House Energy & Environment [Mar 11, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

The Energy and Environment Committee will come to order. Ms. Falco, please call the roll.

Goldstein. Here.

Brutineau. Here.

Smith. Here. Wilford. Here.

Mr. Chair. I'm here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Colleagues, House Bill 26-1199 is the result of years of work with stakeholders, regulators, and consumers to address ongoing issues in Colorado's vehicle emission system particularly around catalytic converters and replacement options for a long time consumers have faced limited options when their catalytic converter fails or is stolen often forcing them into expensive replacement pathways with very few alternatives this bill directs the state to create a clear process for testing and approving additional catalytic converter options so that Colorado ones have safe compliant replacements available to them importantly this bill does not weaken emission standards instead it establishes a pathway to evaluate additional products that meet Colorado's environmental requirements we have worked with the Department of Public Health and Environment in industry stakeholders and others over multiple years to get to a thoughtful policy that protects air quality while also addressing real world challenges the consumers face ultimately THIS BILL IS ABOUT MODERNIZING THE SYSTEM AND MAKING SURE OUR REGULATORY STRUCTURE KEEPS

Thank you, Representative Mayberry. And I'd like to note for the record that Representative Slaw, Representative Perron, Representative Paschal, and Representative Jackson have joined us. Okay, committee, do we have questions for our sponsors? Representative Petron.

Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Barone, for the question. So I think the important question for us is if they meet Colorado standards, and we are requiring that they go through the emissions test to document proof that they meet Colorado standards before they're permitted to be used.

Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might need to defer that question. We have more environmental experts on the panel, but I believe, yes, that Colorado standards are more stringent, which is why we want to make sure that they're getting the testing based on the Colorado standard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are you concerned that maybe because of Colorado standards if that the case are higher than the national standards are that these aftermarket catalytic converter manufacturers might raise the cost of them because they have to meet the Colorado standards

Thank you. I'm going to ask a question and we'll get to you, Representative Wug. So, you know, this may be more for the scientific experts, but one of the concerns I've had previously, because we have seen the bill, especially during the COVID times when catalytic converter theft went through the roof. And so the question always was, how does this affect our subscription to the CARB, which is the California Air Resources Board exemption materials and how much goes into that. Because if we act outside of that, my concern is that we would no longer be compliant with those standards, and that's how we get our allotments of new electric vehicles and things like that. So the question really is, how can we do something like this and stay in compliance with CARB? Representative Mayberry.

Okay. Anyway, I think the important thing to understand is the catalytic converter is this component in the exhaust system that I don't know exactly what it does, but it makes an engine's exhaust less harmful. And so with our air quality issues, I'm just wondering – I just want to make sure that we're subscribing to everything we can at the top. So I guess my other question, as you said, these are mainly going to be older cars where it doesn't make economic sense to do the catalytic converter. And so the question is, why would it be something that we wouldn't rein into just the older cars, given that if I have a brand new truck and someone steals my catalytic converter, I could probably use this legislation to put whatever I want on the truck? And so my question really is, how do we make it to serve its purpose of, you know, folks that are really can't afford the OEM to be able to fix this problem for a car that is old? Representative Mayberry.

Representative Murrow.

Good. That's good news. Representative Woog.

I think you're right. Representative Murrow?

Okay. Representative Paschal.

Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Paschal. we agree that it seems a little bit hefty for a program that impacts a very small number of individuals, especially also where they are going to have to, the consumers, when they get this, are going to have to pay the fees that are associated with getting the catalytic converter check done. And so we don't understand the added burden on the department. We're in ongoing conversations with them about that. that we have. an amendment that directs the department to implement this within existing resources because we think that's doable because A, it's a pretty small chunk of the market and B, because the fees, any increase will also be correlated with an increase in the fees that are associated with getting an emissions test. and so we hope to have those conversations as we head to a probes but I will also note that this bill does the same thing as it did last year and this year the fiscal note is higher than it was last year and we didn't really get an explanation as to why.

good morning chairman and members of the committee my name is david cardella i'm the ceo of the Colorado Independent Automobile Dealers Association. We represent 1,723 businesses across the state of Colorado. I want to thank our sponsors for bringing this bill. They've worked very hard on getting all the parties together to bring a much-needed bill to the relief of the consumers of Colorado. I'm here today to ask you for your yes vote on HB 261199, which will not change catalytic converter requirements of new vehicles sold in our state, but will reduce the cost to consumers to replace or repair catalytic converters that have been stolen from the vehicle or failed due to the age of the vehicle. And I can answer any of those questions that were being asked to the sponsors. It doesn't make any sense for somebody with a 12-year-old vehicle or a 10-year-old vehicle with 140,000 miles on it that still runs good, they have to go out and spend $1,500 for a catalytic converter because it has more precious material inside it. When they could fix that car for $500 and get another four to five years out of the vehicle. The savings is tremendous. We know having the ability to own a vehicle in this state is critical to improving your financial position or providing for your family. Whether you are a single parent or a young person starting your first job or going to school, having a reliable transportation is critical to accomplishing those tasks. And so having an inexpensive vehicle that you don't need to carry full coverage insurance on and just have liability also enables them to have that transportation. It is important that you cast a yes vote on this bill as funding to fight catalytic converter theft may be pulled due to the state budget crisis we in Prior years Catpaw has granted money to help victims of this crime to replace their stolen catalytic converters But the staff at JBC has recommended that this program be defunded. That will also take away money from the task force that have fought to keep us from number one in the country, which we were during the crisis for auto theft and catalytic converter theft, to move down to number five. If that funding goes away, that will greatly impact the theft problem that we had in the state. I ask for your yes vote on HB 26-1199 to help people across our state keep their vehicle running properly and welcome any questions you may have.

