Senate Transportation & Energy [Mar 25, 2026]

The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee will come to order. Ms. Forbes, please call the roll.

Here. Exum. Good afternoon.

Mullica. Excused.

Sullivan. Here.

And Mr. Chair. Here. Thank you, everybody. We are excited to get today underway. Our first bill today is House Bill 26-1051. Senators Roberts and Simpson, welcome to T&E, and please tell us about your bill.

Senator Roberts.

Thank you, senators. Are there any questions for the minority leader or Senator Roberts? Seeing none, we'll move on to witness testimonies. Is there any preference sponsors on the order of testimony for the witnesses? Any opposition?

Great, great. Well, we've got eight witnesses, so we will just call up two separate panels. We will start with Ms. Marguerite Hardin, and then joining us online, Wiley Freeman, Jan Rose, and Faith Ryan. If you're in person and could please come to the table. We will bring up our guests on Zoom Zoom Well, while we are promoting people on virtually, we can start with our testimony in person. I'd like the record to reflect that Senator Mullica and Senator Lindstedt have joined us. So thank you for coming. Please state your name and who you represent for the record, and you have three minutes to testify. Who would like to begin?

Thank you, Ms. Hardin. Ms. Masters? Wonderful. I appreciate that. We'll go online and start with Faith Ryan. You have three minutes. Please state your name and who you represent.

Thank you very much, Ms. Ryan. Next, we will go to Wiley Freeman. You have three minutes to testify.

Committee members, are there any questions for our witnesses? I have one question for witnesses in the room Can you tell me a little bit more about the federal money Is there an expiration date on that federal money And if that runs out what happens to the grant Sure Thank you Chair

We need a microgrid. Thank you very much. Committee members, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming. We'll proceed to our next panel. Next up, we have Anita Seitz, Jody Shaduck-McNally, and Amy Rosier. And I'll just call up if there's anybody else who is here in person who would like to testify for or against this bill, please come join us. Okay. We will start with Amy Rosier. Welcome to T&E. Amy, please state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes to testify.

Thank you very much, Ms. Rozier. Committee members, are there any questions for our witness? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming to Transportation Energy Committee. Do we have one question? Is the fiscal analyst for the bill in the room? If you could join us, we have some questions about the fiscal note. Go ahead and introduce yourself. Go ahead and introduce yourself first, and then we'll go to Senator Pelton.

Great, thank you Mr. Geiser. Senator Pelton.

Mr. Geiser. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe those are continuing expenditures in the grant program, but I think that, do we have folks at DOLA sign up to testify for this?

Marguerite Hardin with DOLA and the Colorado Resiliency Office. So that is just continuing administration for closing out all of the grants that we have. We still have two-thirds of this grant program in open awards. So only about 10 projects or $500,000 of the state dollars have been closed out. We also have about $12 million in federal awards that are all still open. So all of those federal awards and the state match to federal will continue to be administered until the grants close out, which we expect to be 2029. And so that FTE will be continuing to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It says change in state FTE. It looks like you're adding an FTE.

Many members, any more questions? Seeing none, is there anybody here who wishes to testify on this bill? Seeing no one wishes to testify, the testimony portion of this hearing is closed. Sponsors, do you have any amendments?

Would you like to make concluding comments? Does the committee have any amendments? I apologize. We're very open. Seeing none, sponsors, any wrap-up comments?

Is there a motion on the bill?

Ms. Forbes, please call the roll. Senators Baisley.

Aye. Exum.

Aye. Mullica.

Aye. Sullivan.

Senator Cutter is excused, and Mr. Chair.

Okay thanks Yeah I not going anywhere

Good to be back.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I'm glad to be here and excited to be here to present Senate Bill 141 to you today with the minority leader, Cleve Simpson, and thank him for his partnership on this idea and something that we've had conversations with about for a while now. This is actually a pretty simple idea, but one that will have a real and big impact on people's lives. Here in Colorado, we've proven that when you build wildlife crossings in the right places and pair them with game fencing, they work. not just a little bit but dramatically we're seeing reductions in wildlife vehicle collisions where we build this infrastructure of over 90 percent almost overnight that means fewer injuries fewer totaled vehicles and fewer tragic outcomes on our roads and it also means fewer insurance claims which ultimately helps reduce costs for everyone i've been able to see this success up close and i know my co-sponsor has as well for example on highway 9 in grand county in my district Local partners and CDOT turned one of the most dangerous stretches for wildlife collisions into a national model. Drivers in that corridor know the difference now. It's safer, and wildlife are still able to move through those migration routes. On that stretch in particular, collisions have been reduced by over 92%. More recently, the Greenland overpass on I-25 north of Colorado Springs is now the largest wildlife overpass in North America and was completed last year. That project reconnects tens of thousands of acres of habitat and is expected to reduce crashes in that corridor by up to 90%. So the question isn't whether this works, it's how do we do more of it in our state, and that's what this bill proposes to do. Senate Bill 141 creates a simple voluntary option at the time of vehicle registration, the option to pay a $5 contribution that Coloradans can choose to support safer roads and wildlife crossings. Those dollars will be directed primarily into a collision prevention fund to build crossings and fencing, with the remainder supporting habitat connectivity work through Parks and Wildlife that goes hand-in-hand with these projects. This bill also ensures that we're being strategic. It brings CDOT, CPW, and local partners together to focus on the highest-risk corridors and move projects forward in a coordinated way. And right now, passing this bill this year really matters because there are still significant federal dollars available for wildlife crossings. But they're competitive and they require a state match. This bill helps position Colorado to leverage small voluntary contributions into much larger investments and bring more of those federal dollars home. Up to $4 for every dollar we invest at the state level could come from the federal government to help us build these projects. And I'll just note that this is also an issue that's brought together a broad and diverse coalition across political parties across industries across the state We have conservation groups sportsmen transportation leaders local governments agriculture communities and many more in strong support of this concept So this has been a couple years in the making. I know some of you heard a version of this bill last year, one that was a mandatory fee. That didn't have the ability to get through the legislature, and so we worked really hard over the summer and the fall to come forward with this proposal. This is an optional fee that Coloradans can choose to contribute to or not, but we believe that the nexus at the time of car registration will be strong and that Coloradans will want to contribute to making their roads safer so that they themselves can protect themselves, they can protect their family and their community, and at the end of the day, these help lower insurance costs for all Coloradans. So looking forward to the discussion today and would appreciate your support for Senate Bill 141.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Again, honored to be on this bill with Senator Roberts. And for me, thinking about this sounds a little morbid, but as I drive the highways in my district, particularly Highway 160 and 550, I find myself watching and counting and looking for bloodstains in the road and carcasses along the borrow pits and the side roads and go. make a mental note if I have to travel this section of road at night to be extra cautious and pay extra attention and have watched two of these projects fencing and wildlife crossings unfold particularly on highway 160 in in my district one of them between Pagosa Springs and Bayfield and the other one is a brand new one just outside of Fort Garland as you head towards the bottom of La Vida Pass and I can tell you driving that section particularly from Fort Garland to La Vida Pass easily hundreds of times, maybe a thousand times over my life, and having any number of near misses, like they're just finishing that, I don't know, it's probably a 10-mile stretch of wildlife fencing and crossings that makes a huge difference. I worry a little bit like maybe I put too much faith in it and I need to continue to pay attention, but it's such a relief to drive that section in dark or at the dawn or dusk. not having to be so worried about that next encounter. Been pretty blessed, I think. My only occurrence in my lifetime was actually running into a bear on La Vida Pass. I like to tell the story of I bumped, it was like 2 o'clock in the morning, and I know I hit that bear and turned around to check on him and asked my wife if she wanted to get out and make sure he was okay. Actually, he wasn't there. I just kind of rolled him and he took off. But that was my one encounter with wildlife in that space. So I know this system works. And to Senator Roberts' perspective, like how do you fund this? He and I had a conversation last year. I said I would be happy to figure out I would pay, I think the bill last year or year, I don't remember the time frame, but it was a nominal fee. It was $1 or $2 or something, very nominal fee, but everybody was going to pay it. And I said I just can't support that. I would voluntarily, I'd put $100 in a pool if I knew it went towards these kind of precautionary measures and improvements in the system to increase public safety. And so I was happy to join him when he said, I think we found a path forward that isn't a requirement and that it's voluntary and even at a small scale of $5 will make a big difference, particularly when you can leverage that with the federal dollars at four to one. So I said, sign me up. I happy to work with the senator on this space and create what I think should be really good policy So I appreciate your support Thank you senators Are there any questions from committee Senator Mullica Thank you Mr Chair I have two questions

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Mullica. Yeah, I appreciate the question and the foresight on that. I did talk to CDOT after we talked yesterday about this, and they're going to have somebody testify so we can dig into it a little bit more. And we're open to considering some language. There was a little bit of caution given that these are more technical projects than a typical road repair or things like that. And so they do put out bids nationally. But they do also know that in a lot of these projects that we've seen in Colorado, the subcontractors that they hire are all local companies. So a lot of Colorado work is being done, but given the technical nature, they have a little hesitancy constricting it just to the four corners of our state.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Mullica. It's a good question. So how the legislation is written is it does expand the change charge of the bridge and tunnel enterprise to include wildlife collision infrastructure, collision prevention infrastructure. And a lot of these are bridges and tunnels, and so it was a natural place to put this work. And so that's the commission or the enterprise that will be in charge of directing these funds. And the board for that enterprise is the Transportation Commission. And so those are folks that have to come through the Senate to be confirmed. Logistically, how the money works is a collision prevention fund is created in the state treasury, and that money, so the $5 goes into the collision prevention fund. And so the BTE, the Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise, will direct funds from that fund, but it can only go to wildlife collision prevention because it's already enclosed in that collision prevention fund.

Senator Roberts? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Senator Mullica. Also would invite that question to CDOT so we can get it on the record.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. My simple question is, this is, it's not clear to me in the writing of the bill, but this is an opt-out rather than an opt-in. Is that correct for the vehicle owner? Senator Roberts.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to go back to what Senator Mullica had talked about with the bridge and tunnel enterprise. And I appreciate that there's work being done in your district because we have bridges that are – concrete's fallen off. But it's not going to make these things a priority, correct, out of that fund. It won't make it a – we're still going to look at it like, you know, bridge and tunnels need to be worked on. This is not going to be like, oh, we need to have wildlife and make it a priority. everything will stay exactly the same, correct? Senator Roberts.

Are there any other questions from the committee?

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kytlin, no. All right, that's what I needed. Thank you very much.

I live in Evergreen. I come to you today wearing two hats. The first is I work for the Pew Charitable Trust, a nonpartisan fact-based nonprofit, and the second is actually a helmet. I am a volunteer firefighter and EMT. Today the committee has the opportunity to advance legislation that will help prevent the pain and financial costs caused by wildlife vehicle collisions for victims and their families. These tragic accidents also expose our law enforcement, fire rescue, EMS, and state and county employees to secondary crashes, and they strain our rural emergency services. Furthermore, this legislation would make a long-term investment in preserving Colorado's iconic wildlife populations by reconnecting important habitats. Collisions with wildlife are a significant concern in our state. In 2024, approximately 7,500 collisions with animals occurred on our roads, and that's according to roadkill data, so likely a significant undercount. Additionally, traffic jams and road closures caused by these collisions cost millions of dollars an hour on interstates like I-70 and I-25, where CDOT has built systems to prevent these collisions and has identified the need for more. The lack of habitat connectivity and migration routes also negatively impacts the health of our state's wildlife, which supports a $65.8 billion outdoor recreation economy, according to CPW. you. Fortunately today we are discussing advancing a proven solution that can nearly eliminate this problem in hot spots. As Senator Roberts noted, these are highly effective systems and can reduce collisions by nearly 92%. As a result, they have a high return on investment and often recoup their costs through avoided crash related damages within a fraction of their design lifespan. That's likely why 87% of Coloradans across the political spectrum support these projects. By establishing the small voluntary $5 fee, the bill would create a reliable funding source for projects that save lives and money. And reliability is key, as Wildlife Crossings projects have suffered from a lack of financial certainty. And as members of this committee know, predictable and reliable funding is essential for efficiently planning. Mr. Lane, your time is up,

Transportation projects. I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill, and I respectfully urge you to advance SB 141, which will protect drivers, wildlife, and our first responders. Thank you.

