public can understand the reasoning behind them and have greater confidence that they were reached through careful and principled deliberation Thank you. Thank you. Tim Regan-Porter, you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tim Regan-Porter, and I'm the CEO of the Colorado Press Association. And I'm here to raise a narrow but important transparency concern related to issues around public utility notices and to ask for a targeted amendment to address it. Colorado law currently requires utilities to provide notice not only for rate increases, but for other significant changes affecting customers. And it specifies what the notice must contain, including the amount to be raised, the expected impact, and how the public can obtain information and respond. And in recent electric and natural gas rate cases, Excel was allowed to meet that requirement through advertising that did not include that information. The ads used language like new rates to better serve you without telling customers that their rates were going up by how much and what to do about it. To find that information, customers had to click through multiple layers to get to a page on the utility's own website. That matters because the notice itself is supposed to carry this information and instead it's being placed on a platform controlled by utility where it can be changed rather than presented as a fixed and independently verifiable public notice. These are double-digit rate increases affecting millions of Coloradans, but the notice as approved does not plainly inform them that their bills are going up. It's not a question of format. It's a question of whether the notice actually functions as notice. The Commission itself raised the issue in discussion, noting that notice should not be promotional and should clearly inform customers of the increase, but the notices were approved anyway, which points to a gap in the statute. So we're not asking you to prescribe how a notice must be delivered, but we are asking you to clarify that any approved alternative form of notice must include and present the information that the law already requires, clearly, directly, and in a form that is fixed, accessible, and not controlled by the entity giving the notice. So this is a narrow fix that we think will benefit consumers. And finally, we understand that there is an amendment to remove a provision that allows for non-public deliberation discussions, and we appreciate the sponsor's work on that. Even under current rules, participation in these proceedings is limited and time-constrained. Please wrap up. And maintaining transparency is important. Thank you. Thank you. Nina Waters, please unmute, and you have two minutes. Ms. Waters, please. Hi, can you hear me all right now? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee. And thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Commissioner Nina Waters. And although I am signed up to testify on behalf of CC4CA, I am speaking today as the Chair of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality and Quantity Committee. And as that is a mouthful, we more commonly refer to it as QQ. QQ represents Western Slope communities, municipalities, water and sanitation districts, and conservancy districts across Colorado's headwaters communities. I am here in an amend position on 1326, specifically Section 13. As currently drafted, this bill would expand the PUC's authority to hear appeals when local governments deny a permit for major energy infrastructure change. In particular, it would allow for independent transmission developers and independent power producers, not just PUC-regulated utilities, to bypass local denials by appealing to the PUCs. Our communities are deeply concerned that this would give the PUC unprecedented power to override our local land use decisions. This PUC already has that appeal authority under existing statute, and that authority should remain limited to utilities that the PUC regulates. According to the fiscal note, this bill anticipates increased legal defense costs for local governments that attempt to defend their land use decisions before the PUC. The note estimates that a local government might need roughly 1,400 hours of legal support, and this would also potentially increase costs to our state by needing to meet increased demands from appeal applications. We share the bill's goal of meeting Colorado's energy and transmission needs, but QQ urges you to preserve a meaningful local role in these decisions. Local governments are best positioned to identify community-specific impacts and constraints and to help find practical middle ground solutions. A one-size-fits-all overall framework is unnecessary, costly, and ineffective. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. And, ma'am, could you introduce yourself? And you have two minutes. Thank you, madam chair and committee members. My name is Kelly Crandall, and I support the bill with amendments. Over the last 15 years, I've been a party in proceedings and I've worked at the commission. I currently manage regulatory affairs for the Cleantech Software Company Utility API, where I've engaged directly with regulators in about a dozen states in the last year alone. So while I'm local, I also am bringing a national lens. And I'm here to support two potential amendments on streamlining regulatory proceedings and on resourcing the agency. First on streamlining, I support the amendment that would direct the commission to engage stakeholders on identifying regulatory and legislative opportunities to stage and consolidate proceedings. This is consistent with activities that are happening in a lot of other states right now that are also grappling with legacy requirements and high caseloads. And this amendment clearly identifies policy challenges that the commission is dealing with, and its outcome is designed to increase regulatory efficiency while capturing procedural nuances. Second, on resourcing, the Sunset Report hints at something that I've personally observed, which is that this agency is extremely under-resourced compared to its peers. And frankly, the caseload it manages is staggering for an agency of this size, and the rigor of its decisions are really a testament to the dedicated staff that work there. And I ask you to support amendments that clearly allow the agency to hire new types of expertise, things like strategic stakeholder engagement hearing administrators human resources these are critical to meeting legislative and customer expectations and they're also consistent with how commissions nationally operate finally there continue to be proposals to increase the number of commissions commissioners and i do think that is not the kind of thing that will reduce caseload it doesn't eliminate thousands of pages of filings so i think there are other more cost-effective things that could be done first. Streamlining proceedings and fully resourcing the agency with appropriate expertise is going to be the best way to ensure it's able to make rigorous and inclusive decisions. Thank you so much. Do we have questions? Representative Barron. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington, I understood that some of the decisions made at the PUC is affecting your customers. Have there been any decisions that the POC have made that necessarily haven't been in the best interest of your customers? And if so do you have at least one example Mr Harrington Thank you Madam Chair Yeah I think this highlights again our concerns with the securitization of authorizing or allowing the commission to force the company to implement potential securitizations that would cost our customers some more expensive financing Black Hills recently put forth a clean energy plan that would exceed the state's clean energy goals at a lowest cost option. And the commission recently rejected that with a higher cost plan and a lower emissions reductions. And so, again, this kind of highlights our concern about, again, allowing the commission or authorizing the commission to force the company for securitization, which could actually end up costing our customers more. Okay. Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for the questions for Erin Overture. You know, a couple of people have mentioned the concerns about third parties. What's your take on third parties in this legislation? Ms. Overture? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. WRA supports the third party administration provisions in the bill currently. this is a tool that other state commissions have used and we think that it makes a lot of sense again it's not the right tool for every situation but in some situations it can really be a valuable tool such as where the success of the third of the program is inherently in financial tension with the financial incentives of the utility that would otherwise be administering the program so we think it makes sense to authorize this not mandate it for every situation but to allow the commission to consider it where it makes sense. Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a follow-up. Which positions would potentially be hired out third party? Ms. Overture, please go ahead. Thank you. So I'm not sure I understand the question in terms of which positions. Are you talking about which employees at the utility. Correct. You know, it's impossible to say right now because it would really depend on what types of programs the commission determined it made sense to utilize a third party administrator for. So the language in the bill right now doesn't mandate the use of a third party administrator for any particular program. And all the details about whether it made sense, what the impacts would be on the utility's existing employees, whether those were reasonable impacts, all of that would be considered in a subsequent commission proceeding. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. And we're going to call our next panel. Phil Hayes, Leslie Oliver, Michelle King, Sidra Agabavian, Dr. James Crooks, Bia Campbell, Anissa Reed, Renee Chacon, Kristen Outrett, and Tim Barnes. Thank you so much. Mr. Hayes, you have two minutes. Please introduce yourself. Thank you Madam Chair Thank you members of the committee Phil Hayes representing the National Electrical Contractors Association and the Western Line Contracting Association chapter of NECA This afternoon we are in an amend position We also have been coordinating as part of the Colorado Energy Crossroads Coalition We have about eight different proposals that that coalition has presented to the sponsors that are under consideration in the negotiation of the final package. I want to focus on one particular issue today. That is the third-party administration of forward-facing programs with the utility. It's probably no surprise that utility and electrical contractors, for us, Excel is one of our largest customers. Our interaction with these rebate programs kind of manifests in two different ways. One, we have programs where we are hired to do more global work where we contract directly with the utility. And if anyone calls the utility and says, hey, I want a smart meter or some other type of service, we provide all of that service for the utility for any customer that wants it. I think we – Section 12 of the bill is not clear on would we have successorship language so that we keep those contracts. Would – who would our – if they have a third-party administer programs where we're doing the global work on a program, who would our client be? Is it an environmental NGO that's running the program? These are answers that are really important to our members. We have our employees are represented by IBW, and these are union jobs, and we want to know what's going to happen to those contracts if this were to pass. The other way that we interact with these rebate programs is that oftentimes the utility or electrical contractors and many other types of contractors, frankly, they're the ones that are actually interfacing with the utility on these rebates. And, you know, if I have a problem, happy to answer more questions. Thank you so much. Leslie Oliver. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. My name is Leslie Oliver. I'm the Vice President of External Affairs for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses of all sizes across the metro region and throughout Colorado. we're here in an amend position today. At its core, this conversation is about ensuring the Public Utilities Commission reflects modern expectations for good governance, transparency, accountability, and oversight on behalf of Coloradans. Colorado's public utilities system is becoming more complex with higher stakes for reliability, affordability, and economic growth. This bill extends and importantly expands the Commission's reach, placing additional authority in a small three-member appointed body while extending its influence in areas like financing and the governance of private market activity. When the scope and consequence of decisions expand, governance must keep pace. The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce believes commissioners should meet clear professional experience requirements because these are consequential technical complex decisions with real impacts on families and businesses. And to To strengthen Colorado's economic competitiveness, we also support modern governance best practices, such as expanded number of commissioners, staggered appointments, and a balanced mix of technical and business expertise. So utility oversight is stable, informed, and predictable for the long-term investment decisions. The Public Utilities Commission established in 1913 and the systems it regulates have modernized dramatically since then. At the end of the day, this is about who is watching the system on behalf of Coloradans ensuring oversight is transparent and accountable. We urge you to consider these factors to modernize the PUC governance so Coloradans remain competitive affordable and attractive for businesses and families alike Thank you Please introduce yourself and you have two minutes Hi, my name is Bea Campo. I'm of Colorado Concern and also a member of the Energy Crossroads Coalition. And I'm here today to speak about the eight amendments that we have requested and have put in front of the sponsors. So they are aware of those requests and I just want to walk you through what they mean. I think the way that I would organize our request is in two buckets. The first one is the bucket that talks about the breadth of the commission's authority, as well as its discretionary power. As many people have mentioned here, this is a commission with a lot of authority over the state's economy. So the first one is the securitization, which is a priority for us. Right now, we are extending a compromise that would allow for an extraordinary commodity cost to be added as one of the instances in which this tool could be used, but maintaining the utilities control over that tool. The second one is a third-party program, which I'm not going to extend myself because Phil talked about it. And the third one is the legislative audits. like many other bodies. We believe that the chair of the committee should be mandated to come once a year to talk to you guys and explain the decisions that are being made at that body. And then on the other bucket is what we're calling the betterment of the commissions and the transparency in governments. And in there, we have five different asks. The first one is the increase of the commissions from three to five. The second one is the party balance right now and the qualifications. Right now, as you will know, the commissions and the sitting bench are composed of people who have the same ideological expertise roots, and we think that that is not only incorrect, but also detrimental to the state of Colorado. We're also asking for the removal of the non-public deliberations, and we're asking for the requirement of participation of commissioners for the deliberation of adjudicatory processes to not be able to do offline. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Please introduce