Good morning. I'm Mr. Chair and a member of this committee. My name is Jambo Lejuanas. I'm the owner of Family Medical Transportation and the director for CIA ADA. I'm here to testify in support of new Catholic converter bill. I am a victim of this crime. I have lost seven Catholic converters, each costing me over $3,000 replaced. As I am owner of this transportation company, this is a massive issue for our coadro low-income citizens. Using certified kappa parts, replacing should cost under $500. But the current situation is creeping, as in the difficult economic time, where the cost of living is skyrocket. It is not fair to push the burden onto us while the big guys get richer. We serve special needs students, people with Down syndrome and dialysis patients and the dialysis patients. So, we maintain our 97% on time pickup rate overnight. overnight. The bad guys stolen the catalytic converter from three of our two repris. Our driver find out in the morning that there were no catalytic converter in the cars because of this. Our patient, we picked up on time, doctor's appointment were cancelled, and some missed day. Dialysis is not easy to keep. Kids cannot go to school and mothers cannot Let's go work, resulting in the loss of job. This is what happened in my business. Thank you for your service in Colorado and for our members committee. We are Coloradians, no Californians. Thank you for being a voice of a voiceless. Thank you again.

Second.

Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, again, because of the inconsistency between the physical note last year and this year, this year being much higher, and because we believe that any increase in burden would be offset by increase in fees when people pay to get their emissions test done, we believe that the department can implement this with in-existing resources because the increased burden is actually just on the consumer. We don't see increased burden on the department. we fully recognize that we need to have those conversations with our fiscal analyst, which we have and with the department as we head to appropriations, but want this amendment to provide guidance in terms of the department's expenditures.

Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we have a long day of committees today, so I'm not going to belabor the point, but I believe this bill is just about increasing affordable consumer choices for working families who cannot afford newer cars. I wish our state was one where people could rely on public transportation to get to work to take their kids to school. We are not yet a state like that, and the reality is working families, single moms, do need to drive in the state of Colorado, and when something like a catalytic converter fails on your 2007 Subaru Outback, you need an affordable alternative that still meets Colorado's emission standards, and we urge yes vote.

And for the record, Representative Sober is here. Okay, committee. Representative Perron.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Representative Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's a balance between affordability and the environment, and it makes me feel better that if they have a less expensive catalytic converter, they still have to pass the emissions test. I just hope that, you know, they don't keep not passing it and they have to keep getting it replaced until they finally do pass it. I am worried about the financial part, but for today I'll be a yes vote and we'll see what you can work on and get it down to zero as we're all trying to do that. Thank you.

I move House Bill 1199 as amended to appropriations with a favorable recommendation Second

Ms. Falco Please call the roll

Goldstein Yes

Yes Brutnell

Smith. Yes.

Wilford. Yes.

Mr. Chair. Yes for today. Thank you. And that passes unanimously. You're off to appropriations. Good luck over there. We are now going to move on to House Bill 1268. Disturbed land. Yes. Representative McCormick, we are a paperless committee, so if you have any amendments that you are going to be moving at the end, just tell us now. No, don't. No, we don't want those up here. Let's just clutter up the whole place. I'll put them in the box. L1 and L2 are now available on everybody's computer. Okay, here we go. Paperless, 1268. All right. Representative McCormick.

Thank you, committee. Ladies and gentlemen, our own Representative Smith.

Committee questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So our list of stakeholders is quite large, but I'll give you a general idea. Certainly many environmental voices, but also with the tribes, with Department of Natural Resources CDPHE CML our oil and gas partners Weld County specifically So quite a bit We been working on this since late fall and because of all the voices that we have taken input from is why we have decided to come before you today with a strike below. Otherwise I would have had 10 amendments this is a much cleaner and easier to understand way to do it so we oh and as far as who wants to use this tool I know my own my own municipality is very interested in this tool and we'll be testifying today at least not not from the community but at least knowledge of how this tool could be used in my municipality. So, and again, it's a tool in the toolbox. If you want to use it, it's there. If you don't, nobody's going to make you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. I like the fact that it's not a mandate. You know, we don't like mandates. My question is, does this affect landowners, like private landowners? because up in Weld County, private landowners lease out their land for oil and gas, for building a tank battery or drilling a well. Once that well has been plugged and abandoned and that tank battery has been removed, that land now goes back to the landowners. Now, I understand this is specifically for land that was maybe former oil and gas, but that land is not owned by the city or anything like that. It's owned by a private landowner or a farmer. Would the farmer or landowner have the right to be able to opt into this option if they want to do a clean energy, maybe solar panels on where a tank battery used to be? Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a really great question. And since I'm not – I don't intricately know the process that URAs and CRAs, how they work, it's a good question to ask those people that are more familiar with it. I don't even know who owns landfills, honestly. So it makes sense that if they wanted to be part of this, that maybe they could. But I don't know with the tax increment financing if that actually would apply to private landowners. So I see where you're thinking. You're thinking bigger, like who else could get in on this process. So I don't know specifically who owns the lands we're talking about right now, if they're privately owned or their county and municipally owned lands to begin with. So please follow up with that question. Representative Perron, we have three folks from the state here, one from the Division of Reclamation Mining Safety, one from CPW, and one from Energy and Carbon Management Commission. So they might be good. Representative Perron.