My name is Mary Rodriguez, and I am here speaking in favor of Bill 141 for wildlife collision prevention. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. On September 29th, 2024 at 8 p.m., my parents were on their way home from a weekend in the mountains. They were approximately eight minutes from home when a vehicle on the oncoming traffic side of the highway struck a roughly 700 cow elk launching it into the air As my parents were coming along on the opposite side of the road the elk came from above and crashed directly through the windshield of their vehicle stopping the car dead in its tracks and killed my dad instantly Thankfully, my mother was not killed but sustained some injuries as the elk partially landed on top of her as well. The other driver survived the accident. For the last 18 months, my family and I have been petitioning for wildlife fencing and crossings along U.S. Highway 85 in Castle Rock, Colorado, between Daniels Park Road and Happy Canyon Road where the accident occurred. Had there been protection implemented along that highway, my dad may still be here today. Now he won't be able to see his grandchildren grow up or celebrate many more milestones with our family. He's gone, and we cannot get him back over something that could have been prevented. The feedback I've received from the community where we live has been overwhelmingly positive in support of these efforts for wildlife mitigation. People do not feel safe traveling that highway and have had similar run-ins with wildlife there. I'm here today in support of Bill SB 26-141 as I feel it's imperative that our state has the proper funding to create safe passage for wildlife and humans alike and gives residents the opportunity to help make a contribution to such an important cause that will absolutely save lives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Skyler McKinley. I'm here on behalf of AAA and our 800,000 members in Colorado. We're a big part of Big Automobile. Personally, I'm also someone who drives state highways 9, 134, and 131 almost every week to reach my business in the Ampa Valley. The difference between those drives is why this bill matters. On Highway 9, which we've talked about, I rarely see wildlife on the road. That's not because the elk aren't there, it's because the crossings are there. I know where the structures are and apparently so do the animals. On 134 and 131, it is a different experience entirely. I have a close call on nearly every drive. In the fall of 24, at the top of Gore Pass, I hit an elk cow. I've driven this stretch hundreds of times and I know how to drive it safely, but the The risk remains. I know what this bill is about, not as a policy matter, but as a driver. Colorado drivers also know what this bill is about. We're a national leader in wildlife crossings. We have over 100 structures. We have the data showing where they work. We have a bipartisan record of taking this seriously. We know how to do this. What we lack is reliable, dedicated funding stream to keep building, and this bill fixes that. Since 2010, wildlife vehicle collisions have killed 48 Coloradans and injured more than 5,000. Our members who walk away from those crashes face repair costs that run into the tens of thousands. That number climbs every year as vehicles get more sensor-laden, more expensive to repair. Colorado drivers feel that in their premiums. That's a very real cost. Cars have changed. Repair costs have changed. What we do to protect drivers and their vehicles from wildlife collisions also has to change. This bill does that. I just want to stress the fee discussed here is optional. No driver is required to pay it. Our members will recognize the instinct. of mind on the road is why they joined AAA. Most of our members will never call us. They still pay that membership fee to us for that peace of mind, for their safety on the roadways. This optional $5 fee does the same thing. I urge your support and I think it will make a meaningful difference with some of these insurance payouts with wildlife collisions. Thanks.

Good afternoon Mr Chairman and members of the committee My name is Gaspar Paracon and I am here on behalf of the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project which is the state largest alliance of hunting angling and wildlife conservation organizations and we are also in support of Senate Bill 141. Colorado's wildlife conservation community, as has been noted, has been at the forefront of wildlife crossing planning, construction nationally, thanks to the work of CDOT, DNR, CPW, tribes, NGOs, and a collaborative coordination and planning effort carried out by the Colorado Wildlife Transportation Alliance. The legislature has also played a meaningful role as they established the Colorado Wildlife Safe Passage Fund in 2002. As you all know, unfortunately, that one-time general fund appropriation has been depleted on a variety of projects. It's worth noting that the fund allowed CDOT to unlock approximately four federal dollars for every state dollar invested. And while we've made great progress in alleviating wildlife collisions across the state, there is still a long list of projects for which federal funding is desperately needed. Now, it goes without saying that reducing wildlife vehicle collisions is not only significant from a public safety perspective, but also plays a meaningful role in reducing wildlife subsequent herd health. In 2004, Colorado experienced approximately 7,500 wildlife collisions. At the same time, Colorado's big game herds are struggling in many parts of the state for a variety of reasons, but among those reasons are vehicle collisions. This bill will help prevent unnecessary human and wildlife collisions. For example, the Highway 9 project reduced wildlife collisions by 92% in the first five years. Lastly, the funding split proposed in the bill of 75% for infrastructure development and 25% for CPW's ongoing wildlife conservation mission are both critically important to sustain wildlife populations in the state and support our hunting, wildlife-dependent economy, our outdoor recreation traditions, and promote safer travel through the state for residents, visitors, and wildlife alike. Thank you very much.

Hello. Thank you for hearing me. And thank you to Senator Roberts and Simpsons for bringing this forward. My name is Greg Poshman. I'm a Pitkin County Commissioner. We're members of CCAT. On the behalf of my county and fellow commissioners, I urge you to support House Bill or Senate Bill 141 to improve public safety on our roadways and wildlife connectivity through Colorado. We're grateful for this bipartisan bill, which will make Colorado's highways safer and reduce insurance claims. Fitton County is home to critical wildlife habitat intersected by major transportation corridors, State Highway 82 and 133. As traffic volumes have increased, wildlife vehicle collisions have become a persistent and serious safety concern. Highway 82 is often so crowded that it's akin to a 65-mile-per-hour moving fence, like a chainsaw that will chew up any creature attempting to cross. On a six-mile segment of Highway 82, wildlife collisions accounted for 55% of all reported traffic incidents over a decade. A few years ago, a morning commuter struck and killed five elk on Highway 82 near my home. additional elk were injured but were able to stagger off into the brush and die unaccounted. It was early spring and the cow elk were likely pregnant. That single crash traumatized the people involved and may have killed over a dozen viable elk. We know that wildlife casualty numbers are often underreported. Wildlife crossing projects are desirable in our community. I can submit a collection of letters and support for the public record. We recognize that the cost of these crossings is a good value when compared to the accumulating cost of wildlife collisions in lives and dollars. When our leaders commit to wildlife crossings, our communities have shown willingness to step up. Please pass this legislation to commit state money with the understanding that support at the federal, local level, and private donations of land and money will play a significant role in getting the projects done. In so many circumstances, this public-private support is simply waiting for a commitment and financial participation of our

please. I'll wrap up last sentence. Legislation such as this will help provide funding certainty needed for long-term planning and construction of crossings. Given the demonstrated needs and the clear need throughout Colorado, we respectfully encourage you to pass SB 141. Thank you very much for your time.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Molly Fitzpatrick, and I'm the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder and also the Motor Vehicle Technical or Legislative Co-Chair with Sherry Davis. We are in an amend position on this bill. We completely understand and appreciate the intent of the bill, but the reality for us on the front lines is that it would create some additional and new administrative responsibilities for counties without providing the resources that we really need to implement it effectively. This bill would increase our workload and our cost. It does require our staff to take on additional duties, and it doesn't provide the funding for the educational materials that we would need. So in practice, what that would mean is that our staff would be responsible for really doing the delivery of that public education without the resources to do so. so um you know big picture we think a lot about what's happened over the last couple years this is the the second time in the last few years alongside the keep colorado wild pass that counties have been asked to absorb additional responsibilities without additional you know resources to implement those responsibilities and it's just not sustainable and it puts a strain on our ability to deliver core services so that's really where we're coming from is just needing the resources to be able to do things like this. And we are 100% committed to being committed partners and figuring out a solution that would work to ensure that we're appropriately resourced as the ones who would actually be implementing this. So thank you so much for your time, and I'll pass it off to whoever is next.

Hi, I'm Sherry Davis. I the Douglas County Clerk and Recorder representing the Colorado County Clerk Association I too am a chair of the legislative committee for motor vehicles for the association So as Clerk Fitzgerald said, we are in need of some type of change to support the education piece for this for the public because there's no written materials. There'll be no way to educate the public. so we would have to create those written materials we would have to print them we would have to take the time to explain it at the front counter ever since drives came in which was 2018 we have there have been a number of tasks that have been pushed down on the county clerks that have increased the wait times for our citizens so we're really thinking about this from the customer experience standpoint. Additionally, there's no mechanism in here. This isn't a one-for-one with the Colorado, keep Colorado wild, because there's no mechanism for a refund should somebody accidentally not realize they're adding the $5 fee. There's no mechanism to help support the education of the public. There's no vendor fee to come back to us so that we can continue to support these things. The counties are in the same position as the state. We, too, are being asked to cut back and do more with less. And so this only compounds that. So I would just ask you to take that into consideration. Totally agree with my counterparts here. We're more than willing to work with the sponsors on this to make sure that we can have a win-win for everybody. It's a great idea. It just doesn't have quite enough in it for the logistics. we have a $1.4 million fiscal that wasn't added last time I looked. So please consider our concerns as you move forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm Carly Koppis. I'm the Will County Clerk and Recorder. I'm also the president of the Colorado County Clerks Association. We do stand in an amend. Like both of my colleagues here, we do support the policy, but we are looking at it from an administrative aspect because we are the ones that have to take the brunt of the customers. We know and understand that it is just $5, but let's just be real, $5 can go a long way for a lot of our customers here. So the thing is, one of the issues that we also are concerned about is this is not going to actually be put onto the renewal notice. The renewal notice, yes, is a complementary thing that we provide, the state provides to the citizens. However, the majority of the customers do anticipate and understand that that is what they should be coming to our counter and expecting to pay. And so for us then to potentially be asking for an additional opt-out of $5 could create more confrontation for us at the counter, which is another concern for us. Again, I will reiterate the pretty much pushing off the buck to us at the county level to create the materials to do the education aspect for it, because in this bill, how it is written, we're going to have to collect the fund first to then be able to get the materials to that. And so I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you're wanting me to essentially sell this $5 fee, but you're not giving me any educational materials to sell it. So I'm not quite sure how we're going to be able to backfill that. I know that there is going to be some amendments coming forward that we have asked these sponsors to provide, but we have some additional conversations that we would like to have. The administrative burden is going to continue to be very burdensome on us. obviously all of us here in every single county we trying to get transaction times down i know in my county my average transaction time is between nine and ten minutes which is really a long time We should be able to have that down to about five to six minutes And so adding additional average 30 minutes or 30 seconds on to 40 seconds on is a concern into compounding hours of wait times for our customers. And so we would just appreciate more consideration on the administrative front and we're happy to ask any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here. I really appreciate the work you do for your communities, and I'm in constant contact with my clerk in Adams County, and I appreciate the work he does. I guess I am struggling to wrap my head around some of the testimony because I go and register my car, and I understand. Like, our family tends to opt in for the state park pass on our registration. And it's just a checkbox. It doesn't seem like it's that much, and I feel like that's what this is. Or if we do it online, too, so it's just a checkbox. And so I appreciate kind of your perspectives. I'm not a clerk. I've never ran one. But it just seems like it's not that big of a deal. It's just a checkbox. and I'm not quite sure. I know we're hearing about the wait times. I know you're saying nine to ten minutes and adds up and education. I'm not sure if anyone's asking you guys to sell it. I know you probably need to be educated on it if you get asked a question, but I'm just struggling with wrapping my head around a checkbox, either on an online renewal or an in-person, in your case, being that big of a deal.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. But at the end of the day, they can just say no, right? If this is something they don't want, they can just say no. And I'm not sure, and I know an amendment was mentioned or amendments were mentioned, and so I don't know if any of those are, if those amendments are addressing any of the concerns that you all have from the sponsors. But at the end of the day, they can just say no. Clerk Davis, would you like to take that?