related to advancing? Thank you. Thank you. Anissa Reed, if you could unmute yourself and

Thank you. Dr. Brooks, you have two minutes.

Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question. I guess it could be for Phil Hayes

Representative DeGraf.

Please introduce yourself.

Representative DeGref.

Sure. Leslie Oliver, Denver Metro Chamber. I think it is awareness, practicality, that that experience would be helpful in to understand really how the real-world applications go. It is expertise and knowing how those regulatory considerations impact the functionality of the organizations that are being regulated. So I think that's helpful, and it's helpful to start from a level playing ground and an area of expertise. And if I could just compliment.

Thank you. And if you could just compliment, one thing that I think is speaking very loudly to the business community right now is the fact, and I'm sure you all heard anecdotally this story about the site selection, where the people who do the site selection for the states to define where new businesses are going to be opening. in this past conference, they cited the three commissioners of the PUC as the top reason as why the businesses are not moving into the state of Colorado. For you to have side selectors who are experts in business development, knowing who those commissioners are and pointing out that which should be a technical, highly qualified, non-political commission as the reason why business is not investing in the state is concerning to me. And I think that's what we are trying to do. What we're asking right now, Representative, is for an amendment that would amend Statue 42-101, creating a new paragraph, C and D, both with a more narrow party line division as well as a qualification. That is nothing completely insane. We not requiring the governor to appoint one lawyer one engineer one We just asking for a breadth of experience and again for the root of that experience to be diverse Representative of the graph

So, you know, it's interesting, Representative. I've been a registered Democrat all my life. Everybody who knows me knows this. And if I were the governor, I would want a Republican in that commission because it gives you the breadth of ideological and balance that you need. I think, and I think my fellow Democrats in this room will agree with me, that right now in politics and policy, one of the hugest problems that we are having is the lack and inability for us to converse and have those hard discussions and not start from a principiological of being enemies, right? those decisions, they are technical in nature. Having people who have ideological differences and who will be able to, with technical expertise, based in data, based in science, based in feedback from stakeholders, make the decisions that are better for the state should be a non-questionable. I have a hard time understanding why this is an issue at all.

I just wanted to say I do agree that we have probably a lack of depth across those areas.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the House Energy and Environment Committee. My name is Nate Bernstein. I am the Executive Director of Climate Jobs Colorado. We are a nonprofit organization comprising of approximately 13 labor organizations throughout the state of Colorado collectively including tens of thousands of working Coloradans. I am testifying today in an amend position. The Colorado Public Utility Commission's scope is incredibly broad and addresses a host of areas that are key to the lives of working people. Coloradans have indicated over and over again that business as usual isn't working. Lack of affordability remains one of the critical issues of our day. Having good family sustaining jobs the best way to solve the affordability crisis Coloradans are facing. Recognizing the centrality of workers to energy generation, the broader PUC scope is a small step we can take as a state to address affordability for Coloradans. A transition from carbon-based energy generation to clean generation is swiftly underway, yet workers who have built, piped, and electrified our economy for generations have often been insufficiently considered in energy procurement decisions and other proceedings that impact them. It is a critical need for the PUC to consider workers as the transition takes place and to ensure that affordability and electricity and energy is matched with good family-sustaining jobs. The fact is that many of the jobs in the new energy economy do not pay fair wages, do not provide good health and retirement benefits, and are often completed by out-of-state workers and by contractors and developers who do not have Colorado working families' best interests in mind. Adding this language that we have put forth to bill sponsors would help us center workers in this discussion. As the General Assembly considers reauthorization of the PUC, Climate Jobs is advocating for strong statutory language that explicitly recognizes workers as central to the clean energy transition, directs the PUC to consider job quality and workforce impacts. I appreciate your consideration of this amendment, and thank you for your time this afternoon. Thank you.