Representative McCormick. Thank you very much. So I believe I haven't checked the SOS website, but I think CML is in support of this bill or at least watching it. We've had lots of conversations with CML. Weld County was part of the language where we really specifically made sure oil and gas wells were included in the potential for lands that could be used in this So, does that answer your question? Okay.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of CML. I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1268, Renewable Energy Development on Brownfield Lands. I first want to sincerely thank sponsors and proponents for working closely with us to ensure there are no conflicts with existing urban renewal authorities and to ensure that this is a workable tool for local governments. Across Colorado, many communities have parcels of land that have been disturbed by past industrial use or left underutilized due to contamination concerns. These brownfield sites often sit idle for years, producing little economic value while taking up precious land. House Bill 1268 gives local governments and urban renewal authorities the practical flexibility that they need to transform these underused properties into productive assets. By supporting renewable energy development on brownfield and previously disturbed lands, this bill creates a smart, balanced approach to energy expansion. Instead of placing additional pressure on ag land, open space, or wildlife habitats, we can prioritize locations that have already been impacted, which is simply good land use planning. This legislation also strengthens local control. Communities understand their own redevelopment needs best, and this bill equips them with another tool to revitalize these sites. Renewable energy projects on brownfield can bring investment, create jobs, generate local tax revenue, and help stabilize long-neglected properties. House Bill 1268 represents a pragmatic solution, one that supports economic redevelopment, responsible land stewardship, and permissive tools for local governments all at once. For communities struggling with underutilized industrial land, this bill opens the door for turning yesterday's liabilities into tomorrow's opportunities. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I respectfully urge support of House Bill 1268.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing our testimony today. My name is Duncan Gilchrist, and I'm a climate and energy policy advisor with the Nature Conservancy in Colorado. And I'd like to just first thank the sponsors for bringing forward this creative solution that's, I believe, a good fit for Colorado. So the Nature Conservancy is a land conservation nonprofit that's been operating in Colorado for about 60 years. Our mission is to protect the lands and the waters upon which all life depend. We're working to address the biodiversity loss crisis and climate change globally. And as an organization working on both of these crises, we support accelerating clean energy infrastructure, but doing so in a way that's thoughtful, that minimizes impacts to nature and maximizes benefits to communities. So we're really excited about this policy because we believe that it's a sort of win-win opportunity that threads the needle through those various objectives so as others have stated you know this bill in creating a voluntary process for local governments to reduce permitting and financing barriers to renewable energy development on brownfield sites we think this policy is going to offset some of the need to develop some high-value agricultural and natural land in Colorado which Coloradans care deeply about. And so this is sort of a smart siting policy. If we can utilize land that's already been developed and disturbed to site infrastructure, you know, it's just sort of just a responsible way to undertake the clean energy transition. We've been, we've had the pleasure of speaking a lot with local governments in the process of doing some of the stakeholdering around this bill and just want to reemphasize that, you know, this is really meant to sort of empower local governments to attract the sort of economic development that not only would bring more clean energy resources on the grid, but also potentially incentivize some additional remediation that may not otherwise happen were it not for a viable sort of redevelopment opportunity that exists or that we're trying to unlock through this. And then just want to sort of reiterate that we were very careful not to, in sort of speaking with sponsors about this bill, support the aspect of this bill that does not contradict or undo any sort of state or federal environmental regulations. These various laws and frameworks that govern brownfield remediation are important for protecting communities and restoring land to its natural state. And so we're viewing this policy as an opportunity to sort of incentivize redevelopment that would otherwise still be sort of compatible with existing laws and regulations. And so lastly I just want to say you know we're not viewing this this bill as a transformational approach we view this as a sort of important and meaningful step forward that lays a foundation for local governments to really try to unlock this this important opportunity. So thank you for hearing my testimony today and thanks again to the sponsors for putting forward such a creative no-cost solution that'll help Colorado be more economically competitive, protect natural environment and preserve the autonomy of our diverse communities across the state. Thank you, sir. Miss Pinter,

Thank you. Hi, I am Emma Pinter. I currently serve as an Adams County Commissioner. I also am the President of Colorado Communities for Climate Action. And today I'm speaking on behalf of CC4CA, a coalition of 48 local governments representing a third of Colorado's population. We support this bill as local governments because it furthers our members' energy goals by providing siting and funding flexibility for local governments to promote renewables. CC4CA members have set ambitious goals for renewable energy in their local jurisdictions. For example, in my own in Adams County, we plan to use 50% renewable energy at our government facilities by 2030 and are well on our way to that goal. This deadline is fast approaching and we need new ways and new funding mechanisms to support completion of achieving this goal. Many of our CC4CA members have similar stories and similar goals and objectives. This House Bill 1268 provides local governments with the flexibility to take on new renewable energy projects. We appreciate that the bill does not create any unfunded obligations on our already stretched resources while it does provide us some options and a funding mechanism to support projects that we choose to take on It also provides additional protections for disproportionately impacted communities who are most likely to be near brownfield development sites and should be given extra consideration and protection This bill is a model for positive collaboration that takes into account the statewide priorities and local government needs.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I'm here today both as a Longmont City Council member and as the chair of Longmont's Urban Renewal Authority. I, along with the Longmont City Council, as of last night, support this bill because it furthers our sustainability, energy, and land use goals. Like most communities in Colorado, Longmont values are recreational, agricultural, and natural lands. And like many communities in Colorado, we have multiple brownfields, closed landfills, mine lands, and oil and gas extraction sites. House Bill 1268 gives us another tool to leverage should we want to welcome renewable energy projects to some of these sites. I also professionally help cities and counties across the country reactivate closed landfills, former mine sites, and brownfields with renewable energy. From my experience, many communities of all shapes, sizes, and politics see this type of reuse as a common sense approach. Yet these communities consistently run into three challenges. First, projects that are on the fence financially, largely due to greater site and design complexity. Second, state and local processes that lack clarity or simply lack experience with this type of site reuse. and three, inconsistent information or unknown questions about available electric grid capacity and whether upgrades are needed. Simply put, this bill aims to make these projects a little easier to plan and deploy where such projects are welcome. This bill enables local governments to designate specific areas as renewable energy reinvestment areas to leverage specific tax increment financing and complement sustainable growth goals for public and private sites. This may be particularly useful for more remote sites like closed landfills and former mine sites that were not historically located next to today's urban renewal and county revitalization areas. Importantly, tax increment financing, or TIF, is not a new tax, not a new fee, and it helps communities reinvest in public infrastructure improvements that support challenging redevelopment projects. This bill also sends a market signal with the designation process, opt-in permitting improvements, and utility clarity without creating an unfunded mandate on communities. Our energy system has always required land. Coal mines, hydroelectric dams, nuclear waste storage, oil and gas pipelines, and solar and wind farms. And land use often stirs community tensions. Encouraging renewable energy on disturbed lands is a smart and sustainable solution for communities to revitalize often neglected sites while meeting growing energy demand. This may seem niche, but as Representative McCormick noted, this has brought potential, with the U.S. EPA estimating that there are over 2,500 sites in Colorado alone that may be suitable for hosting renewable energy, create up to 44,000 construction jobs, and avoid siting energy projects on over 61,000 acres of greenfield areas in a state known for nature, recreation, and agriculture. This bill won't achieve all of the benefits on its own, but it does add another arrow to the quiver that may help us. ultimately i hope this committee and the state consider this bill a foundation for future policies to build on to further encourage and incentivize these types of projects thank you for your time