Senator Mullica. And I'm not familiar because I haven't accidentally clicked it. Can they get a refund on the Keep Colorado Wildlife Pass?

Have you, sorry. Senator Mullica. Last question. Have you had those conversations with the sponsors about that consistency?

Clerk Davis We have had conversation I not sure where they stand We asked for another meeting Any further questions Senator Mullica

Clerk Koppis. Thank you, Chair. Yes, Senator. so when we were working to develop materials for the kcw it ended up being a multi-million dollar campaign that they had to invest in for them to be able to generate that for us now to have to front load that it's probably going to be depending on the county be you know a couple hundred thousand dollars in my county i would project because yes you are correct we are going to need to get those type of materials to actually have people see them about seven times before they get to our counter, before we actually ask them within their transaction time to be able to do that. When we have done the fiscal analysis on it, it's just for your second piece, I mean, Clark Bacon is amazing. She gets everything down to the penny. I greatly appreciate her knowledge on that. When we did a quick fiscal analysis, it's going to be an additional $1.4 million impact to all 64 counties statewide with just the frontline aspect of it. That doesn't include the back office aspect of the increase in phone calls and all those statistics that we have in the back office. So when we're trying to put that burden on us first to do that educational piece, for myself, I would project it's going to be between $100,000 and $150,000, maybe $200,000 worth of materials that we're going to need to be able to deploy out to educate the people within Weld County. And I would project I'm also one of the large counties, so we can, you know, there's 10 large counties, and then obviously designate that out a little bit smaller for all the rest of them. But that also puts a lot of pressure on the Colorado County Clerks Association to be the main person and group to actually build those educational materials and messaging and what it's all going to be about because there is a difference between the KCW and this pass. And so, again, as Clerk Davis stated, there are some people that are going to be educated, but the majority of them are not going to be educated on what this is actually about. And so we're going to have to actually tell them what is this, what is this bridge, what is the fencing. We have to educate ourselves on that as well. And so it will be a very heavy upfront lift for us counties to have to do that before we're getting any support from the state, which is unfair in my opinion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the fiscal note, they have an outreach campaign, it says here, and they're requiring $100,000 for a consultant to put this all together. And it looks like they got $385,500 for marketing materials and advertising. I mean, it sounds like, I mean, that's almost a half a million dollars that there is built into this. So I'm not sure that it compares. I mean, yeah, everybody knows. Well, at least you think. I mean, I deal with a policy that would be incredibly helpful if more people in this state knew about it and that if the counties that it impacted would actually implement it, but that doesn't happen. Same thing here. I mean, we don't, you know, in my community, there really is no need for any of these overpasses up and down Arapahoe Road. because we don't have elk and deer and that who would be running there. So people in my community don't see the need for that. But we see a need when they drive in other places. So, I mean, are you saying that the half a million dollars they've set aside isn't going to be enough and that somehow they are making it that the county clerks have to provide that funding?

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, yeah, thank you for, I mean, this is a big slot. I mean, we just heard about how much we needed this and how it was helping and 90% and it wasn't going to do all of this. and then all of a sudden it's, oh, my God, who's going to pay for it? Who's going to tell the people? And I can certainly see it. I mean, they're going to pay the amount, and then all of a sudden, oh, why did you charge me $5? And you've got to be on the phone or at the counter, and you've got to figure out, I mean, you're going to be giving them back the $5. I mean, we didn't hear anything about amendments coming because this was going to be a cost to our clerk. So, I mean, I don't know where the problem is in the conversation that was happening, but this is certainly an eye-opener to me, you know, to hear this. So I hope that there's, you know, some kind of an amendment coming that is going to figure out how to, you know, I guess educate the people for it. And, yeah, we need to educate people on a lot of things in this country. I mean, I thought we had been doing good stuff, but they're dropping bombs, you know, across the world. And I think people should have known that was coming But thanks Yeah Clark Klobis Thank you So we had brought this up with our one meeting with the spill sponsor

Seeing no further questions, thank you all for your time. Thank you. Okay, we will go to our next panel. if you will pull up virtually Dennis Seyfeld and in person Miss Beebe, Suzanne O'Neill, and virtually Dr. Karen Kurnas, and also virtually Commissioner Perry Will, and virtually Commissioner Laura Puckett. Okay, great. We will start with the folks in person. We'll start here. Thank you. Please introduce yourself or who you represent, and you have two minutes for your testimony. Thanks for joining us.