Madam Chair, bill sponsors, members of the committee, thank you. I'm Ray Rivera, and I'm the coalition director for Colorado Energy Crossroads. You've heard from many of our members already, and you'll continue to. So rather than maybe hit on some of the specifics they've already touched on as individual organizations on the front line of energy in the state of Colorado. I'll just remind everyone the commitment from a large and broad diverse of organizations who want to amend this legislation to improve the PUC for the greater good of Colorado. We had over 200, nearly 212 organizations engaged in this conversation. a few months ago. We have over 120 organizations engaged in this right now. And so we have a broad, broad and diverse group of consumers, labor, utilities, businesses, so many interests who are directly impacted by the decisions of the PUC every day. And frankly, this is a large number of people and organizations engaged in a topic that is not that interesting to most folks around the state, but it impacts their checkbooks without them knowing. And so I would just underscore that at its core, this conversation is about making the PUC reflect modern expectations, good governance, transparency, accountability, and a strong oversight on behalf of Coloradans. We need good governance for a more complex energy for future. We need transparency and accountability to the public, we need strong oversight to protect affordability. And frankly, as this large group engages, we are the ones who build power, pay for, and rely on Colorado's energy system every day. So our coalition will continue to work constructively to amend and improve the PUC for all Coloradans. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Heidi Leithwood, climate policy analyst with 350 Colorado here today to urge you to reauthorize the public utilities commission but with some amendments and I speak to just a few of those today First of all, the importance of the work the commission does cannot be emphasized enough in the changing landscape and greenhouse gas reduction in Colorado. We want to ensure they have enough resources, enough hiring authority and the support to streamline their, their work to that end. we support the amendment for an M docket to be created. We do oppose expanding the commission. This would not improve efficiency, but would add to the cost and why fix what isn't broken. We urge amending the bill to ensure improvement of leak detection and repair of pipelines. Beyond the direct threats to public safety and property damage, which was already dealt with in recent rulemaking, the environmental risks of hundreds to thousands of smaller leaks over years must be prevented. Substantial near-term reduction of methane emissions can keep global temperature rise 0.5 degrees Celsius lower than without this. And we must play our part. All leaks should be fixed no later than 12 months, and type R pipelines, which currently fall between the cracks of regulation, should explicitly be put within PUC jurisdiction for leak detection and repair. We urge and support amendments to improve the framework for equity, including summaries of public comment and explanations of how these comments were considered. Staff members to facilitate internal and external communication and community engagement. In addition to procedural justice, the public deserves assurance that meaningful steps are taken toward preventing harm. We support equity impact hearings and health impact assessments, which as Dr. Crooks mentioned, could be based on existing numbers and EPA benefits mapping and this assessment would not fall to the PUC and be very easy to conduct. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jeff Wiest. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association, the trade association for the K-State's cable broadband companies. We're here in an amend position specifically in support of L-005, which takes six pages of the bill and rewrites it down to less than one page. So you're welcome. Make it a little simpler. The part of the bill that 005 amends effectuates a recommendation from the PUC Sunset Report that deregulated voice providers, like voice over Internet protocol providers and mobile wireless providers, pay into the telecommunications utility fund. or more specifically our customers pay, your constituents pay, because we simply collect and remit those fees. But it is important that the commission's telecommunications work is supported. We proposed rather than charging fees on deregulated services for regulatory functions that aren't utilized all that much by deregulated providers, that we simply replace that fee on customers with a filing fee paid by the providers So it actually a pro amendment as well We want to thank the sponsors DORA and the PUC for working with us to simplify that particular recommendation significantly. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Rich Warner. I am a member of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance made up of the Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley Chambers, as well as my organization, Upstate Colorado Economic Development, of which I am president and CEO. I apologize for the redundancy here today, but obviously redundancy illustrates extensive alignment in a lot of these issues. We appreciate and support language that increases the representation of the commission. The structure of the commission inherently needs to have a holistic expanded view that not only protects the ratepayer, but accounts for the significant amount of support our private utilities need to provide capacity to our taxpaying businesses that are here, that are expanding, or are looking to locate to our amazing state. Our commissioners are charged to provide neutral third-party oversight of the regulatory issues brought before the PUC. If our entire conversation today centers around collaboration and efficiency, then improving the capacity of perspective is paramount, and it shouldn't be an issue at all when considering increasing collaboration. Two more quick things. We've talked a lot today about securitization, and it already exists and can be used when necessary. But asking a private company to change its financial model is really something that is counterintuitive and outside the scope of the commission. Also, along those same lines, third-party requirement for customer service programs. We're talking about adding costs. We're talking about adding consultants, going out and contracting as a small nonprofit. I know that every time we do that, that increases our costs. The PUC currently has 110 employees. We wouldn't ask them on how they would run their particular models, nor should we be dictating through legislation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you and good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Claire Valentine, and I'm a Senior Policy Advisor at Western Resource Advocates, or WRA, where I develop and advocate for policies that will accelerate decarbonization of the electricity sector. WRA is highly invested in the reauthorization of the commission, and we thank Majority Leader Duran and Representative Wilford for their work on this very important bill. Today, we are in an amend position on the bill. I wanted to speak today primarily on one aspect of the bill that we support, the securitization provisions. Securitization can reduce costs for Coloradans when used in the right context. We've seen this both through Accel Energy's wildfire mitigation plan proceeding, in which I was a witness, and in other states such as California, where utilities have securitized billions of dollars in wildfire costs. But notably, investor-owned utilities have an inherent disincentive to use as securitization because it does not generate profits. While utilities have stated that securitization can have a negative impact on utility finances, these potential impacts have to be viewed with nuance. Securitization can actually contribute to reducing the cost of capital for utilities. Credit rating agencies such as Moody's Investor Service clearly state that they view securitization as a credit-positive tool. Negative impacts from securitization could come at high levels of securitization relative to the amount recovered through traditional strategies or as Director White noted if the amount securitized is not large enough In short there a lot of nuance in selecting securitization as a financing tool The PUC has the analytical capability to weigh the relevant factors and arrive at the best selection for rate payers, whereas utilities have an inherent incentive to decide against securitization from the start. For these reasons, while securitization is not a magical tool, the Commission should have the authority to direct it when it makes sense. I'll note, however, that it's certainly not an appropriate tool for recovering fuel costs, as another group has suggested. I also wanted to briefly comment on expanding the size of the commission. While Mr. Kenney noted that he is not aware of any data showing that five commissioner benches take longer to make decisions, I am aware of some such data. Of the 17 states with five commissioner benches, 75 percent of them have longer statutory deadlines for rate cases compared to Colorado. Delayed decision making is one of the many reasons why WRA opposes expanding the commission. In sum, we urge you to amend the bill, and in doing so, I offer this additional information. So thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Diana Orff, and I'm-

Thank you so much. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Diane.