you'll have three minutes today thank you chair valdez and members of the committee my name is ramesh bach i the chair of the conservation committee of the colorado sierra club which has over 60 000 members and supporters in this state our club the sierra club strongly supports houses 168 according to cdphe colorado has thousands of brown brownfield sites as we already heard there are also thousands of abandoned mine sites uh the state for 23 000 of them thus there are many locations that are kind of contaminated to varying extents and are not useful for many purposes. At the same time, Colorado has a goal of net-zero carbon economy by 2050, which requires the onboarding of a large number of renewable energy projects, all of which require suitable locations. Renewable energy projects can be installed on productive farmland. I myself subscribe to Jack's solar farm that combines farming with solar. However, it would also be helpful to locate renewable energy projects on brownfields and other impact properties wherever feasible. House Bill 1268 makes this possible. It's a common sense bill that provides local governments the ability to locate renewable energy projects and brownfields and other contaminated areas while protecting community involvement especially disproportionately impacted communities it also provides the mechanism to allow local governments finance this project as we have already heard further it encourages reasonably quick answers from surrounding utilities about the feasibility of connecting these projects to goods so based on all these things the sierra club strongly supports this bill. As has been said repeatedly, it encourages productive use of brownfields and other contaminated sites while providing locations to install badly needed renewable energy projects. We think it's

today good afternoon to the committee um my name is tommy butler um i serve on the greely city council um and i am testifying in support of house bill 26 12 68 today in my personal capacity i do want to note that the city of greely has recently taken a support position on this bill though um i am excited for what this might mean for brownfield areas in greely we've received more than a half a million dollars in grants over the last few years in Greeley to help research and mitigate brownfield sites. There are several of those sites that already exist inside URAs and could benefit from the additional tax increment financing dollars. These sites are particularly hard to develop at times. So when I first heard about this bill, I immediately saw how helpful this could be. Using TIF dollars like this would not only increase renewable energy development, it would also help cities that are struggling with brownfields. In Greeley, these are mostly former industrial sites that have sat unused for decades. But the benefit doesn't stop there. TIF financing means that these sites will become more valuable, which in turn means more tax increment revenue to help with other redevelopment projects. I want to say thank you to Representative McCormick and Smith. This is incredibly smart policy. I ask that you vote yes

Okay thank you And good afternoon Mr Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today My name is James McGarry and I am here representing the Coalition for Community Solar Access or CCSA CCSA is a national trade association representing more than 100 community solar companies, businesses, and nonprofits working to expand customer choice and access to solar for all American households and businesses through community solar. I am here in support of HB 26-1268 because building clean energy projects on brownfields and other previously disturbed sites can be challenging, and this legislation takes meaningful steps to de-risk both the permitting and financing needed to develop these types of sites. These projects often face legacy contamination concerns, additional upfront environmental review, coordination with multiple agencies, higher upfront development costs, and financing challenges due to perceived environmental liability. We already have some great examples of brownfield project development here in Colorado today. For example, the two-megawatt Coyote Ridge Community Solar Farm in Larimer County was built on a reclaimed portion of a landfill that now provides clean electricity and bill savings to hundreds of local households and nonprofits. But there is so much more potential for this type of development across the state. We support this bill because it gives developers and local governments additional tools to work together to make these projects happen. As Representatives McCormick and Smith stated, this bill does not create a mandate, but rather it empowers counties and other local governments to streamline local solar development in areas where they want to see such development occur and authorizes the innovative use of tax increment financing to help make those projects happen. When a local government designates a brownfield or a closed landfill as a renewable energy reinvestment area, that would send a strong signal that a clean energy project is welcome there. And this is exactly the type of local cooperation and siting input that our members seek to facilitate with host counties and sites. In our view, this bill complements community solar legislation that the legislature has passed previously, such as SB 24-207. And it will help more projects like the one in Laramette County get built, lowering energy bills and supporting grid reliability. So CCSA appreciates the opportunity to testify in support of this bill. We respectfully ask the committee to vote yes on HB 1268.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry about the slow finger raise. I was going to ask Mr. Butler from Greeley. Sir, what are some of the locations in the city of Greeley that are that you think would be considered for this?

All right. Any other questions, Representative Slough?

Thank you all very much for your testimonies today. appreciate it alright next up does anybody have any questions for the state departments that I mentioned earlier I'll mention them again Department of Reclamation Mining Safety Colorado Park and Wildlife or the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission. Okay. All right. We don't look like we have any questions for them, and we do have one other person. Sarah Orange. Hi. Welcome. You'll have three minutes for testimony today, so just make sure the mic is on there and introduce yourself.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Orange. Committee, questions for Ms. Orange? All right. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here to testify on House Bill 1268 today? All right. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. We will move to amendments.

Second.

I move Amendment 2 to Amendment 1. All right.