And I would like to thank members of the committee and also Senator Roberts and Senator Simpson for their work in support of this bill. The Nature Conservancy is a global nonprofit with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. And we're celebrating 60 years in Colorado. We are pleased to support Senate Bill 141. As an ecologist, my work focuses on wildlife and their habitats, habitats that are impacted by roads and other human development. Wildlife crossings protect and reconnect wildlife home ranges, giving our iconic Colorado species like elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep the freedom of safely moving to find food, water, and places to raise their young. Wildlife crossings also protect Colorado drivers by reducing wildlife vehicle collisions, many of which result in serious injuries or worse. The passage of this bill would be a win-win for people and nature. TNC is currently collaborating with Route County, CPW, CDOT, and consultants on a planning project to identify highway wildlife conflict areas and potential solutions to mitigate those impacts to people and wildlife. There are numerous similar projects throughout the state, but the lack of suitable and continuous funding delays implementation. And as a former resident of Steamboat Springs, I too remember the before times when a trip from Silverthorne to Steamboat along Highway 9 meant a white-knuckle drive and it wasn't an if but when you would encounter an animal crossing the road. Due to the completed over and underpasses, I am grateful that I can now enjoy the scenery rather than watch for elk on the road or count their carcasses on the roadside. We are pleased to support this bill because the Nature Conservancy recognizes the need for additional investment in reducing wildlife collisions and improving habitat connectivity, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Peavy. Ms. O'Neill, thanks for joining us. Thank you Suzanne O Colorado Wildlife Federation We strongly support this bill and are really excited about this bill 55 crashes within this 15 period from 2010 to 2024 and 60% of them involved mule deer. There are other estimates that say up to 83% and 11% for elk. Also, the average economic cost of a collision with mule deer is estimated at $23,500. Why deer and elk? Well, there are areas of major state highways that bisect their migration corridors. And there are areas of some other major state highways that bisect and impair or totally constrain their accessibility between areas of their severe winter range, summer range, and winter concentration areas. Coloradans recognize the importance of wildlife crossing infrastructure. In the 2024 Bipartisan Conservation in the West poll, it was found that 87% of Colorado voters support highway crossing structures construction on major highways where there are known migration corridors. CPW and CDOT know where these corridors are, and in fact there's a West Slope and an East Slope priorities list constructed by CDOT, but also in concert with CPW, and the Alliance for Wildlife and Transportation also takes a look at this. So we urge that you vote yes and move this bill forward. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. O'Neill. Thanks for paying attention to the lights. I know they're a little intimidating there. Okay, we'll go online to Dennis Safel. Thanks for joining us. Please introduce yourself, and you have two minutes for your testimony. Oh, there's the audio. Hi, sorry. I thought I had three minutes, so I appreciate your patience. So my name is Dennis Safel. I live in Vail and have lived in the Colorado Mountains for 40 years. on june 22nd 2025 i was the front passenger in a mazda mdx at approximately 10 15 p.m returning from a day of fly fishing on the colorado river below glenwood springs we were eastbound on i-70 headed home to vale as we approached the bridge over the eagle river at a speed of between 75 and 80 miles an hour at a 600 pound cow elk jumped over the bridge guardrail landing a few feet nuts from us we hit the elk without any time to hit the brakes the elk crushed the engine into my legs then as it turns out the only thing that saved our lives was the fact that the impact folded the hood over the windshield the elk then smashed the windshield but the hood kept the elk from coming into the front seat then the elk flipped into the air landing on the sunroof which crushed it down on us finally the elk flipped over the car landing about halfway across the bridge the doors were not functional but we were able to crawl out of the driver's side window we were halfway across the bridge nowhere to go the lights were knocked out so now the death threat was from other cars who could not see us swerving and slamming on the brakes. It could have been a horrific multi-car accident. The MTs that showed up could not believe that we were the passengers that were in the car. The state patrolman told us that he could count on one hand the number of victims that survived the kind of damage that was done to the car Of course the car was completely totaled I only alive because of the way the hood protected us and the grace of God While there is animal fencing in most places along I-70, there was none where I needed it. Animal fencing is not an option. It should be a part of the standard design for any mountain road. Animal fencing is just as important as guardrails and the lines painted on the roads. I believe attacks on licensed treasured fees for animal fencing should be mandatory, not optional, but the proposed bill is certainly a good start. Please vote to save lives. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seifel, and thanks for sharing your story. Dr. Ekernes, am I saying that right? Yeah, it is Ekernes. Thank you. Okay, thanks for joining us. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Dr. Karen Eckerness. I'm an MD, an emergency medicine physician. I trained at Denver Health, and I also hold a master's degree in public health, and I've been practicing emergency medicine in Denver since 2008. I'm here to speak about wildlife vehicle collisions as a frontline healthcare provider. Wildlife vehicle collisions cause some of the most devastating injuries I've seen in my career. Of the many that I've seen, there's one case that I'd like to mention specifically when a family hit a moose on I-70. The family included a pregnant mother who needed to be airlifted to Denver. The radio transmission from the helicopter was garbled, but at the hospital, we understood that the mother was in critical condition and the baby may need to be delivered on arrival. We mobilized our trauma team, emergency medicine physicians, OBGYNs, pediatricians, our neonatal intensivists, all to meet the helicopter. We had probably 20 physicians in the room waiting to receive the patient. But when the helicopter landed, we found that we'd misunderstood the transmission, and either the mother nor the baby could be saved. It's hard to convey the devastation and feeling when you have so many people ready to help and you realize there's nothing you can do for the patient, her husband, or her surviving children. This bill will prevent tragedies like that one. Wildlife vehicle collisions injure and kill Coloradans and pose a grave threat to public health. But unlike so many other public health challenges, this one has a clear-cut solution. Wildlife crossing structures are incredibly effective at preventing collisions. Structures, of course, need money to be built, but they last generations. By providing the funding to build these structures, this bill saves the lives of Coloradans across the state for generations to come. And I urge you to pass it. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Doctor, and thanks for sharing your story. Commissioner Puckett, thanks for joining us. Hi, great. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Laura Puckett Daniels, and I am the chair of the Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners. Today, I'm here representing my constituents and CCAT in support of SB 26141. In Gunnison County, we deal with wildlife vehicle collisions nearly every day of the year. I won't repeat all the testimony you've already heard about the expensive and tragic results of wildlife vehicle collisions, but I do want to tell you about how we are trying to address this problem in Gunnison. First of all, statewide, a great deal of work has already been done. Statewide prioritization studies have shown us where wildlife crossing infrastructure is needed. But there are vastly more needs than there is funding. Only the top 5% of projects in the prioritization studies are being addressed because there just isn't funding to do more work. Nevertheless, CPW, CDOT, local governments and advocates are aligned and are working hand in hand in local communities, to do what they can with the resources they have to build more safe passages. The work is slow and it is hard to fund, which is why we need this bill, so we have sustainable funding to do this work at scale. Locally, Gunnison County has created a working group with stakeholders from the recreation community, conservation, sportsmen, stock growers, Colorado State Patrol, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CPW, and CDOT. We meet to figure out what we can do locally to advance these projects. We are committed to securing conservation easements, creating good land use policy, engaging the public, and fundraising. But at the end of the day, we can't do this work alone. This is work that counties and states can partner and the state can partner together on to serve our constituents. Wildlife crossings are a win for wildlife, a win for drivers, a win for communities, and a win for our state. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you, Commissioner. and Commissioner Will. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, committee and chairman. Thanks for joining us. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I'm here today in support, Senate Bill 26-141. And, you know, out here in the West Slope where we live, this bill isn't really theoretical. It's something we deal with every day, as you've heard from other people. And I know I was a wildlife officer for 40 years in the West Slope of Colorado. And I also, you know, I wish I could have been there actually at the Capitol to run this bill. That's how much I like it. I want to thank Senator Roberts and Simpson for bringing this bill forward. Many of you know I ran Senate Bill 22-151, the Wildlife Crossings Bill, back in 22. and I at that time thought it was kind of the flagship infrastructure bill, but I think now this bill might be the flagship bill for wildlife crossings. But if you've ever driven I-70 at night and seen an elk or a moose in your headlights, you already understand this bill. But wildlife overpasses and underpasses are one of the rare infrastructure investments that check public safety, economic, and conservation boxes all at once. But safety to our motoring public, talking about the 80%, 90%-plus reductions of wildlife strikes when paired with fencing, this is as much a public safety project as it is a wildlife project. Protects big game migration corridors. It restores the natural movement patterns. Highways without crossings can split ecosystems into isolated patches and provide genetic diversity within our herds. It crossings reconnect landscapes. It supports Colorado's outdoor economy. Wildlife is a major economic driver, especially in our rural communities. And healthy herds equal sustained revenue in rural counties. State Highway 9 was mentioned that over past. That is a national model. And this bill is the government getting it right, in my opinion. It's a rare project that actually solves problems. And, you know, I want to just say thank you for the opportunity to talk and please vote yes on Senate Bill 21-141. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Good to see you. Committee, questions for this panel? Yes, Senator Sullivan. Thank you Mr Chair and Ms Beebe and Ms O Your organizations you were with again I with the Nature Conservancy I sorry The Nature Conservancy Okay Colorado Wildlife Federation Okay, super. So, and these are nonprofits of some kind? Okay. So, I'm very, I heard the county commission, the clerks, and they've already left, so they're not here any longer. But they talked about the cost. It looks like they said it was going to cost over $1.5 million for them to be able to notify people about this and implement this on their forums and stuff. Do your organizations ever do anything where you promote things that would be going on? I mean, you both are supportive of it. I'm, of course, supportive of it. I mean, all of those things, super supportive of that. But my concern is our county clerks are going to be burdened with additional work and additional costs to them, and they're trying to find a way to notify the public. Is that something that your groups would do? Would you raise money? Would you spend money to advertise that you're telling all of your members to check the box and pay the $5, or is that not something that your organizations do? Ms. O'Neill. May I answer? Ms. O'Neill. Thank you. Absolutely, we will promote it. We ardently believe in it, and we will promote it on social and in print and on the website and at all of our events. You bet. Ms. Bebe, you want to weigh in? I can't really speak to that in my position with the Conservancy. Senator Silva. Yeah, thank you. And apparently that's what it's going to take. It's going to take outside groups to be able to get their members. I mean, we're going to need AAA to spend money, and they're going to have to tell all of the AAA people to check the box and pay the $5 so that our clerks don't have to do it or that the money comes in fast enough that they get paid to be able to process everything. So I appreciate your group stepping up. Ms. O'Neill. Can I say one more thing? At the Partners in the Outdoors conference that's coming up in late April, we actually are pulling together a panel discussion, and one of the participants will be the Gunnison County Commissioner you heard from, and she'll be talking about what they are doing, and we'll be reinforcing it in that context as well. Thank you, Ms. O'Neill. I'll see you in no further questions. Thank you all for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day. Okay we call up the next panel Tim Brass Patricia McLaughlin Kathleen Curry Emily Hadway. Okay, welcome. If you would like to introduce yourself and start, you'll have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Patricia McLaughlin, and I'm here today representing the 60,000 members and volunteers of the Colorado Sierra Club. And we are asking you to vote yes on SB 26141. The bill contains a lot of information and statistics regarding the need for this bill, and you're going to hear from a lot of speakers, so I will be brief. This bill is personal to me. Before I recent moved to the Front Range, I lived in Breckenridge for 20 years. On a night several years ago, I was coming home from a dinner with a friend's house outside of Silverthorne As I rounded a curve on a dark section of Highway 9, I encountered a group of elk crossing the highway. Fortunately, I was able to swerve and miss them. If I had been going a little faster or I had come a few sections earlier, I would have been a statistics. One of the 7,500 Coloradans that collide with wildlife each year. Voluntarily adding $5 to my Keep Colorado Wild Pass to build and maintain more wildlife passages over and under highways is a small price to pay to save lives. Thank you, Senator Roberts, my former senator, and Senator Simpson, for sponsoring this bill. And it's a bipartisan bill, which I'm happy to be here to support. The Colorado Sierra Club respectfully asks that this committee vote yes on SB 26141 for wildlife collision prevention. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Laughlin. Seconds to spare. Please introduce yourself and begin. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kathleen Curry, and I'm here today on behalf of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management in support of Senate Bill 26141. CRWM is an organization made up of entities that are committed to conserving and protecting Colorado's wildlife. And CRWM supports 26141 because it takes a proactive step towards addressing the increasing rate of wildlife and vehicle collisions across the state. This legislation recognizes the effectiveness of structural solutions, such as crossing structures, and it develops a mechanism to fund those proven solutions. Unfortunately, the most effective measures for addressing wildlife collisions are not low cost, and the need continues to grow as the state's population continues to grow. When I was researching this issue, I came across information that surprised me. I live right on Highway 50 in an area that is considered to be a hotspot for collisions east of Gunnison Every morning we wake up to carcasses on the highway shoulder and that pattern seemed to correspond to increasing traffic on this highway The speed limits where I live are 65 miles per hour, and I incorrectly, incorrectly thought that vehicle speeds were responsible for the increasing number of dead deer and elk on this highway. It turns out that the research shows that reducing speed limits does not actually meaningfully reduce the number of collisions. What does work, however, are crossing options combined with fencing. This bill provides a meaningful solution to a difficult management challenge. I want to thank the sponsors for their hard work bringing this bill to fruition, and respectfully request a yes vote on Senate Bill 26-141. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for your testimony. Ms. Hadaway. Oh, go ahead. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Emily Hadaway. I'm the legislative liaison for CDOT, and I'm here to express our support of SB 26141. I'm also joined virtually by Tanya Katie, CDOT Region 5 Planning and Environmental Engineering Is this better? Perfect. SB 26141 is a strong bipartisan legislation that would build data-driven infrastructure projects to save lives. Every year, Coloradans see an average of 5,000 reported wildlife vehicle collisions. These crashes account for dozens of serious injuries and several fatalities. Wildlife crossings, including engineered overpasses, underpasses, and fencing are proven effective tools. The success of projects like the Highway 9 wildlife underpass near Kremling, which reduced wildlife vehicle collisions by more than 90%, shows how targeted infrastructure can significantly improve public safety. Another state success is the I-25 Greenland wildlife overpass. This is the final component of an 18-mile mitigation system between Colorado's two most populous cities. This overpass creates a 200-foot-wide wildlife corridor over six lanes of interstate, making it one of the largest wildlife overpass structures in North America, and serves as a high-visibility statement about the importance and success of wildlife mitigation. As mentioned in previous statements, CDOT was able to leverage a small amount of state funding to access $20 million of federal grant dollars to fund the construction of this vital crossing structure. The bill also leverages the success of the CDOT bridge and tunnel enterprise to build these key projects. A lesson learned in the past decades is that CDOT's narrowly dedicated enterprises have been extremely effective both in targeting dollars to a specific and accountable purpose and in protecting those dollars against some of the swings of the budget cycle. In 2009, prior to creating the bridge and tunnel enterprise, CDOT's poor-rated bridge deck was encroaching on 10%, now we're down to 4%, so we've seen significant success in the enterprise and if we're able to leverage those existing benefits from an efficiency standpoint, it just makes sense. I do want to be clear though that there's no intermingling of funds, it's just utilizing the structure for efficiency, but we would not be utilizing state bridge revenue for wildlife crossings. Also happy to speak more to the discussion around the education campaign too. I know I'm running low on time, but I urge a yes vote in support of HB 26141. Thank you very much, Ms. Hadaway. Process of elimination tells me you must be Mr. Brass. Please introduce yourself and begin. Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Tim Brass. I'm the Assistant Director for Parks, Wildlife, and Lands with the Department of Natural Resources. And I'm joined here today by CPW's Deputy CFO, David Porter, as well as CPW's Wildlife Movement Coordinator, Michelle Corden. And we're happy to answer any questions you may have. michelle's role was created by cpw in 2021 in recognition of the need for statewide coordination on connectivity and wildlife crossing projects in this position michelle works closely with cpw staff cdot and the wildlife transportation alliance to identify priority projects and design crossing projects for targeted wildlife species and their movement needs Senate Bill 141 will help provide dedicated funding for CPW to conserve critical wildlife corridors through the development of wildlife crossings and through the conservation of adjacent lands. Animals such as elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep have seasonal migrations following traditional corridors. In Colorado these species move from higher to lower elevations and as winter approaches and snow accumulates much of our valuable winter range is located in the valley bottoms which is also where many of our roadways have been constructed as colorado's population grows obstacles like high volume roadways housing commercial development and other barriers can impede wildlife movement voluntary financial contributions generated through senate bill 141 will help target crossing projects developed through the statewide wildlife transportation prioritization study which has identified hundreds of miles within the top five percent of roadways that need mitigation additionally this bill will help provide a needed fix to an administrative issue with the keep Colorado wild pass where a one-time opt-out of the past was previously carrying over into future years this bill would fix that issue and allow residents the opportunity to make that choice each time they register their vehicle it is for these reasons that the Department of Natural Resources asked for your support of Senate bill 141 today and I thank you thank you so much for testimony, Mr. Brass. I do want to point out, you all mentioned on the mic, and I want to welcome Michelle Cowardin from CPW, Tony Cady from CDOT, and David Porter, also from CPW, online for questions only. So I just want to acknowledge that they're there. So if anyone has any really hard questions, we can direct it to them. Members, Senator Mullica. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm not sure if you were in the room miss hadway when i was speaking with the sponsors but uh you know i have a interest in this bill and being able to try to ensure when possible that we are contracting and working with colorado companies and colorado workers um the sponsor had mentioned that you all might have something in mind um or that you all maybe already have something in place with c dot I'm not sure. I understand that these are often, you know, these can be, you know, national organizations or companies sometimes with the designing phase and the complexities. But I think my interest is just when possible, how do we ensure that we're using Colorado companies and Colorado workers? Ms. Hathaway. Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes, Senator Robertson mentioned to me that that was something that you were looking at. I do want to reiterate his statement that out of state contracts do oftentimes still employ lots of in workers so it usually there quite a lot of subcontractors that are associated with those contracts We do also have dedicated programs to award work to ESB emerging small businesses, so these are typically local or state contractors, and to have the opportunity to increase the required amount of on-the-job training hours required for these projects, So that provides some assurances that locals get hired for this work. But I'm happy to continue this conversation and kind of dive deeper into our process to ensure that we are keeping revenue in Colorado. Go ahead, Senator Milka. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess just to save it from saying it in closing comments, obviously if this bill does get out, it's going to Finance Committee. That would be something I would be extremely interested in and probably put my vote towards is that we find a way that, you know, we can't mandate it, obviously. I don't want to tie those hands. But we come up with some strong language to really ensure that we are using Colorado companies and Colorado workers when possible on these projects. So if we're generating revenue within our state from folks who live in our state, I think that they're obviously going to benefit from these projects. and the safety of them, but I also would like to see the people of Colorado benefit with jobs and income coming from them as well, and I think that that's something I would be really interested in, so I just want that to be on the record as well, please. Thank you, and I'm happy to continue those conversations. I'll also mention, too, that collisions do cost Colorado $67 million in costs, I believe, annually, so there is also that portion, too, that it is an economic generator, but yeah, I hear you. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions from the committee? Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the two organizations here from Sierra Club and Wildlife, you support it. I think everybody supports this. But it looks like we have a funding problem with the education. would you guys would your organizations be helpful in promoting this and maybe you could talk to other things that you've supported in the past that you've publicly spent money on to promote and then to Ms. Hardaway you said you could talk to something about the education I'd love to hear what you had to say Ms. McLaughlin we will actively support to educate on this we do so with weekly newsletters that go out. We do texting. We have a strong social media presence and we've actively supported the Keep Colloweller Wild Pass and several other similar efforts to encourage the supporting of wildlife. so we will do that very very definitely actively Ms. Curry Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the question I can't obligate my client but they because of their concerns about wildlife and protecting wildlife and their past practices I would venture to say that they would definitely want to support this it's in the interest of the thing they care most about and Ms. Hathaway Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Senator yes we absolutely in agreement that an education campaign makes a lot of sense I just anecdotally when the Greenland Wildlife Crossing was getting a lot of press I scrolled through a lot of Facebook comments that were mentioning, how do the animals read the signs? And so I do think that it's important to have education around this component. That was actually one of our first flags when we saw the bill draft was, you know, there's this requirement in here to do an education campaign and we want to ensure that that happens on the front end because that also is an incentive for us to make sure that, you know, people know what the fee is and pay into the fund. And so page 16 of the bill addresses that. That allows for the Transportation Commission to loan funding up front to the bridge and tunnel enterprise to fund the education campaign in advance. We also have an amendment coming that clarifies that further, that that can be utilized for the education campaign. And then that's a pretty standard practice that we've utilized with other enterprises. That funding would get refunded to the Transportation Commission once the fee revenue comes in with interest as well. So we do have a mechanism to ensure that the campaign happens prior to the fee being collected. Senator Sullivan.