My question is just for Mr. Werner. I'm curious. You noted that somewhere around 110 employees, and you said just the overall scope in the third-party contractors. What would you consider to be an alternate, whether better or not, but what would be an alternate format that, you know, other than the PUC hiring third-party contractors, what would be your recommendation that you think would be better, met better by the business community?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. The reality of running a business as a private corporation is you are hiring to the efficiencies of your employees. And if you look at the PUC, you know, recently there was in March a discussion by Director White on the PUC's effectiveness in connection with their resources. And in that discussion, she referred to the PUC as essentially making it a comparative to David and Goliath. and this was a bit of a concerning analogy as you look at the role and the importance that those employees play in the PUC. We're talking about 110 people. My assumption is that their charge is to do the job that they were hired to be done, and I believe they do it very well. But the PUC's job is to regulate the 100 bill that we heard about earlier in testimony since 2019. Regulation is very, very different than operations, And it's not the PUC's role to be dictating the operational side of a private company. Thank you for the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, Ted Lottie on behalf of the Colorado Association of Home Builders here in amend. We largely support the amendment concepts you've heard about from Energy Crossroads Coalition, but we also have a few other ideas. The sunset review process, as you all know, is one of the only meaningful times organizations like ours who interface with the PUC as part of our members business operations get to go on record to educate legislators about the challenges we are facing in this space. In an effort to use this opportunity in my limited time wisely I'll share just two related issues with you that are a light to the PUC's intervener process although there are several others that we have. In hopes that we can jump start an important reform we'd like to talk about these because they relate to this review and need to be addressed. The PUC effectively requires that an individual or organization have attorney representation to be an intervener in their proceedings. It's unnecessary and burdensome. It's cost prohibitive to intervene and have your voice heard in these critical proceedings at times. While the Colorado Association of Home Builders represents almost 2,000 members across the state, we operate on a lean budget. This requirement for an attorney has forced us to expend thousands of our limited resources to represent our members interests before this public body. For individuals, this could mean it's cost prohibitive to even participate at all. Also relative to the intervener process, we think Colorado's demand a more open and welcoming process for participation and better transparency into how the PUC approves or denies interveners. For example, we had a developer who was rejected by the PUC as an intervener. Their reasoning in part is that the Office of Consumer Counsel would represent his interests. We respectfully disagree that the OCC appropriately represents his interests. There should be a more flexible process for Coloradans to participate in PUC matters. The PUC shouldn't be permitted to deny a petitioner who has a clear and direct interest in a proceeding for any reason. We thank you for your time and we please continue to make the necessary adjustments to how the PUC operates.

A well-functioning PUC is essential to economic development, long-term investment, and the overall competitiveness of our state. Our concern is that rather than simply reauthorizing the agency, the bill significantly broadens the authority of the PUC in ways that move it beyond oversight and into policy creation. The PUC's role should remain focused on oversight and ensuring compliance with standards set by this legislature. It should not evolve into a body that independently sets policy direction on matters that carry broad economic consequences. The Commission's purview includes extraordinarily complex systems operating in rapidly changing technological environments. Decisions in these areas affect infrastructure, investment, ratepayer costs, and the long-term trajectory of Colorado's economy. Those discussions should happen in the light of day with broad stakeholder input, and the ultimate policy decisions should be made by legislators who are accountable to voters, not determined through administrative action by appointed individuals who may or may not have specialized expertise in every subject before them. A clear example of this is securitization. While this can be an important financial tool, expanding its use through a commission rather than through market forces hinders a long-term availability of securitization for the extraordinary circumstances it was designed to address. These types of highly technical financial decisions affect every ratepayer in Colorado and should not be made lightly or forced onto utilities by an appointed board. Our request today is straightforward. Maintain the PUC's role as an oversight body, preserve proper authority over major policy decisions, and ensure that any expansion of powers is carefully defined and transparent. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors and stakeholders to reach a series of thoughtful amendments.

hello and thank you my name is christian green but i'm here to read the testimony of tina adamson she was on an earlier remote panel and had technical issues so she had signed up on behalf of the kiowa county board of county commissioners um to request amendment of this bill and to remove the expanded PUC appeal process in Section 13. Kiowa County is a rural county with a population less than 1,500 people and has the lowest assessed values for property in the state. The XL Energy Colorado Power Pathway and major tri-state transmission lines run through the county. The county welcomes this new development as long as it doesn't adversely impact them. They are particularly concerned about how construction of renewable energy projects may impact local government services and straining existing capacities. The county's 1041 regulations are crafted to foster the development of renewable and other energy projects while asking developers to avoid or mitigate impacts from those projects. Many renewable developers try to obtain early 1041 permits in order to be more competitive, but they do this before impacts are known much less mitigated given this dynamic the county has significant concerns with expanding the puc appeal process to allow renewable developers to appeal under section 13 there are two primary concerns first developers should not be included in the appeals process The current PUC appeal properly applies to utilities who are otherwise regulated by the PUC And second, Section 13 gives unfettered authority to the PUC to override all manner of land use decisions for energy generation projects. this type of oversight is currently unprecedented in colorado and overrides thank you for your