Okay, now we've definitely got a second by Goldstein. Thank you very much.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendment 2 is language that just didn't get into Amendment 1 that we need to add, and this is the language that was specifically approved by Weld County for the former oil and gas pad language that just didn't make it into our strike below and we urge a yes vote on L2 to L1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. L1 is basically the bill. It's the strike below amendment that we have been talking about that incorporates all of those changes for working well with URAs and CRAs to make sure the flexibility is there for the TIF financing, including the definition of the oil and gas locations and aligning definitions in the bill with existing statute of mining affected lands and softens the language a little bit about what that 30-day response time is for local utilities and certainly brings in the language that our tribes have asked for. So we ask for a yes vote on L1 as amended.

Representative Smith, go ahead, please. You didn't have anything to add?

representative Smith before we do wrap ups if that's alright I move HB 26-1268 AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH A FAVORABLE VOTE.

SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE GOLDSTEIN.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH. I'LL JUST REPEAT THAT. I REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS IS, AND WE HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF THE SPEAKERS, A PRETTY INNOVATIVE APPROACH FOR USING BROWN FIELDS AND HAVING CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT. development. And again, I'm really happy that I was asked to be co-prime on this, and I hope you'll vote yes.

Disturbed lands. Folks, comments? Seeing none. We have already had a motion. Ms. Falco, please call the roll.

Yes. Goldstein.

Yes. Joseph.

Yes. Brutinell.

excused Woog yes Velasco excused

All right. That passes unanimously 11 to 0. You are off to the cow. Congratulations. All right. Next up, we'll have Senate Bill 16. Our own Rep. Smith, Rep. Lukens. making an appearance at the Energy and Environment Show. All right. So we will now hear from Representative Smith. Tell us about Senate Bill 16.

And now I'll turn it over to Rep. Lukens. Representative Lukens, before you go, can we introduce any amendments at this point? We're a paperless committee. Can we share them? Yes, please share amendments 10, 11, 12. Okay, we will do that.

Feel free.

Committee, do we have any questions for the bill sponsors? Representative Woog.

Who would like to take that? Representative Smith?

Representative Wug, does that answer your question or did you have a follow-on?

we got an affirmative nod representative Burrell thank you Mr. Chair

Representative Lukens.

Representative Barone.

Representative Smith?

Representative Goldstein.

Representative Smith.

Representative Slaw, I'm going to come back to you.

know that my iPad with all my notes is deciding to take right now to update and I'm like is this what mine so I'm pulling it up on my Google Drive as well but my understanding is that folks are working on on collecting that data and WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT DID YOU CONSIDER, IT MAY HAVE BEEN A SIMPLER FIX TO JUST ADD PLASTIC PULLETS TO THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF POLLUTANCE REPRESENTATIVE SMITH NO BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM COPERG THAT ARE Representative Smith No but we have people from COPRG that are going to be testifying

Representative Paschal.

Representative Smith?

Okay, any additional questions? Seeing none, we'll move to the witness testimony phase. All right, so we're going to start with some folks that are opposed. Is that correct, sponsors? Start with a couple of opposed? Okay. Okay, so let's have Charlotte Dreisen and Lindsay Stovall. That's Charlotte Dryson and Lindsey Stovall. Hi, welcome. You'll just, yep, unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for testimony today. Begin whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you. Stand by Ms. Stovall. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes for your testimony today. Please introduce yourself to the committee.

Thank you for your testimony today. Committee, do we have questions? Representative Barron.

Ms. Threyssen.

Thank you, Mr. Eisen. Representative Burrow.

Would you know anything about that, Ms. Stovall? I do not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask you the question I asked before, and maybe you can answer what is the process like in cleaning these nurdles up out of water or on land? Is it something you can actually do?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative Paschal. I'd be glad to expand. And we work with more than 5,000 companies that have committed to our program to do exactly that. We work with dozens of equipment providers to clean up plastic resin on both land and in water. Some of the solutions are really basic. They look like a lawnmower. Others are more funky and fun. There's really innovative water drones that almost operate like a Roomba on water to collect pellets if they've spilled and been released on water. Certainly, it's not an easy thing to do. And that's exactly why we had proactive requirements that we offered in amendments so that hopefully We don't even get there. But one of the core components of our amendments was exactly that, having a plan to respond to spills. We would argue that this bill, as is, does not address cleanup of plastic once spilled. And in our amendments and what we do day to day with industry is to equip all companies that handle pre-production plastic with a plan on what to do if a spill occurs. So they could be equipped with that equipment, whether it's land or water or both, and dependent on the exact kind of material they're handling. to ensure that they're equipped to clean that up.

Great. Thank you very much. My name is Danny Katz. I'm the executive director of COPERG, the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. We're a statewide consumer watchdog, and we are in support of this bill today. These are plastic pellets. If you haven't seen them yet, this is what plastic pellets look like, little pieces of plastic balls. We are... Oh, sure.

which means we have a lot of plastic pellets. Trillions of those plastic pellets are floating around in facilities, manufacturing, transportation. And one of the reasons why it's urgent that we act is that if these plastic pellets get into the community, as you've heard, they're very hard to clean up. We organize a lot of community cleanups. We know lots of people around the state are doing those community cleanups. And while you can pull big pieces of trash out, it's much, much, much harder to be able to clean up these pellets. And because they're going to last so long in the community and in our environment, we need to make sure that they're not getting out to begin with. We know that this is coming from facilities. Consumers don't buy pellets. There's no reason for us to purchase a big bag of pellets. So this is to the extent they're getting out into the communities they're coming from, facilities and production. And we know in state after state, there are a lot of examples of these pellets getting out there, especially in states that have a lot of manufacturing and a lot of facilities that use them. The good news is on a federal level, plastic pellets are considered a pollutant. So it's already against the law to discharge these, to dump them. There is an exception though, which is states can issue permits to discharge these plastic pellets. And this bill says Colorado will not issue permits. That's really what this bill does. So it already against the law It already against the law to spill these You know if there a train that comes and derails and there a bunch of plastic pellets there the company will already have to clean those up regardless of whether this bill passes or not This bill is about saying federal law plastic pellets are a pollutant and you can discharge those pollutants without a permit This law would say Colorado would not issue that permit. It would provide certainty that if you're in this state, you would not be able to discharge these. And we think there are plenty of facilities that have the containment measures in place where they don't discharge these. We think that's totally technologically possible. But we also think there are some facilities that don't have those in place. And that's where you're seeing the piles and piles of plastic pellets. And we have some pictures and whatnot that was in the email that were sent there. I'm happy to talk about other components of the bill as well since we helped craft it. So if you have other questions, but I'll just try to give you a lay of the land of the bill as is.

