Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 116

The House will come to order. Today, Representative Johnson will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Excuse.

Excused.

Excuse.

Excuse.

Excuse.

It's on the wall.

Excuse.

Excuse.

Here.

Here.

It's a Saturday.

Okay, so thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we typically don't do this. This is on the Colorado Channel. It is a very special day. Today is my dad's birthday. Many of you have met him. He sat and talked to Ken DeGraff for two hours.

Now you know where I get it from. so i'm wondering if we can vote for the journal today i will make the actual motion for my dad thank you for the mother's day prayer too brother okay oh that's right representative hearts look at my dad we're literally baptized together in the sea of galilee in the name of jesus so vote yes stand up here for this okay yes madam speaker i move that the journal of friday May 8th, 2026 be approved as corrected by the chief clerk in honor of Philip Bacon.

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

Oh, wow, bro.

No gumbo for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The State Civic Military Veterans Affairs Committee will meet today upon adjournment to hear the bills that are outlined in your whatever the pink thing is. It was salmon.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy Saturday. It's an honor to serve with you. Happy Saturday. It's an honor to serve with you. Shabbat Shalom, members. Finance Committee will be meeting five minutes upon adjournment in room 112 to hear Senate Bill 170, 191, and 45, and any other bills that may be assigned between now and then. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. the ongoing saga that is House Appropriations Committee will meet again on Monday. I believe it will be at 845, but stay tuned to your calendars. The calendar will be updated with the bills that we will hear on Monday, and we may hear any other bills that have been referred to us at that time. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until Monday.

House Bill 1433 by Representatives McCluskey and Velasco, also Senators Cutter and Roberts, concerning funding to sustain the Firefighter Behavioral Health Benefits Program.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1433 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1429 to after Senate Bill 42.

House Bill 1416 by Representatives Wynne and Brown, also Senators Mobley and Carson, concerning transfers from the Universal High School Scholarship Cash Fund.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1416 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

House Bill 1431 by Representatives Bacon and Soap or also Senators Gonzalez and Judah concerning demonstrating competency for occupational licensure portability.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1431 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

House Bill 1422 by Representative Clifford, also Senators Coleman and Frizzell, concerning security measures for certain governmental entities.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1422 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, security for the three branches is an important task to undertake, and I do not diminish the work that has been done. I know that a lot of work has gone into preparing this very lengthy bill to try and provide added security measures for each of the branches. That being said, I will be a no today for a number of reasons. one I am not comfortable with the idea of creating a police force under the legislative branch I think it's important that even though such a force was created in the judicial branch that we try and maintain the branches as much as is possible two I am still concerned related to some of the added language that speaks to what our citizenry can do as relates to engaging with us and about us online. The standards are very different of acceptable conversation and behavior from community to community. And without understanding that cultural context, I fear that some of my constituents will be roped up in the category of severe and imminent threat, even if that's not actually what they are intending. Three, I am concerned about the fact that the creation of this new entity for the court's security is really just a workaround for Tabor, which should be interesting for my side of the aisle because obviously we concern ourselves quite frequently with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So those are three of the reasons why I will be a no today. But I do want to, again, reiterate the importance of providing security in this place and in other places that are government-connected, whether it's the governor's mansion or the Supreme Court or the legislature. I reassert my argument from Seconds that the security plans and policies should take into account every person who works in the legislature, the entire ecosystem, which does include the lobby corps, who, as I mentioned before, are the ones most exposed when some sort of security threat would arise. I'll also say as someone who has been impacted personally through theft and trespass in this space it is important that we give clear and direct thought to this important topic I appreciate genuinely the work that you've done on this but for those reasons I just can't get there.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I request permission to run a third reading amendment.

In some of the areas about how the Secretary of State and local governments deal with our local records, they have come back and asked us to make some changes to the language in their section.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

thank you madam speaker I move amendment 11 to house bill 1422 and ask that it be displayed

thank you madam speaker One of the things that they needed to correct was to make sure that there was going to be no new thing or new burden for any local governments. And they cleaned up some of the language specifically about how the Secretary of State handles these records. So records do remain public. So if somebody requests your address information, they can still get that. It's just not posted online. But they will also be keeping a list of the people that have made that request. and I request an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion the motion before us