minutes thank you madam chair my name is samantha lichting and i'm here to represent the city and county of denver requesting an amendment to the bill we along with other local government partners have requested an amendment to improve local government access to utility data. Access to utility data, especially electric and gas system level data, is critical for local governments to plan for and direct development and to meet state and local policy priorities. This includes information like location, condition, capacity, and utilization of utility assets. Colorado's rules and laws do not currently provide local governments with access to this type of data, nor do franchise agreements, and utilities rarely share this information willingly. In absence of utility data, municipalities see things like affordable housing developers presented with six- or seven-figure bills and multi-year timelines to extend or upgrade electric or gas service to new properties. With better utility data access, cities can alert developers about energy constraints, identify parts of their city that are good candidates for development, solar and storage projects, and electrification and gas decommissioning, and can plan for large-scale energy transitions. Denver gains access to some of this information through its advocacy at the PUC. However, few local governments have the resources to intervene. PUC rules do not permit the use of that information outside of the proceeding in which it was provided, and not all communities are served by investor-owned utilities regulated by the PUC. Local governments are also concerned about the lack of ability for community members to have to easily look up outage and public safety power shutoff status when address-specific lookup tools are available in other states. This has led to significant losses and poor preparedness for multi-day outages impacting hundreds of thousands of Coloradans. At minimum, Denver believes that local governments that gain access to utility system information in a PUC proceeding should be able to retain access to this information for the purposes of prudent system planning. But there are broader concerns regarding community access to utility data, a conversation we look forward to continuing with sponsors and other stakeholders.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Camille Driver, and I am testifying today on behalf of my client, Nathan Whittington, who is unfortunately out for an emergency. So good afternoon, Chair and committee. My name is Nathan Whittington, and I am the president of the Colorado Emergency Management Association, otherwise known as SEMA. We are an organization of local level emergency managers that are responsible for all the disaster prevention, mitigation, and recovery efforts across our state. We know and believe that emergencies begin and end at the local level and that coordination is imperative for the safety and survival of Coloradans. We are here today in an amend position and ask that we do not change the current securitization model that is in use. As emergency managers, we rely on companies like Excel to use dollars to aid in disaster recovery and this model is working These securitization dollars for disaster mitigation and recovery are dollars that we cannot spare. As we are all aware Colorado is not receiving federal dollars through FEMA at the rate that we once were. We are operating on shoestring budgets just like the state and other industries. We have fought tooth and nail and will continue to fight for funding at all levels of government. And as many of you here know, local emergency managers are only funded right now as of June through 2027 through the governor's discretionary fund and a large part to y'all's advocacy efforts. We are fighting for our livelihoods and for our communities, and we are trying to keep the lights on. With our work with Excel, we know them to be good actors and use this money in coordination with emergency managers. And this is not money that anyone else is giving us. Not the federal government and at this time, the state cannot afford to do this work either. Although we do understand and appreciate the need for oversight, we believe that this level of oversight proposed in the bill for securitization will directly translate to increased wait times for these disaster mitigation efforts. We ask that...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me now?

Thank you for your patience. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Diana Orff. I'm here representing the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. Our members include the counties of Mesa, Moffitt, Garfield, Rio Blanco, and associate member counties of Montrose, Delta, and Grand. We're here to support the comments you heard from Colorado Counties, Inc. and CML And to ask you to amend the bill to delete Section 13 The major reason is that this takes over some of our land use planning abilities The land in Northwest Colorado is heavily surrounded by federal land We are challenged increasingly to provide services with a very low economic base as we are in an energy transition area. The necessity to participate in a proceeding before the PUC is necessarily an expensive one to begin with, and it requires a specialized attorney to represent the organizations or the counties. PUC processes are extremely expensive to participate in, very lengthy in some cases, and we believe that this would be a burden on local governments. Therefore, we ask respectfully for the removal of Section 13 and to allow the counties to resolve their issues with development on a different basis.

hello can you hear me yes thank you sorry about that buying from a very non-smart phone my name is cory gains i'm a resident of logan county colorado uh a lot of what i think has already been covered by amendments i'm glad to see the transparency provision is going to get amended out. I wanted to just make one mention. I bet if I was down there today and said the word no kings, I'd see a bunch of hands raised in support, fists in the air. No king. But what I want to mention is what we have with a three-member, governor-appointed, ideologically uniform PUC, is essentially a king. People who can sit on the other side of a computer screen far, far away and tell people in Elbert and El Paso counties what's going to happen to their land without ever having to live with any part of that decision. and without ever having to be accountable for that decision. This is not how it should be. One last thing I'd like to mention, if people are tossing out amendments, I have one. How about any intervener before the PUC that's accepted money, say, for example, from Energy Foundation China that possibly comes from overseas, has to disclose that when they get up in front of the PUC. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Committee. My name is Anita Seitz. I'm the Advocacy Director for Colorado Communities for Climate Action. We are a coalition of 48 local governments from across the state that have come to advocate for equitable and climate, just climate action. We're generally supportive of 1326, and we thank the sponsors for their hard work on this. But we are asking for amendments to strengthen the PUC for the upcoming decade to preserve affordability, ensure reliability, and the resilience of our grid while meeting our state's goals. You've heard a lot about this. I'm going to try to go quick, but you can ask me questions. We believe PUC processes should be improved to support enhanced equity, access, transparency, and community engagement in every proceeding, making it easier for those who are most impacted by the commission's decisions to have their voices both heard and weighed in decisions. Local governments in particular need more access to utility data on both electric and gas infrastructure locations, conditions, and operations. We want to coordinate our planning with the utility and partner with them. This is easier if we have the PUC that's adequately resourced and staffed for the complexities it will be facing in the coming years. This benefits all stakeholders from the utilities to the end energy users. We specifically need positions included in the amendments before you that bring public engagement and community outreach to the commission. We support both the ability of the PUC to direct the use of securitization and the use of a third party administrator. We believe the ability to use these supports affordability for rate payers. And I really do invite questions on these. And fourth, we want to promote regulatory efficiency by streamlining proceedings and maximize the impact of utility customer programming. And that is the M docket that you have before you in one of the amendments the amendments Thank you for your time Happy to answer questions Thank you so much Representative Goldstein Thank you Madam Chair Ms Seitz could you please expand on third party

I appreciate the question. I'm sorry, Chair.