Hello, members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Kira Searcy, and I'm from Conifer, Colorado. I'm testifying in a personal capacity in support of Senate Bill 16. Where I grew up is in a part of our state that as you may know is rural, beautiful, and centered around the environment. A place like Conifer fosters a deep care for our natural resources as well as our human impact on it. So naturally I went to college to study natural resource conservation and ended up working with the forest service, state parks, as well as outdoor guided services to work to maintain and advocate for the natural beauty of our state. But I was actually initially inspired to follow this path because of the work of my father, Alan Searcy. He too worked as a steward for our environment as the city of Lakewood stormwater quality coordinator. In his 30 years in that role, he balanced meticulous testing of waterways and various contaminants with collaborative work across our state to find solutions and prevent contamination from happening again. He would often come home from work and share experiences about different problems, toxins, or chemicals that he was working to clear out of our waterways. So when I heard about this plastic pellet free waters bill that would prevent an unnecessary source of microplastic pollution in our waterways, I knew that I needed to speak up for both myself, my family, and the people who share the values of reducing human impact on our beautiful state. Some of you actually may have heard my father testifying right here as I am now, just maybe to increase the budget for collaborative water quality testing in Colorado and to prioritize reducing discharge of different pollutants into our environment. And microplastics are one of those pollutants. Research is informing us more and more about the detrimental impacts to water quality, wildlife, and human health that microplastics have. Unfortunately my father passed away a few months ago and he was diagnosed with multiple cancers about a year before that. But today is actually his birthday, so I'm here to say for the both of us that these plastic pellets must not be discharged under any circumstances into our communities. And I urge you to please vote in support of Senate Bill 16 because water quality coordinators like my dad and Coloradans like me care deeply about the environment that we grew up in and its interconnectedness to our health. Thank you so much.

you mr chair and good afternoon members of the committee my name is rachel jaeger i'm an associate with environment colorado we a statewide education and advocacy group that works on clean air clean water wildlife and open spaces And we firmly support Senate Bill 16 Plastic pellets can be dumped or spilled at almost every step of the plastic production process And as I'm sure you know, plastic in our environment is incredibly harmful to our wildlife and our ecosystems. These plastic pellets are no different. Most notably, they can look like food to wildlife, like fish and birds. ingestion can cause issues like malnutrition or even starvation. Plastic also acts like a magnet for other environmental toxics like pesticides and heavy metals. So when pieces of plastic absorb these toxics and are ingested it increases wildlife's exposure to these harmful chemicals and we might also end up being exposed as plastics and the chemicals that are attracted to them make their way up the food chain. Once these pellets get into the environment they are extremely difficult to clean up. They're small enough to be considered microplastics as is. Excuse me. And, for example, picking these out of this jar of soil contaminated with plastic pellets took me almost an hour. This is a very small amount of pellets. So in some situations, cleanup can be even more environmentally harmful than the pollution itself. Because it's so tedious, I can expand more on that later. However, it just really points to the fact that we need to avoid these spills in the first place before they even occur. Plastic pellet pollution is litter, plain and simple. There's no excuse for not treating our state and its beautiful scenery and natural resources with more respect. We can and we should do better. And thousands of Coloradans agree. We have the support of fishing outfitters like Cutthroat Anglers in Silverthorne, the San Juan Angler in Durango, groups like Western Resilience Center, Protect Our Rivers, Save the Colorado, the Blue River Watershed Group, the Colorado Environmental Health Coalition, they've all signed a letter of support of Senate Bill 16. So have 46 small businesses in the Denver area that are calling on the legislature to support this bill and help prevent this unnecessary source of microplastic pollution from entering our environment. Physicians and health professionals have also called for action on plastic pellet pollution, citing the health concerns that microplastic contamination could be associated with things like increased risk for heart disease, obesity, or neurological disorders. The list goes on. Again, there is just no excuse to treat our environment like a dumping ground when we can surely do better. It's a matter of not just environmental protection and ecological stability, but human health as well. Companies should not be allowed to dump plastic into our environment. They should not be able to get a permit to do so. and with that in mind I urge you to vote in favor of Senate Bill 16 today thank

dirt essentially that is contaminated with plastic pellet pollution it just helps to show that when these pellets get mixed in with soil it's really hard to even see them in the first place, let alone pick them out pellet by pellet. Thank you for that.