Okay, any further questions? Nope, seeing none. Thank you all so much for your testimony and your time today. And it looks like we only have, because I failed to see that some of these were for questions only, we're left with just one witness and that's Jen Clanahan. So you get the whole table to yourself. We do have Brandon Hussman online from Colorado Department of Revenue for questions only as well. So if there's any burning revenue questions. But in the meantime, welcome and please introduce yourself and begin. Thank you.

Please wrap up your testimony.

Okay, thank you so much. Sorry the red light was flashing. Does anyone have any questions for Ms. McClanahan or Brandon Husteman from the Department of Revenue? No. Thank you so much. You have a good afternoon. You're off the hook. Thank you all. Are there any other witnesses that have not yet signed up that are in the room and would like to testify? Okay, seeing none, the testimony phase is closed.

Thank you, Senator Roberts. Any questions on the amendment? No? Oh, Senator Pelton.

Okay, any further questions? Seeing none.

That is a proper motion. Any objections to L002? Okay, seeing none, L002 is adopted. Any further amendments from the sponsors?

Any committee, any amendments today? No? All right, seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Would you like wrap-up?

Excuse me, Minority Leader Simpson.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee, for engaging in this discussion today. Thank you to everybody who came to testify, particularly the victims of some of these collisions. We heard a daughter who lost her father, and I want to thank her for her not only advocacy on this, but advocacy prior to this on this issue, and making this a cause that she cares so deeply about and several of the victims we heard who testified remotely. There's a lot of reasons to support wildlife crossings. You could support it because it's going to make sure you don't hit a deer with your car. It's going to save lives, both human and animal, or at the end of the day, it reduces insurance costs for every Colorado driver, whether or not you put yourself in a position to hit these animals in the first place. Sure, a lot of these projects are in rural Colorado along mountain roads or interstates, but a lot of these projects also happen in more suburban and even urban areas. And a lot of the collisions we're seeing are not just in rural Colorado. In the top 10 of counties for collisions are Pueblo, El Paso, Jefferson, Boulder, Weld, Douglas, and many highly popularized counties. So this is an issue that will help the entire state. And you may, there is wildlife infrastructure in parts of the roadway. You might see fencing that you didn't even know was there the next time you're driving by. So I would ask you to vote yes on this bill. Let's invest in something that we know works for the whole state and let Coloradans be a part of making our roads safer. Thank you.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really like the idea of the wildlife crossings. I think it's great for our saving people's lives and property certainly, but also just for the sake of the wildlife. You know, I think we need to care for them. We're Colorado and we ought to be having these. My hesitation comes with the manner of funding We Colorado This ought to be part of our general funding We ought to be doing this So I struggling with adding another opt or opt excuse me for motorists But anyway, I'm getting there. Thank you.

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yeah, I'm racking my brains trying to think about the carcasses that you speak of in my district and they're there occasionally but not at certainly in the levels that they are in other places. That doesn't mean it doesn't impact the people in my district and doesn't impact the families and our community because any deaths on our roads impact everybody. And we should all be doing all we can for that. And we are all supportive of that and doing what we can. I had assumed that we were doing all that we could and thought we had passed something before on that. But I think we've alleviated some of the concerns that I heard from the clerks. And, yeah, we can't do enough to educate the public on so many topics that we do down here. it's just not a headline in the paper or a three minute bit on the news we have to do these all the times and I'm encouraged by the groups that come here and put their support behind something and I just want to remind them it doesn't stop here it doesn't stop at the testimony table you have to continue to do and let your membership know and let the people of Colorado know how much you supported and what they can do. And in this case, if it's contributing $5 and having them tell their friends, then that's how we can, certainly in the times we're living, that's the kinds of things we need to do to pay for this kind of stuff. And clearly, I mean, these save lives. So thanks again. I'll be a yes today, and good luck with Senator Mullica and his crowd.

thank you any further comments

Ms. Forbes.

I move Senate Bill 141 as amended to the Committee of Finance with a favorable recommendation.

Senators, Baisley.

Catlin.

Exum.

Lindstedt.

Mullica.

Elton.

Sullivan.

Baisley

No

We missed you. And please begin whenever you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. I guess it's my day in the Committee and also Car Crash Day. Difficult topic, but some things that we're trying to improve, and so I'm grateful to be a part of that work. House Bill 1127 is part of that effort. What the introduced version of the bill is looking to do is to ensure that county coroners are reporting toxicology results and other similar data to the Colorado Department of Transportation on a regular basis. So county coroners, of course, receive the deceased after most incidents, including fatal car crashes, and often toxicology reports are conducted, or a toxicology test is conducted and those reports can be helpful in determining how many of these types of crashes are happening and why and can help our efforts to reduce them. And so CDOT is the organization or entity that compiles that data statewide. And so that's what this bill seeks to put into statute is a clear requirement that county coroners make that report. We will be, when we get to the amendment phase and if I could talk about them right now, Madam Chair, I'll also be bringing forward an amendment today, L004, related to the overall topic of improving data accuracy in fatal crash reporting. The Department of Revenue and CDOT identify that there is currently no requirement in statute for law enforcement to submit an amended crash report if a participant in the crash dies within 30 days after the crash, so not immediately at the time, but as the result of injuries at a later date. So that's what that amendment will do and sort of slightly expand the scope of the bill. It certainly fits in the bill title, but will help us gather more data that we need. So I want to thank everybody that's worked on this bill. I know we're going to have some testimony. Obviously a very difficult subject, but I appreciate the work and would appreciate your support. Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this, and I see we have somebody in uniform, so maybe they will help me to understand all of this. We're having to legislate this type of stuff because the forms aren't being filled out properly, and we're seeing this across many other aspects of criminal justice. We just can't get law enforcement or whoever is in charge of filling out these forms to give us the proper data. And the only way we can help to alleviate some of this is with the proper data. I don't, I mean, I appreciate this and I don't know what it is we can do. with you are there any did anybody provide any suggestions as to if they're going to continue to not fill out the form properly what I mean can we give it to somebody else if they can't do it

Any further questions for our sponsor? Okay. Thank you. Seeing none, it looks like we only have one witness and two available for questions only. So, Officer Downing, please approach. And we have online Crystal Soderman and David Swenka. David is from the Department of Transportation, and Ms. Soderman is from Department of Revenue. So they're online for questions only, so I see they're pulled up. Welcome. Please introduce yourself. You're our only witness, so we're going to be super generous with three minutes.

Thank you so much officer And please introduce yourself and begin your testimony You have three minutes as well Thank you Good afternoon Madam Chair members of the committee My name is Fran Lanzer contract lobbyist representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Lanzer. does the committee have any questions for these witnesses or let's see Ms. Soderman or Mr. Swenka online

Officer Downing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. It does include marijuana, and I think it's 64 different drugs that the coroners do. So it does include marijuana, though, yes.

Any further questions Oh yes Senator Sullivan Thank you Madam Chair and thank you both here And Mr Lancer yeah 12 weeks to get that I mean they do it in less than an hour on CSI So I just can't. But you said that coroners now send it to the Department of Revenue. do is that for insurance possibilities I mean that would be the last place I would think that would want or would need that information and then the second I guess part of it would be coroners we're dealing with deceased people 99.9% of the time I guess but occasion I mean are we also then getting toxicology from people who then are in the hospital who have been involved? I mean, we certainly are doing that as well if they don't die from the accident, right? We're getting toxicology reports from them, aren't we? Mr. Lanzer? I do kind of wish every investigation would be like it is on CSI. That would be helpful. I am guessing that perhaps DOR was involved because DMV is under DOR, and maybe that was the original part of it. I'm not sure. I can't answer to that. But certainly I think switching from DOR to DOT, who's doing the statistical reporting to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, I think makes a lot of sense, which is why we want to make that change, because there's a real disconnect with getting the data to where it needs to go. And I'm so sorry, Senator. I forgot the second part of your question. I think it was probably for the officer. We're doing toxicology on people who are injured in automobile accidents that we think are drug or alcohol related, aren't we? Officer? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. If there's probable cause to ask for that test, absolutely. Our officers, our troopers are doing an investigation that are looking into that, and then they would ask for the test based on their observations and need to place that person under arrest for driving under the influence or anything like that to grab the toxicology reports. This is for people that have died in the traffic crash so that we can get more complete data.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This may not be the right panel, but by going back to the coroners, do they have the budget in some of these smaller counties that are struggling? Will they have the budget for increased toxicology in relation to traffic accidents that have killed someone? I just, it's a question I want to make sure that we address. Maybe you guys can't, but that's what I want to ask it.

our panel here? No. Seeing none, thank you all for being here today and testifying, and thank you online for hanging out for a bit. Are there any further witnesses that would like to come forward that have not yet signed up? No? Alright, seeing none, the testimony phase is over. Senator Roberts,

Yes, Ms. Forbes is handing out L4 and L5.

Yes. So L4 is what I mentioned in my opening. This would make the reporting apply to crashes where somebody dies within 30 days after the crash if they didn't die on the scene. So it just expands the data collection just a little bit, as long as those injuries are obviously the result of that crash. And then L5 is just a cleanup amendment to, as you can see in the gray of the re-engrossed version, they adopted an amendment in the House on second reading. It was a good amendment, the intention at least, so we just needed to change the language a little bit. And so that's what L5 does.

Madam Chair, I move amendment L-004 to House Bill 1127.

I move amendment L-005 to House Bill 1127.

Nope.

Nope.

Senator Roberts. Not too much else to say. Thanks for the testimony. I think we've explained the value that this bill would bring and would ask for an aye vote.

No?

I move House Bill 26-11-27 as a to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Ms. Forbes, can you poll the committee?

Catlin. Yes.

Lindstedt. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

That passes 7 to 1.

Thank you. Thanks for having me this afternoon.