Millions. This is Anita Seitz.

The way it is contemplated, both in the amendment that CC4CA has requested and also in the 1326, is to provide another tool to the commission to support the efficient promotion of consumer-facing programs. So I do agree that these utilities have been asked to do a lot. We do now have transportation electrification plans. We have clean heat plans, demand-side management plans, beneficial electrification plans. And so how can we ensure that those programs, most of the dollars, are going to support those public policies that the legislature has wanted to create and look for efficiencies? So we are not talking about line workers or the people doing the install, but how do we market and promote and administer those programs to maximize efficiencies? You could contemplate a scenario where it's only used sparingly with one utility, or if you have a third-party administrator that's used by multiple utilities, it could really ease for both the consumer and the contractor to just have one form, kind of uniform programs and responsibilities. Thank you.

Please introduce yourself. Can you hear me?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Dawn Pearlstein, and I'm in Federal Heights. I'm here to speak in support of 1326. With a strong request as you consider the reauthorization of the Colorado PUC, as you evaluate this sunset bill, I urge you to keep climate justice, clean energy, and public health at the center of the Commission's authority and responsibilities. The PUC plays a critical role in resource planning, particularly decisions around long-term investments that directly affect our air quality and our climate goals. Colorado has been recognized nationally as a leader in climate policy. We set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets committed to 100% clean energy and adopted pioneering environmental justice laws requiring air quality monitoring in disproportionately impacted communities That leadership matters not just for us but as a model for other states But today we are falling behind According to the American Lung Association as of April 2026, the Denver Aurora Greeley region ranks among the worst in the nation for ozone pollution. Myself and so many people in the largest proportionally impacted community I live in are suffering from breathing issues. This is not unusual in Colorado right now. Many Coloradans are struggling to breathe, and we all understand the health impacts of poor air quality, especially for babies, children, seniors, and people with asthma or other respiratory and health conditions. This reauthorization is a wonderful opportunity. I urge you to ensure the PUC has the resources, authority, and clear direction to align utility decisions with Colorado's climate commitments so we don't continue moving backward, but instead reclaim our role as leaders in clean air, climate justice, and public health. Thank you. I am grateful for your work and for your time.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Elizabeth Newman, Director of Public Policy at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. CECASA is a leading voice in the state's anti-sexual violence movement, along with our members who work together to promote healing and prevent harm. I'm here today in support of House Bill 1326, specifically as it strengthens and improves safety in transportation network companies or rideshares. For far too long, rideshare companies have circumvented standard protections for passengers and drivers with devastating consequences. Over the last few years, we have heard numerous stories of survivors being sexually assaulted while using a rideshare app, leaving survivors reeling from the short and long-term impacts of this life-altering trauma, ranging from physical injuries to debilitating PTSD symptoms. Uber's own data, cited in the New York Times this fall, revealed that sexual misconduct or assault was reported to them on an average of every eight minutes. Rideshares are marketed as safe and convenient for vulnerable populations, including children, individuals with disabilities, and people who have been drinking. These populations also have some of the highest vulnerabilities for sexual assault. Yet each year, thousands of people in the U.S. are sexually assaulted in a rideshare, passengers and drivers alike, people who trusted they could use the app to get safely from point A to point B. While we cannot control what every person will do, sexual assault is preventable, with proper safeguards and accountability measures in place. This bill ensures the Commission has the power to improve rideshare safety and increase transparency by making sure drivers who are who they say they are and to collect and make public data on safety around TNCs. We are grateful to the PUC for embracing the need to do more for Colorado's safety in rideshares, whether they are in the passenger or driver's seat. And we are especially thankful that the Majority Leader and Rep. Wilford continue their tireless efforts to improve systems that address sexual violence and increase support for survivors. We urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1326. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak, and thanks in particular to the bill authors for their excellent work. My name is Barbara Donakai. I'm a 50-year resident of Colorado. I have an MPH degree from the Colorado School of Public Health, and I'm a current board member and founding member of the Colorado Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility However today I speak on behalf of myself my children and grandchildren who all have grown up in this beautiful state and whose futures rely on the decisions made by the Public Utilities Commission. I support the reauthorization of the Public Utilities Commission and urge the committee to pass this bill. However, as a parent and health professional, I am in agreement with the prior statement of Dr. James Crook. The Colorado Office of Policy Research and regulatory reform report acknowledges that PUC decisions affect public health. It follows that the PUC should incorporate health impact assessments. Health impact assessments should be used in PUC cost-benefit analysis for plans affecting air emissions, including clean heat, electric resource, and gas infrastructure plans. These assessments should include criteria air pollutants. And existing models are, such as EPA's COBRA and the BEND map, are readily available to make assessing the cost of negative health impacts affordable and practical. Importantly, these tools can be used to attain compliance with current statutes that direct the PUC to consider impacts on disproportionately impacted communities. So I ask you to support this, consider this health impact assessment as part of the PUC's ability to help already impacted communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I've only been doing this a few years. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Brian Tobias. I'm the director of the Colorado Office of Policy Research and Regulatory Reform. Of course, my team and I are responsible for the report that generated the bill before you today. I will let my team introduce themselves. I have a feeling I will be taking the brunt of your questions this afternoon as I was the primary author of the sections of the report having to do with energy.