My name is Nick Jamaraglu. I'm the president of High Country River Rafters. Our organization is dedicated to promoting river safety, advocating for conservation, and representing the interests of private rafters across Colorado I here today to speak in strong support of this bill Our members are on Colorado rivers every week and we see the direct consequences of plastic pollution. High Country River Rafters organizes several cleanups throughout the year. Pre-production plastic materials have the potential to cause a lot of harm. These plastics can be mistaken for food, which can kill the fish, and disrupt the aquatic ecosystems that keep our rivers healthy. As rafters, we are the ones left to see this degradation firsthand. For example, Pump House Recreation Area on the Upper Colorado River near Kremling sees over 50,000 visitors annually, but it's also a corridor for heavy train traffic. During our annual cleanups and even regular events, we spend a significant amount of time at the bottom of these train tracks where debris frequently spills off the trains and falls directly into the river. We're out there pulling out microplastics, styrofoam, and industrial waste that has drifted into the eddies where trout feed. We're seeing more and more dead fish, and our raft events are quickly turning into cleanup projects. For my members, every day on the river is a cleanup day. We are constantly pulling debris from the water. But the responsibility of Colorado's water cannot rest solely on volunteers. This needs to be a broader effort. That's why we need this bill. As rafters, we believe strongly in environmental stewardship and do our best to do our part. Companies should not be allowed to dump or spill plastic into the environment that we all rely on for recreation, resources, and enjoyment. Our rivers and waterways should never be a dumping ground. Our club works hard to clean up our rivers, but we cannot solve this through volunteer cleanups alone. We need legislative action to prevent plastic from entering the water in the first place. For the sake of our fish, our habitats, and the future of Colorado's outdoor recreation, I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Good afternoon, Chair Valdez and members of the House Energy and Environment Committee. My name is Ryan Collin. I'm the Policy and Campaign Specialist for EcoCycle. EcoCycle is one of the oldest and largest nonprofit recycling organizations in the country. Our mission is to innovate, implement, and advocate for local and global zero-waste solutions to foster a more regenerative, equitable, and climate-resilient future. The issue of plastic pollution has worsened in our lifetimes, and we support measures such as Senate Bill 16 to prevent further environmental contamination. Like chemical spills, plastic pellets are difficult to clean up when spilled. We are thankful for state leaders like you for passing legislation that helps minimize environmental risks like these in Colorado. This bill prohibits an entity from discharging plastic pellets into our state. Nobody wants that. Unfortunately, facilities, trains, trucks, and ships sometimes spill plastic pellets. As recyclers, we appreciate the amendments the sponsors have already made to ensure that recycling operations handling manufactured plastics are not penalized by this bill. We also support the amendment offered today to remove the criminal penalty language from the bill. Without that language, we believe that recyclers who comply with state and federal clean water regulations and permitting will not be penalized by this bill. Senate Bill 16 is a strong example of the precautionary principle, which holds that the best way to address environmental issues is to prevent them in the first place. It's much more costly, both financially and environmentally, to clean up a disaster than to take preventative measures to lower the risk. In this case, reducing the risk of spilling tiny plastic pieces could prevent a larger environmental issue in the future. On behalf of EcoCycle, we urge this committee to vote in favor of Senate Bill 16 and the amendments offered today. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Committee, do we have questions for our panel? Representative

Mr. Katz.

Representative Goldstein. Thank you. Chair. Another follow-up. So if the EPA were to walk back their regulations, would this protect Colorado?

All right. Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Chair. And this question is for Ryan Call online. Ryan, the companies that exist now that do recycle plastic, are they doing it properly?

Thank you.

Representative Burrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question is, it was stated that these pallets are being unintentionally dumped from train freight and semi-truck freight. Is there any instances of that actually happening? Because the way I know in transportation is that materials are weighed at where the productions of it, and then they're weighed once they get to the sold manufacturer. they would probably find out if there's been any spillage of that freight because that's actual goods and services that they're selling. They would actually lose money if the company they hired to move that material is spilling it, and then they would stop using that company. So I'm just asking if there's any instances of that actually happening in the process of a train freight spilling these pellets or a semi-truck spilling these pellets.

to that. Thank you. You're welcome. And thank you.

you ready can you hear me cool um thank you for the opportunity to speak today my name is Samantha Saverin I a Colorado resident and a staff attorney at Just Zero a national nonprofit that advances zero waste policies. As a Coloradan, I see Senate Bill 16 as an important next step in Colorado's leadership to address plastic pollution. By passing statewide measures like extended producer responsibility for packaging and the Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, the state has recognized the growing threat plastic pollution poses to our communities. Senate Bill 16 is a critical next step to address a major source of global microplastic pollution that has clearer prevention avenues when compared to other forms of microplastic pollution. Importantly, this bill also creates accountability when spills occur. ACC and the plastics industry have pointed to a voluntary program called Operation Clean Sweep as evidence that industry-led safeguards already exist. But voluntary programs are not enough. Operation Clean Sweep is optional, varies widely in its effectiveness and oversight based on whatever tier a company chooses to pay for, and lacks real accountability or consequences when pre-production pellets are mishandled. In fact, we've already seen the consequences of solely relying on voluntary industry-led measures like Operation Clean Sweep. In 2024, BNSF Railway, a major freight carrier that frequently transports pre-production plastic pellets, was sued by local environmental groups in San Diego after pellets were repeatedly found spilled along rail corridors. Despite being a member of Operation Clean Sweep since at least 2022, BNSF still failed to properly seal its rail cars, allowing pellets to escape during transport into the surrounding environment. Microplastic pollution is a pervasive threat to human and environmental health that requires strong policies. Senate Bill 16 is an effective safeguard to prevent devastating microplastic spills before they happen and hold the industry accountable if a spill does occur. It's a practical preventative policy and I urge a favorable report from the committee. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MOPS Clean Air Force acknowledges that the lands that we now know as the United States are the ancestral lands of more than 575 federally recognized tribal Indian nations and many more who remain unrecognized. Today we acknowledge that we are on the ancestral lands of 48 tribal nations of Colorado with two federally recognized tribes, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe. We also honor the ancestral lands of the Cheyenne and Arapahoe nations, which today is home to many communities of the metropolitan. So thank you for taking my comments today. I'm Shaina Oliver. I'm field coordinator for Colorado Moms Clean Air Force and outreach coordinator for ECO Madres. We're a national organization of over 1.5 million parents, caregivers united in fighting for our children's health against harmful air pollution and climate pollution with over 44,000 Colorado members. urge you to support senate bill 16 to protect our communities and environment from discharge of pre-production plastic materials i'm an indigenous dinette mother of four and were descendants of the genocide known as as the indian removal act known to the dinette as the long walk of the navajo as a tribal affiliate of the navajo nation i know from lived experience that tribes are historically and disproportionately harmed by environmental injustice through unjust policies and laws. Because of these environmental injustices, Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-wealth communities have seen disproportionate health impacts from pollution Recent studies on health impacts of microplastics continue to demonstrate why we must prohibit the discharge of pre materials We learned that microplastics are accumulating in our bodies at a rate 50 higher than 9 years ago collecting in our fatty tissues Studies show that microplastics are linked to cancer, intestinal disease, pulmonary disease, reproductive dysfunction, inflammatory diseases, which can further stimulate cancer development. Furthermore, researchers found that those with microplastics in the plaque clogging their neck arteries are more vulnerable to having a heart attack, stroke, or death than those without. The chemical processes used to manufacture plastics introduce harmful substances like PFAS and heavy metals that increase our vulnerability to decreased fertility, cancer, liver damage, thyroid problems, immune effects, and cholesterol changes. Pregnant women and babies are especially vulnerable facing increased risk of low birth weight, skeletal changes, and early puberty in later developmental stages. Colorado Moms Clean Air Force urges your leadership to support Senate Bill 26-016 to prohibit the discharge of pre-production plastic materials to protect the safety of our children and vulnerable populations.