I'm ready. Okay, Senator Kipp. Thank you, everybody, for hearing another one of my bills with a lot of witnesses. Sorry about that. But I really appreciate you guys taking the time to consider this policy. So energy affordability is a conversation happening at kitchen tables across Colorado and across the country right now. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, electricity prices increased 6.3% in 2025 and natural gas service increased 9.8% in the same period. Coloradans are looking for ways to take control of their energy costs, and this bill helps them do exactly that. HB 26-1007 makes two proven safe solar technologies more accessible to everyday Coloradans, plug-in solar devices and meter collar adapters. Colorado is one of the sunniest states in the country. The more energy you can produce on your roof, your balcony, your patio, or on your farm, the more freedom you have from ever-increasing utility bills. Sometimes called balcony solar, plug-in solar devices consist of one to four solar panels plus an inverter that plugs directly into a standard wall outlet. The panels can be secured in a yard or on a balcony, and they can come with an optional battery for even more energy independence. That resilience capability matters more and more in Colorado. Coloradans across the state are experiencing more frequent planned and unplanned safety shutoffs during high wind and wildfire risk events, as well as weather-driven unplanned outages that can last for days. When the grid goes down, Coloradans need options. A plug-in solar device with a battery can help keep essential devices running during a shorter outage. These devices are far less expensive and more attainable than a traditional rooftop solar system. For everyone who can't get traditional rooftop solar because they have a shaded rooftop, live in a condo, live in a mobile home, are renting their home, or any other reason, plug-in solar offers a lower-cost portable opportunity to generate their own clean energy and save money every month. This is also one of the most accessible ways for Coloradans to participate in the clean energy economy. For many people, a large rooftop solar system simply isn't in reach financially or practically. Plug-in solar changes that equation. It's an affordable entry point, and for a lot of people, it's the first step that opens the door to rooftop solar down the road. Once someone experiences generating their own energy and seeing it on their utility bill, they don't want to go back. And the prices are only going to get better. As this technology becomes more widely adopted and production scales up, costs are expected to continue declining. Just as we've seen with rooftop solar over the past decade, Passing this bill helps create the market conditions in Colorado that drive those prices down further. And we know this works because we've seen it at works at an enormous scale. Germany's federal grid agency registered about 435,000 new plug-in balcony solar installations in 2024 alone. By mid-2025, over 1 million systems were officially registered, and experts believe that the real total is two to three times higher when you count unregistered systems. The technology has been especially transformative for renters who make up more than half of Germany's population and previously had no way to benefit from solar since they couldn't install rooftop solar. on properties they didn't own. The share of German balcony solar buyers who also purchased batteries doubled from 20% to 40% between 2023 and 2025. Exactly the escalating engagement with clean energy technology this bill is designed to unlock right here in Colorado. Now you can go online and buy a plug-in solar device, but there is currently no requirement in Colorado that these devices meet any safety standard whatsoever. This bill fixes that. It requires that plug-in solar products be UL listed and labeled and that they include an automatic shutoff when the grid goes down, protecting home wiring, the electrical grid, and utility workers. A new safety standard, UL 3700, was released by UL Standards and Engagement on December 11, 2025, and this bill puts Colorado in a position to require products sold here to meet that standard. After 10 years of widespread adoption in Germany, millions of plug-in solar systems are in use with no significant safety incidents reported. And I am thrilled that Senator Ball here is joining me on this bill, and he's going to tell you about the rest of it. Senator Ball.

Any questions for this? Yes, Senator Mullica.

Senator Kipp is singing kumbaya. Thank you.

Any further questions for the sponsors? Yes, Senator Lindstedt.

Senator Kemp. There's also other language from the apartment association that we put in during the House process. So we thought it was good, and we said, okay, we will do a little bit more. So that is where we landed, and everybody felt good with that. Any further questions for the sponsors?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. this is my first time ever testifying in front of the Senate, so very exciting. My name is Casey. I'm the CEO for COSA, the Colorado Solar and Storage Association. Thank you for hearing House Bill 1007. So this bill is about the innovation that is happening to make energy that you produce at home cheaper and more accessible. Utilities today can take action to make residential solar easier and cheaper for their customers. And it's also about maximizing choice, minimizing costs, and moving at the speed of innovation and doing it safely. So this is about two different technologies, as you heard from the sponsors, plug-in solar that is everywhere in Europe, and meter collar adapters. And so first, plug-in solar, it's essentially just an appliance that can be bought on the internet today it's important that we pass laws to make sure that what is sold is you well listed and labeled that their safety standards so we want to make sure that's the case in Colorado but we also want to make sure that it's available to people because if you want to be able to produce energy at home this is a great way a cheaper way not to have to go through big interconnection process or buy an expensive residential system so it just really increases accessibility Then meter collars, so back in 2021, the legislature passed Senate Bill 261 that required Excel and Black Hills to allow for the use of meter collars. Meter collars are just an innovation that you can use at home that really can decrease residential solar by thousands of dollars because it can help integrate batteries, potentially EVs, residential solar into your system more cheaply. And so having these more broadly available to folks like it been successfully implemented in Excel and Black Hills territory, we want more places to do it because we are all hearing about energy affordability right now.

I'm sorry. That time?

John Nauer, are you online?

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you, the chair, members of the committee. I'm John Knauer. I'm vice president of policy and market strategy at Connector. We're a manufacturer of meter socket adapters. also referred to as meter collars. We are extremely supportive of this bill. We think it aligns very well with the governor's executive actions, prioritizing affordable clean energy. Meter collars significantly reduce the complexity and financial burden of installing residential solar and batteries. So, you know, the devices have been approved for use by investor-owned utilities in Colorado since 2022. Thousands have been installed safely. This bill will establish clear and consistent rules for the approval of hundreds of thousands of customers of cooperative or municipal utilities. And those customers would join over 35 million utility customers across the country who live in electric service territories that currently allow their customers to choose to use safe, reliable, and affordable meter collars. This is a proven technology. It is a safe technology. Its use does not need to be unduly restricted by arcane rules. And the reason for that is these are highly regulated devices at the standards level. There are, you know, extremely rigorous standards to ensure interoperability with connected equipment. When a nationally recognized testing laboratory begins an evaluation

your time is up. If you can wrap it up, please. Sure. So yeah, just in summary, these are ul approved devices we provide extensive documentation to the utilities on on our own safety testing on the safety testing of national labs and that's that's the model for bringing these to market thank you thank you so much for your testimony we appreciate your time tonight um and i will remind that's your thank you i will remind

Yes, I am, Madam Chair.

Okay. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Wesley Schrock. I'm the Rock Head of Policy at brightsaber.org, a California-based nonprofit dedicated to building a plug-in solar movement in the U.S. We run pilot programs, installing plug-in systems to see what works and what doesn't, and to gather savings data. We also work on policy supporting state-level enabling legislation. I am testifying to encourage that committee to support HB 1007 to allow the people of Colorado to use plug-in solar, helping them to save money by reducing their electricity bills. This is a market-driven solution requiring no tax credits or public funds. We are just cutting red tape. Importantly, Colorado will be joining and leading a national movement, and in so doing, building a market for plug-in solar in the U.S. Last year, Utah was the first state to pass legislation enacting HB 340, a bipartisan reform exempting plug-in solar from interconnection rules. And immediately, a couple of companies began selling systems in Utah. This year, 31 states have introduced legislation with bills in Virginia and Maine having passed both chambers and in seven other states having passed one chamber. And we're seeing a bipartisan effort here. For example, Oklahoma has passed the House. New Jersey has passed the Senate. In conversations with manufacturers, both those selling in Utah and those sitting on the sidelines, with five or six more states on board, manufacturers will expand product offerings or enter the U.S. market for the first time, selling in all states with legislation, including Colorado. As written, the bill ensures that plug-in solar systems are safe for consumers and for the grid. Systems installed according to the safety standards cited in the bill will not shock users, overload circuits, or create fire hazards, nor will they backfeed during a power outage, which protects line workers, firefighters, and anyone working on a multi-unit building. And from a grid perspective, plug-in solar functions like energy efficiency measures, reducing stress on the grid. I encourage you to help Coloradans address the affordability crisis with the simple, practical solution of Plugin Solar. Thank you for your time.

Yep. Hello. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Chantille Roberts, and I am testifying in strong support of this bill. I serve as the West Regional Director at Vote Solar. We are a national nonprofit and we work on policies that transition the U.S. to affordable and accessible energy for all communities. And we also engage at the PUC to ensure energy solutions are implemented in ways that don't just support people, but also the grid. We see balcony solar or plug-in solar as an important next step to energy affordability. but we know that this requires clear standards and a defined pathway to be successful. Plug-in solar expands access to energy in a way that is simple and practical. These systems can be installed on balconies, patios, small outdoor spaces, and plugged directly into standard outlets, allowing households to power everyday appliances and reduce their energy costs without having major upgrades or upfront barriers. What makes this really important is that this opens the door for renters who cannot afford to install traditional rooftop solars. For a lot of households that are already facing rising energy costs, solar is not really an option for them. This is going to create a low cost, flexible pathway to participate in the clean energy transition and really take a hold of their energy bills. At the same time, this is going to help strengthen our energy system by generating electricity exactly where it is used. These systems can reduce demand on the grid during peak times lower strain on local infrastructure and support a more reliable and resilient grid as Colorado continues to see a growing energy demand But for this to work we really do need to make sure that there clear and consistent legislation, and especially at a time where energy costs continues to rise. So, PhilTolar has been proud to work with the bill sponsors and partner on this effort, and we believe that plug-in solar can make a meaningful change in equitable clean energy access.

Yes, I am. Welcome. Thank you so much. My name is Ray Ward. I serve in the Utah legislature. My district is just north of Salt Lake City. I serve in the House. I'm not representing any specific group, but just myself. I guess just to say the bill passed in Utah in 2025 and is off to a good start. Starting in the middle of last summer, consumers here were able to purchase some of these small panels. And so a few people have purchased them and those who purchased them like using them. And people look at it and say, oh, wow, I might want to get one of those too. I think one way to think about it is it changes solar panels from being something where you take out a second mortgage on your home to a really nice Christmas present for your spouse. For $1,000 instead of $30,000, you can get a couple of small panels and put them up. And it just allows a lot more individuals to participate. If someone just has a small set of panels at their house where they're not asking for anything from the utility and it's following safety standards, then that individual shouldn't have to have a contract with the utility. I think it's important to say that the bigger hurdle that we're still working on but that is making progress is to get a final safety standard from underwriter laboratories. For many years, underwriter Laboratories talked about this, but really took no action. And finally, last December, they made a new product category for plug-in photovoltaic, and they have a preliminary standard for these panels. And that is a great step forward. There is still work for them to do on that. And when legislation passes in a state, that helps them understand that people really want this, and they do need to follow through and get a final standard. It also helps the companies who produce these panels and who routinely sell them in Germany know that they're wanted here in the United States. All of those companies would also like to be able to sell here to our market, and when legislation like this passes, those companies also go to UL and say, hey, we want to sell here. Work with us so we can make some safety standards so our consumers can have them.

A system on your house might be a 10-kilowatt system. So it could be – and the plug-in solar systems can be very small. They can be, you know, 100 watts if you want. So they are much, much smaller. And because they're really intended, like maybe you attach it to your balcony or something like that, they aren't going to be optimized in the way that residential solar is on your roof to really capture the sun. So they are going to produce less energy for the homeowner than a traditional residential system. So they are cheaper, but they are also going to be less efficient and, you know, just not produce as much energy for you as a full residential system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. And it won't be tied to a specific, like I'm using this specifically for this appliance. It's just going to go into your home energy system. So, but, you know, and I think most likely the application will be for people in condos or apartments. But it could also be if you, again, if you don't want to spend the $30,000 and you don't need to produce a lot of energy and you just want to go to Costco, literally you'll be able to buy these and plug it right into an outlet when you have to have an electrician, make sure you have the right outlet and things like that. But it is a portable system. That's one difference. So it kind of serves a different function. Really, I don't think it necessarily competes with residential solar. It's a different customer base. It increases the accessibility of solar energy to more people, And so I think that's exciting. And then I think the other part of the bill, meter collars just are going to make residential solar a lot, a lot cheaper for people in Colorado. And I mean, they can produce their own energy more cheaply. And so that's a good thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two things. Just I want to express what a delight it is to see the speaker here. Good to see you, Casey. Madam Speaker. It is an honor to serve with you. It was an honor to serve with you. And second, I just want to give a shout-out to the representative from California. California has had such a remarkable influence over Colorado over the past 20 years. Maybe you guys can – no, there was a California one up there too, right? He was from Utah. There's no California representative. Isn't there a California person up there? I could have sworn there was a California person up there. I'm based in California. Bright Savers is based in California. Oh, that's it. I apologize. The representative ward is Utah. My apologies. It was not the representative. Okay. But regardless, yeah, maybe you can give witness to future bills to help us understand like homeless and the other things that you guys are doing so well in California with all sarcasm intended Speaker Becker did you have a Thank you Madam Chair I was just going to say Bright Saver is just is based in California but working nationally on plug-in solar. But Representative Ward from Utah is a Republican, and this bill passed unanimously in Utah. Thank you.