Hi, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Saul Larson. I'm with the Colorado Office of Policy Research and Regulatory Reform with Indora. And as Mr. Tobias stated, we did this project as a team. I was responsible for doing the public safety portion of the report.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members. Jennifer Lockwood with Copper, here to answer any questions today that the committee may have regarding the transportation-related questions for the sunset report itself.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Vivian Belmont. I'm a policy analyst with the Colorado Office of Policy Research and Regulatory Reform, and I worked on the telecommunications section of the Sunset Review.

questions, and Representative DeGraff. Just on the energy, Mr. Tobias, just wanted to,

Director Tobias.

Please introduce yourself and tell us what your expertise is.

Mr. Branson.

Thank you. Speaker Bertem, Bozniker.

I think there's been a couple questions, just not a policy decision, but really just related to the process behind the inclusion of Section 13 in the bill.

Director Tobias.

Speaker, for time, boss maker.

Okay. Well, thank you so much. Do we have anyone else that is here to testify? Seeing none, thank you so much. Thank you, Jiménez. And I would like to bring sponsors back. And at this point, we're closing testimony. And we are moving on to the amendment phase. Majority Leader Duran.

Representative Wilford, would you like to second? I would second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment was requested by both an electric utility, Black Hills Energy, as well as the environmental coalition. It requires the PUC to investigate how to streamline and integrate energy planning proceedings. This is similar to an administrative recommendation in the Sunset Report. The PUC would open a malicious or M-docket, as we call it, proceeding to investigate how to better order and potentially combine proceedings. Being an M-docket proceeding means that all interested parties will be consulted and stakeholding done, and I ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Representative Wilford.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-5 to House Bill 1326.

yes happy to second that's a proper motion please tell us about your amendment yep thank you very much madam chair as you heard in our opening as well as from stakeholders this amendment would replace the telecom fee that was a percentage-based structure with a filing fee model paid directly into the telecommunications fund to ensure solvency and we ask for an aye vote

Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move L-006 to House Bill 1326.

That is a proper motion Please tell us about your amendment Madam Chair this amendment came at the request of the PUC Council to add clarifying language around opting out of the RES targets There are no substantive changes to the policy

Thank you. Do we have any questions? See none and do we have any objections? Seeing none, L006 passes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Second.

So this amendment will require the penal communications services to report outages to the PUC and for correctional facilities to post PUC information about how to file a complaint. I do ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move L008 to House Bill 1326.

Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So many parties, including Excel, Black Hills, Colorado Concern, Action 20, Colorado Energy Crossroads, which includes some labor organizations, thought that the 11-year timeline for the next sunset was too far. So this amendment sets the next PUC sunset to 2033.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-009 to House Bill 1326.

Second.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment requires utilities to provide interconnection disclosures so that energy projects can qualify for federal tax credits. And I ask for an aye vote.

No questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move L-011 to House Bill 1326.

That's a proper motion. Please tell us about your amendment.

Do we have any questions?

Do we have any objections? Seeing none, L011 passes. Representative Wilford.

Thank you. Sponsors, do we have any questions?

Do we have any objections? Seeing none, L12 passes.

thank you committee do we have any amendments seeing none uh the amendment phase is over and uh sponsors wrap up

My jury leader, Duran.

Representative Wilford?

Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the work that you've put into this and your commitment to still continuing to work on this. I think we all see where there might be a few places to address that. So I just want to let you know I will be supporting moving this along.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors. I understand the weight you put on putting this bill forward. It really truly is a really important bill for the state of Colorado. It is not just anything that has to do with political views. I know we disagree on everything, but this has real-world consequences. Real-world consequences to the energy industry in our state, jobs, and affordability. And that's something that we both, on both sides of the aisle, agree that we need to work on affordability. I do have many concerns on how this commission is being moved forward, how they're operating. uh of course uh what i said at the beginning about about uh Presentation of the entire state and how the technology of energy has advanced over the last hundred years that this commission has been in operation. We should also advance the commission to have a fair representation. And I look forward to working with you on trying to fix that and trying to advance this commission as well. So unfortunately, I cannot support it at this moment. I will be a respectful no, but looking forward to keep working with you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And this has been, you know, I'm new on energy and environment. And so we all hear about the PUC and the investor-owned utilities, and I just had no idea how broad their purview is in regulating. So that's been super interesting. I do like the fact that the person that talked about the telecommunications and knocking out four or five pages of the bill, just like how energy has evolved so has telecommunications since the last review I am very interested in this idea of including and I don't know you know if that's practical or not but the health impact assessment I found that really interesting to hear about and I don't you know we've got CDPHE we've got you know the air quality commission we've got the PUC and I I don't know where something like that would best lie, but that's something of interest to me. So I will support this, and thank you for all your work.

Respectful, no.

Goldstein.

Jackson.

Joseph.

Pascal.

Slough.

Smith? Yes. Wilford? Yes. Woog? No. Majority Leader Duran? Yes. And Chair Velasco? Respectfully, yes.

Thank you.