Then we'll get into them. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L10 to SB 016.

Tell us about the amendment.

COMMITTEE QUESTIONS ON L-10? IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF L-10? Sounds like an objection. Okay. L10 is adopted.

This... Whoa, whoa, whoa. Sorry. Second. And there's Rep Goldstein for the second.

Rep Goldstein was so quick last time. I'm getting so excited. L11 must be great. All right. Let's hear about it.

Committee, what are our questions on L-11? Seeing none, is there any objection to the adoption of L-11? Seeing none, L-11 is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

016. Second.

Representative Smith.

Committee questions on L12? Is there any objection to the adoption of L12? Seeing none, L12 is adopted.

All right, committee, do you have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendments phase is now closed. Let's go ahead and make the motion.

One second. We're just verifying your proper routing. It's zero. Oh, another one to the floor. It's to the cow.

As amended.

Sounds right to me.

Okay. Closing comments.

surprise surprise a bill drafter we weren't expecting this plot twist welcome please introduce yourself and um we'll we'll have whose question was it who asked the question mr representative woog Well, can you ask the question again when the time comes but yeah, we'll have her introduce herself really quickly

If you just want to rephrase the question you mr. I think the one we're talking about is just the first one asks is What does this bill do that isn't currently covered in law?

Representative Brown.

Ms. Hefner.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, REP. BURRON. MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I AM NOT AN EXPERT, IS THAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE ISSUED BY THE STATE, SO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, I BELIEVE. AGAIN, I'M NOT AN EXPERT.

Representative Smith. And thank you for allowing me to bring up the bill drafter to clarify his question. I'm going to be short and sweet because we're almost at 1.30. First of all, what I'd like to do is address the witness from the American Chemistry Council regarding the work that CDPHE would be required to do. And we actually asked them about that. And they said that they have not identified any potential challenges to implement the bill. Hence, we have a fiscal note of zero. So this bill, why would Colorado want to allow permits to spill pre-production plastics in the water or on the land? Do we want to be a state that provides permits for polluting? And I ask you to vote yes on SB 016 to protect our waterways and our health.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the Energy and Environment Committee. Senate Bill 16 will prohibit discharges of plastic pellets from facilities or sources that make use package or transport them this bill protects our waterways our wildlife and ourselves i represent the Western Slope where we are always talking about what we can do to protect quality and quantity of our precious water resources and this bill does just that. I ask for your yes vote on Senate Bill 16 as amended.

Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sponsors of the bill, for bringing this forward. I have to think about, you know, in terms of just my lives, our lives, of the increase in the amount of plastics that we have introduced into our bodies, into our environment, and now we're finding it's kind of like I liken it to like smoking. We used to all smoke. No, well, people used to all smoke, and then they finally realized that it was bad for you, and I feel like now we've all been using plastics, and now we're finding out how bad it really is for us. So I appreciate bringing this to our attention and to advocating for trying to do something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Wholeheartedly recognize the concerns about plastic pollutants. I have lived right next to the Potomac in Maryland, and I see that as a very different and stark contrast to our, you know, landlocked state, though we do have precious waterways in Colorado that are arguably though much smaller. I question the frequency with which we have concerns about if we're talking specifically about plastic waste not just micro plastics and things like that because I don't think this bill is intentionally about micro plastics or even related to micro plastics per se at all so I question the frequency with which we have spills or disposals of these plastic pollutants in Colorado and I questioned beyond that and maybe more importantly the proximity the frequency of that happening in close proximity to waterways recognize that stormwater wastewater things like that can carry these things when can carry these things but I just think that we are probably pushing to do a thing that will be a an additional regulation and requirement on manufacturers producers transporters things like that that not really necessary for the ultra and extreme negligible amount of concern that this really does create. Although, again, like I said, plastic pollutants, they're a real thing, and I think that we do a good job of containing those. it appears from what I've been able to to look at that the number of permits that CDPHE has granted for this I mean unless what I get is wrong is zero so they have not had this concern where they've had people asking to or being permitted in in any case by them to discharge nurdles into waterways. As said before, I mean, I love the environment. I love our, I love Colorado. I love our, you know, the natural beauty that we are blessed with. But I don't know that we need to go over and above in regulating our businesses and in things that seem to be an imperceptible problem.

And with that, Ms. Falco, please call the roll. Representatives Barone.

Goldstein. Yes.

Yes. Pascal.

Yes. Saw.

Smith. Yes.

no Wilford excused

Mr. Chair yes and that passes on a vote of 7-4 you're off to the committee of the whole and with that committee we'll be busy tomorrow I'll recommend packing a lunch that has a cookie until then the energy and environment committee will stand in adjournment.