My name is Garrett Royer, and I'm the political director with the Colorado Sierra Club, which represents over 60,000 members and supporters around the state. The Colorado Sierra Club strongly supports HB 1007 and urges a yes vote from this committee on the legislation. We're fortunate here in Colorado to have a lot of sunshine that can be translated into solar energy. To fully utilize this potential we need to facilitate the installment of solar equipment and encourage the use of reasonably priced and easily usable solar technology. HP 26107 addresses these goals. It makes it easier to install and use plug-in solar equipment in a safe manner without impediments from utilities. There is no cost the energy generated by plug-in solar beyond the original cost of the equipment. One estimate suggests that there is a two to three year payback period for plug-in solar and that ratepayers can save five to ten percent on their utility bills. Plug-in solar can be used in many locations easily, hence the nickname of balcony solar, and does not require a great deal of space as with rooftop solar. Based on these advantages, the Utah legislature voted unanimously to allow plug-in solar to be used by residents and the Colorado legislature should follow the same. HP 1007 also facilitates the use of meter collars that make it easier and cheaper to to install solar and other equipment. They have the potential to save residents thousands of dollars and are already used by utilities such as Xcel. This is a common sense solution that the bill facilitates to make solar energy more readily accessible for Coloradans. At a time when energy demands are dramatically rising and ratepayers are being subject to significant increases in energy costs, we should be doing all that we can to support the generation of energy from clean sources like solar. HB 1007 does that in a direct way while democratizing access to solar and providing Coloradans the ability to choose alternative and cleaner sources of energy. The Sierra Club strongly supports this bill and urges a yes vote.

Thank you, Chair Cutter and members of the committee. My name is Will Tourer, Executive Director of the Colorado Energy Office. I'd like to thank Senator Kipp for bringing this important legislation, and I'm here today in a support position. Plugin Solar has proved to be successful in countries like Germany, and with Utah passing the first law in over two dozen states pursuing legislation this year, we anticipate there's going to be significant growth in the U.S. market. Plug-in solar is an accessible and affordable source of residential solar, providing a new option to Coloradans to reduce their energy costs and increase individual energy independence. It can also be paired with battery storage, and if widely adopted and paired with storage, could actually provide some important grid benefits. Furthermore, this technology provides an option for solar for renters and those who live in apartments. It's the first bill I've worked on that my young adult children are really excited about, that I think a lot of renters would love the idea of being able to take advantage of solar or of plug-in solar. Furthermore, it expands the opportunity for more homeowners to use meter collars, which can also reduce costs and barriers to larger home energy options. Currently, Coloradans who live in Xcel Energy and Black Hills territory have the ability to install a meter collar at their electrical panel to interconnect devices such as solar batteries or EV chargers, and we very much support expanding this to the rest of the state. The bill will give more Coloradans access to solar power, will reduce energy costs, and will expand consumer choice, and I respectfully request a yes vote on HB 1007.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? We can. Excellent. My name is Jamie Valdez. Hello, committee members, and thanks for the opportunity to provide input. but my name is Jaime Valdez or Jamie, and I'm a Pueblo resident and the Colorado Transportation and Energy Policy Advocate for Green Latinos here today to express our strong support for House Bill 26-1007, a crucial step toward environmental justice in our state. In Pueblo, we understand the health impacts of industrial energy production all too well. We are a coal impacted community and we're ready for a transition to renewable energy, but it must be an equitable one. Currently, many of my family, friends, and neighbors are renters living in apartments or cannot afford the high upfront costs of traditional rooftop solar. House Bill 26-1007 breaks down these barriers by legitimizing portable plug-in solar panels, often called balcony solar, that are safe, affordable, and easy to install. Furthermore, the provisions requiring utilities to allow meter collar adapters will save working families thousands of dollars on necessary electrical upgrades. Environmental justice means providing tools for communities like mine to take control of our own energy destiny. This bill is practical, effective, and a fair way to do just that. Please support House Bill 26-1007. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Cindy Copeland, Air and Climate Policy Advisor for Boulder County. I'm here on behalf of the Boulder County Commissioners to support this bill. Colorado families are experiencing increasing uncertainty about grid reliability due to wildfire-related safety shutoffs. The bill provides a practical, low-cost solution that helps households stay powered during outages This bill is about removing red tape and enabling the freedom to generate our own power Rooftop solar in America is two to three times more expensive than it is in Australia and is financially out of reach for many Coloradans. This is due to the cost and time delay it permits electrical work and utility interconnection agreements, barriers that Australia removed long ago. This bill tackles those barriers on multiple fronts, but we are particularly excited by the provision plug-in solar which pays for itself in half the time that rooftop solar does and can benefit rural populations, renters, low-income people, and building electrification. Boulder County supports building electrification with programs and subsidies to low-income residents to help them switch away from burning fuel in their homes to healthier electric heat pumps. However, a barrier that is harder for us to solve is concerns about increased utility bills. Being able to provide an an affordable plug-in solar panel to offset increased electricity consumption can alleviate those concerns. If this bill passes, plug-in solar panels will likely to soon be available for retail purchase from big box stores, just as they are today in Germany. The availability to bring home a solar panel from Home Depot, plug it in, and begin generating your own power democratizes it, making it available to a wider audience. Whether that's Coloradans in rural areas without local solar installers, renters who can take the panels with them to their next apartment, or low-income people who can't afford fees for installation permitting and utility interconnection of traditional rooftop solar. I see them running out of time, so thank you for listening today, and we ask for your iVote.

Good evening, committee chair and members. I'm Claire McLaughlin, Sustainability Manager for the City of Aspen, and I'm speaking today on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, which is a coalition of 48 governments that represent about one-third of Colorado's population. HB 1007 is an important bill because of its benefits to energy affordability and climate change mitigation. Approximately a third of Colorado's residents rent their homes. Renters can't install rooftop solar, but they can plug into portable solar panels like the ones this bill allows. Generally, these installations are cheaper and easier than rooftop solar, making them a boon to any Coloradan who wants to access solar energy, lower their electricity bills, or reduce their climate impact. After conversations with the bill sponsors and adoption of several amendments to the bill, CC4CA has moved to a support position on HB 261007. Several of our members are municipal utilities that are directly impacted by this bill and have expressed concerns about the original version. The bill's sponsors responded to our concerns and adopted amendments that improve reporting and safety requirements for the relevant distributed energy resources. With these changes, CC4CA views this bill as a win-win proposition. It lowers costs at a time when many Coloradans are facing rising expenses. This will be especially important if the cost of gas continues to increase. It will also allow more Colorado residents to benefit from the transition to renewable energy. We've heard from members of CC4CA that much of the state's energy sector policies don't benefit residents served by co-ops or municipal utilities. In other words, rural residents don't have the same ability to benefit from policies that support renewable energy. This bill would allow those residents to also enjoy the lower soft costs of rooftop solar made possible through meter collars and alchemy solar.

Good afternoon. My name is Carolyn Dickerson and I live in Colorado Springs. And when I think about plug-in solar, I really think about three things. Paychecks, power, and passion. And as people have been talking about, just the opportunity to save on electric bills from be just a simple plug-in appliance. And for the grids, for the power, I think it's really cool that they could be west-facing. Like I can imagine an apartment building with all west-facing balconies and they just put up a bunch of those and they get to reduce their bills and add power during peak times. And then the passion part is really just, as you guys are people who are able to take action when you see a problem, and I've seen you do that all day today, I think perhaps you know how energizing it is when you can actually see a problem and take a step towards solving it, and this expands the population of people who can see a problem and take a step towards solving it. So thank you for considering this bill. I hope it passes. I just looked on Amazon last night and thinking about coming here today, and it was like $200 to $400 for a single panel. So you can put in more, but there's certainly a low bar. And I was curious, I think I got the question answered, but I was curious if Colorado Springs utilities would be covered by this legislation or not, because I'm never sure which rules apply to them and which ones don't. So thank you.

Thank you, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1007 today. My name is Austin Michaels, and I'm here on behalf of Solar United Neighbors Action. We work with communities across Colorado to help people access affordable and reliable clean energy, and I want to share why this bill, especially the provisions to support plug-in solar, matters so much to the people we serve. Daily we work with Coloradans who want to go solar. They care about lowering their energy bills, they care about clean energy, and they care about having more control over their household energy costs For many households we want to work with rooftop solar isn an option Some folks rent their homes some live in apartments or mobile homes and have roofs that can't support solar. And many can't afford the upfront cost of a traditional solar system. So even though they are excited about clean energy and are arguably the most in need of an alternative way to lower energy costs, the door has effectively been closed to them. Plug-in Solar offers a small, affordable way for people to participate and generating their own clean energy without necessarily needing to own a home, replace a roof, or take on thousands of dollars in debt. It's something people can use in an apartment, on a balcony, in a backyard, on a patio, or with a small outdoor space. It's portable and flexible. And from an organizational perspective, this fills a real gap in our work. We work with households that going solar never seem attainable, simply due to cost barriers, with many households still unable to access rooftop solar. I have worked with many Coloradans that have wanted to go solar since the Carter administration and were unable to afford a solar system until the 2020s when more solar incentives were available. House Bill 1007 gives us a meaningful tool to offer people who have thus far been left out of the energy transition. Plug-in solar won't replace roof up solar and it shouldn't, but it opens doors for people who have been shut out and are asking to come in. House Bill 1007 is one tool that helps us move forward for a more inclusive clean energy future. It's for renters, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and communities that have been locked out of these benefits for far too long. We urge you to support House Bill 1007 so that more Coloradans can take part in finding a way to lower energy bills and collectively support the clean energy transition.

Hi, thanks for having me back. Thank you to the chair and the members of this committee. I am Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels, current chair of the Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners. I'm speaking today on behalf of my constituents and for CC4CA. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1007. I personally am one of those people that live in an apartment with a west-facing balcony. But beyond my own personal benefit, this bill will help so many Coloradans. Balcony Solar provides energy independence, expands consumer choice, and takes advantage of Colorado's most abundant natural gift, sunshine. This bill protects the kind of freedom we all want, and it does that for a lot of people who often get left out of the equation, from renters to rural residents. This bill also provides pragmatic solutions that meet the needs of our present and future. We're all facing rising costs, including energy costs, and Balcony Solar can alleviate some of that pressure. Additionally, the present and future of housing for many Coloradans is multifamily housing, whether apartments or condos or townhomes. So we need codes that keep up with these housing models. Single-family homes are not for everyone, but solar and electrification should be. In addition, this bill makes sure that rural Coloradans get the same benefit as the rest of the state. Currently, state law already allows customers of investor-owned utilities to use meter collars, which helps them reduce their costs when they install rooftop solar. Much of rural Colorado, including Gunnison County, is served by electric co-ops and municipal utilities. It's common sense that we should get the same access to meter collar technologies that Excel customers already have. Ultimately, common sense is what it comes down to with this bill. We get cheaper, cleaner energy that more Coloradans can access. I urge you to support energy choices and reducing energy costs by supporting this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and good luck with your decision making today.

Hello, thank you for having me today. My name is Elizabeth Mays, and I'm a constituent from Broomfield, Colorado. I'm here today in support of the HB 26-1007, and I would like to share one of the reasons why accessing a small plug-in solar electrical generation system without unnecessary barriers from utilities is important to me. I live in a large multifamily apartment complex with my husband. Renting an apartment makes it nearly impossible to access energy generation that is independent from the electrical grid maintained by Accel Energy. This fact has become increasingly distressing, as last December we were notified by Accel Energy that our location may be affected by a public safety power shutoff, or PSPS. Upon preparing for this event, I began to realize just how vulnerable we are without energy generation capabilities. Fortunately, our electricity was not cut off. However, my awareness was raised on just how vulnerable we are, as long as we are dependent upon an electrical grid. I anticipate that these PSPS events will grow in frequency as our wildfire risk in Colorado continues to increase due to climate change. Access to affordable home-based solar options such as plug-in solar would allow my family and I to reduce our vulnerability in these events and to become more resilient. With a plug-in solar panel in combination with a battery,

members of the committee. My name is John Krieger and I work for ASSOCIA, which is the largest HOA and condo association management company in the country. And I'm here today on behalf of our Colorado client communities. We've been working with the proponents of this bill for a while and offered amendment language that has thus far been rejected. So we remain in an amend position on HB 1007. ASSOCIA is not opposed to the deployment of this type of solar technology and community associations, but we are protective of associations' private contractual rights to set some standards for how and where this technology is installed. Section 5 of the bill amends the section of Kiowa referencing energy efficiency measures, but that section remains insufficient because it leaves the undefined term reasonable as a standard for boards to determine whether the deed restrictions are compliant with the law. I'm just not comfortable with volunteer board members having to determine what is legally reasonable or unreasonable when it applies to their restrictions on energy-efficient measures. The bill invites litigation against community associations something our industry has faced along with hostile legislation over the statutory term reasonable and I prefer to avoid that Members, the Colorado General Assembly five years ago adopted Section 38-30-168 of the Property Code applying to deed restrictions, which I believe should apply to this technology. By doing so, it would provide a measurable standard for what's reasonable or unreasonable because one of the provisions specifically prohibits restrictions that increase the cost by more than 10% or decrease performance by more than 10%. Again, we're just asking this to apply to these solar panels like it does to other solar panels, wind electric generators, geothermal energy devices, and heat pump systems. As I conclude, I think it's worth noting for this committee that none of the similar bills enacted or near adoption in other states preempt or limit association deed restrictions as is proposed in this bill i'm just asking that you support our minor reasonable change thank you mr consistent with current law thank you for the opportunity thank you thank you all for your

chair so um i guess this uh unless the only one i heard who is still in an amend is mr krieger um the rest of you because of the amendments and we've got all of them and i'm i'm hopeful that you have all seen these as well you have all moved to either a neutral or a positive on it We don't have anybody else still in an amend or against.

Senator Pelton.

Yeah, that is correct. As I stated, we already allow these devices on our system, but part of our current approval process is making sure they're UL certified and that they do have that non-backfeed capability built into them so that when they lose power from the system and they're on solar or if they do have batteries hooked up to it, that that does not backfeed onto the system and create that alternate source of energy hazard for our linemen.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of the more than 300 member companies of our Electrical Trade Association in Colorado in support of the bill. The primary message to the committee today is in both parts of the legislation, IECRM believes the devices referenced for installation represent the evolution of technology and innovation in serving the electrical and renewable energy industry, and serve as safe, practical, and affordable solutions for consumers. Portable-scale solar generation devices, referred to as balcony solar, will be UL-listed devices that have gone through rigorous, intensive research and scrutiny prior to approval for manufacturers to produce. UL listings provide assurances across product types to ensure compatibility and safety for consumers, businesses, inspectors, and the community as a whole. Balcony solar projects are wildly popular across Europe, as you've heard, and are viewed as a collaborative solution to rising energy prices and supportive regulations. The meter colors addressed in the second portion of the bill are devices installed between the utility meter and socket to easily connect solar batteries or EV chargers without upgrading the main electrical panel. Installation of these devices would require proper permitting, inspection, and installation by qualified electrical professionals. Amendments in the House and those you will consider today solidified and will further define the supportive policies for their installation adopted by local impacted utilities. The problem the industry is seeking to collaboratively solve with this legislation is the required utility jurisdiction approval, where I believe you'll see in the amendments. The electrical industry understands the benefits and evolutions in technology and are in support of forward-thinking solutions that are safe for consumers, businesses, inspectors, and the community as a whole. Thank you for the opportunity to provide support.

Thank you, Committee, for hearing, and thank you for the bill sponsors. My name is Jason Sharp. I'm here with IECRM and COSA. My background is electrical engineering. I'm a master electrician. I've been installing solar since 1994. These technologies, this is the most exciting time in my entire time in the solar industry. I've been doing this for over 25 years, And both of these technologies are creating accessibility in a safe manner that wasn't possible before the code. So it's a very exciting time for me in this industry. Both of these technologies are lowering barriers or lowering costs. At a time when the federal government is taking away and making solar more expensive, we are seeing more and more headwinds on our ability. Our governor has asked us to find ways to lower costs. This is a non-cost to the state to be able to lower costs and create accessibility for homeowners to access solar. So I'm very excited. I do consider myself a little bit of a technical expert. I'm prepared for some questions from Senator Pelton. But I urge you to vote yes. I will also say it's been a long journey to try to thread this needle. I don't think the proponents of the bill ever tried to force adoption of certain things. but also we need standards. And without standards, what are you doing? You're creating 50 or 100 or 1 different sets of rules And that why we have the NEC code and that why we have UL is to document and list standards that manufacturers and contractors can adhere to so they know what they supposed to do with their products to make themselves Without standards you make up rules, and made-up rules can change, and made-up rules are inconsistent. And so that's what we're looking for here, and I'm really glad that we have found a balance with some standardization and some ability for the utilities to be able to help determine what those standards are. Thank you. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you for your testimony.

so I was just doing some quick research on plug-in solar. Do you see, nine times out of ten, you're going to be plugging into a branch circuit, possibly 15 amps, possibly 20 amps. Do you see them getting any bigger than that? Because when I was researching I saw 6 amps, 12 amps I mean they're not very big systems. So do you see them getting any bigger than that to maybe cause problems down the road like a 30 amp branch circuit? You and I both know dryers, possibly a very small range that sort of thing. Do you see issues with that at all? Mr. Sharp.

Senator Pelton, would you like to dialogue?

Please feel free. Thank you.

I understand this is going to be a safe thing.

Oh, we're dialogue here.

That's what I want to be appropriately respectful. So I'll do my best. You're right. If you put a solar panel raw out in the wild and it hits sunshine, it creates electricity. But there's a lot of electronics in between the solar panel itself and where it interconnects into the grid. The most important feature is the inverter. That's what takes the DC power coming from the solar and turns it into the grid power. and allows it to interact with the utility. First, a funny thing, over 25 years, can you imagine what the most common phone call we get in the solar industry is? Did you turn it on? No, it's why does my power go out when the utility goes down? That is the most common. And recently, when we've had the utility shut off the power three times here in the front range, our phone is ringing pretty regularly because all of those solar people get their power goes down. And that's because of UL1741. And inverters that are interactive with the grid are called amp sources, not volt sources. They're grid following, not grid forming. So they actually can't exist without the formation of a grid by the utility itself. A generator is very different. Synchronizing a generator to the proper frequency so you don't hit the wave the wrong way is a big deal. And if you've ever tried to sync a generator and don't have frequency sunk when you connect those two things, you have a big problem. It smokes a little bit. Yeah, they let the magic smoke out and the generator stops working. Yeah, it's a big, loud noise. But inverters are technically very different than generators. They're amp sources, not volt sources. They're grid following, not grid forming. So they cannot interact without the grid present. And that's what they're designed to do. There's a five-minute connection window where they synchronize, and then they push amperage into the grid. So it's just a fundamentally different technology than generators. And that UL1741 is the reason grid solar really started happening in 2005. That innovation and the old 2600 Sunny Boy was the inverter that broke the barriers that allowed grid-tie solar to happen in the United States. So it's a 20-plus, 21-year-old listing in technology that is incredibly reliable, and we have not seen issues with over 20 years.

Senator Catlin.

Picking up the baton. It's only going to take a second. Did you say that these solar panels don't work when the power goes off?

We are not dialoguing now, so that's appropriate.

Okay, any further questions for this panel? Nope. All right, thank you so much for your time and your testimony this afternoon. Thank you. Have a good evening. Sponsors. I already know we have amendments. So how? Yeah. Senator would only generate to DC voltage. Right. Like what I had in the military. And at the end of generator, you have the same color. Senator Ball?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a proper motion, please tell us about your amendment.

Committee, any questions about this amendment? Any objections to this amendment? Seeing none, L-10 is adopted. Moving along.

That's a proper motion. Please tell us more.

All right, committee, any questions?

Can you tell me what you just said?

Does that answer your question?

So I've had to do this before where you have to, like if somebody moves, adds on to their house, you have to remove the meter housing off the side of the house So if you remove that meter housing you have to have the meter extracted And then so if you move that then that way the utility will put everything back just like they do now when they pull We as electricians are not allowed to pull the meters. The utility folks pull that meter. So when they pull the meter, then they would pull that stuff out, just make sure everything gets back the way it was so they can't just not add it back.

Yes, Senator Ball.

I move Amendment L012 to House Bill 1007.

So this is very similar to L010, but L-010 applied to qualifying retail utilities. This amendment applies to municipal utilities. Any questions about this amendment?

Madam Chair, I move amendment L-013.

So amendment L013, and this includes some of the language that I think has been discussed that was negotiated with Excel. That's the lines 23 and 24 of this amendment in particular. But the rest of the amendment outlines conditions under which meter callers could not be approved and includes customer notification disclosure requirements in the case of the caller not being approved.

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if this would be helpful. I know that at one point we had seven different people up there who were all in amends, and they all were for some particular group. Would that be helpful if you told us this is the one that Black Hills asked us to do, this is the one so that we could check them off of our lists over here? You have a bingo card over there. I mean, if that's possible. If that's possible.

So L010, well, the first four amendments, so the ones that we're dealing with right now, so L010 and L012, which are basically the same thing, one is for the retail utilities and one is for the municipal utilities, Those were for those utilities, for CREA and for the Colorado Municipal Association. We also put the Excel request into this, and I believe that covers the Black Hills folks as well. So all of those. And then L011 and L013 were too big to fit into the amendments, which we only came to agreement on yesterday, last night. So that is why they are split into two, but that is where they are. So those are sort of all of those energy people.

Senator Ball.

I move amendment L-015.

So this is really just to fix a drafting error take out a word that shouldn have been included This is not one that been negotiated heavily with stakeholders but really just to clarify what was the bill Senator Kipp Yeah, basically there was like the word not three times in a sentence, and people decided that it needed one less not in it. And that was the energy office who helped to catch that. So thank you to the energy office. Naughty situation.

I move at long last, our last amendment, a movement L016 to House Bill 1007.

Senator Kipp. Yeah, and I do apologize. I said up front that everybody was neutral as far as I knew, and that was true, except apparently one of the HOAs. So let me tell you, apparently there are three different organizations that are involved with the HOAs, and this amendment here brings, it looks like, I believe, two of them or at least one of them to neutral, and one or two of the others are considering. So there's three organizations, and we're getting at least one or two of them there, possibly three, but they obviously, because we only came up with this a couple hours ago, and we're sort of, they're still reviewing it. So that is where we are right now. Does that help? And I apologize for misstating that up front. I did not understand that.

Senator Linstead. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I said this at the beginning. I mean, I completely agree with what you're trying to do. I think HOA should not be an additional hurdle. I'll say line five, the second half of it is a little bit vague, and I would encourage you to work on tightening that up in the floor, but I'm a yes either way. but I think it is a little bit vague and it is a fair question. So thanks.

I do not believe so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, folks. I would normally not vote for a bill that is compelling private industry to do something, but this is not the free market. This is a utility, and they have the monopoly. And so it's a liberty issue for the residents, for the homeowners to me. and it's too bad that we don't have competition within utilities. Maybe we'll get there one day. But in the meantime, this makes sense to me, so I'll be a yes vote as well.

I move House Bill 1007 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Senator Baisley. Aye.

Oh, I didn't hear you.

Hexum. Aye.

Mullica. Yes.