No, no.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1422 as amended on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I just want to get up here and say that I appreciate the good representative for taking this on. This bill was a priority for the executive committee and something that we've discussed since I came into this role. Almost at every single meeting, working with CSP and talking about the very unique dangers that not only we face here as the legislature, but in the other branches of government. And I really appreciate the work you've put in here, and I will be a yes today. And I appreciate you taking on this task, and I know the meetings and meetings and meetings that you've had with our different security entities talking about the different threats we have. And as kind of the debate went on this on seconds, there's things that we get briefed on that are things that I'm not going to say up here from the well that we just – you normally don't hear about. And I truly appreciate our CSP for the steps they take. But, you know, we're in a time where the violence against elected officials is just, I would say, almost at an all-time high. And we see it on both sides of the aisle. Obviously, Madam Speaker, with your own personal friend who was tragically murdered in Minnesota, all the way to what we see on the national level with our president. And so I just want to get up here and say I do appreciate all the work that you've put into this and that this was an executive committee priority here to make sure that we get home to our families and also make sure our families are in this consideration as well. So I really do appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to briefly speak to a couple of things here. Number one, this has been a priority. And I appreciate the acknowledgment for the amount of work for a number of entities. This does cross all three branches of government. A very cohesive front, even in the places where we had differentiation. The main points of this bill, where we were creating a new position for the General Assembly, have never been in question, only slight details for how we did those things and who had what responsibilities and authorities in this building. Same thing when you go across to the judicial branch. This has been their number one priority bill for the year, so I appreciate everyone's trust in having us all have these probably easily over 100 meetings that got us to where we are. I do want to say that this is important. You know, there's a lot we're not talking about when we're talking about the security of the General Assembly. There a lot that we not discussing about the fear that sometimes arises with the members of the General Assembly But that fear also exists with the judicial branch It exists with our probation officers. It exists with our court employees. And we haven't tended to this in law in a meaningful way in a really long time. A lot of the laws that I addressed in here were from the 1960s, when we used to have Denver police in the building and the sergeant-at-arms were like the strong arm of the security for the building. It's very, very different today. And we were meticulous, and we went through and addressed everything from all the way back then all the way until today, and I really do believe that what we've gotten to is right. There is no opposition outside of this room from any group or organization or any law enforcement entity, and I really request some grace here if you're on the fence about this and make sure that we send this bill to the Senate strongly.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

House Bill 1426 by Representatives Camacho and Zocay, also Senator Roberts, concerning the 2026 legislative report submitted by the Department of Law to the Joint Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly in a connection therewith, implementing recommendations contained in the report.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1426 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I request permission to run a third reading amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On second reading, we had a thoughtful, robust debate about allowing the Attorney General's office to enter into contingency fee agreements with private attorneys to hold bad actors accountable. And it was the kind of thing that really split the chamber and made every business interest anxious to hire lobbyists to talk to us. So we ended up taking it out, and I just thought today, why not just put it back in and see what happens here today? I'm just kidding. This is a technical amendment that our drafter caught. It's purely technical.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just for clarity, we are not doing that. But consistent with our third reading amendment from yesterday we have really worked our drafter incredibly hard so hard in fact that you do in fact sometimes find numbering errors So what this third reading amendment does is identify that we had a numbering error and we'll correct that here so we can put the revisor's bill a little bit, make it a little slimmer next year. We ask that you accept this amendment

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to say from the back of the room, I saw a few of the lobbyists start having a heart attack and did just want to come down here and mention that.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Amendment 11 to House Bill 1426 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I promised, this is only a substantive change to the numbering and nothing more. Not today. Sorry, non-substantive change to the numbering and nothing more. We ask for a yes vote.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

No, no.

Yes.

House Bill 1063 by Representatives Bradfield and Wright and also Senator Amabile concerning publishing an easily accessible list of secure transportation providers on certain departments' websites.

House Bill 1325 by Representatives Caldwell and Farray, also Senators Ball and Pelton R., concerning natural medicine.

Yes.

Senate Bill 172 by Senators Hendrickson and Kipp, also representatives based in Eckhart and Paschal, concerning the Front Range Passenger Rail District.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Senate Bill 93 by Senator Sullivan, also Representatives Morrow and Lindsay, concerning ensuring compliance with workers' compensation and insurance coverage requirements.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 93 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Senate Bill 175 by Senators Snyder and Catlin also Representatives Morrow and Richardson concerning the adjustment of an employer's

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 175 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Senate Bill 131 by Senators Ball and Pelton Bee, also Representatives Woodrow and Woog, concerning protections against abusive practices in sports betting and in connection therewith making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 131 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Senate Bill 165 by Senators Roberts and Pelton are also representatives of McCormick and Soper concerning measures to support species conservation and in connection therewith, authorizing an appropriation from the Species Conservation Trust Fund.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 165 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes To tone Please close the machine with 61 I, 2 no, and 2 excuse Senate Bill 165 is adopted co-sponsors please Please close the machine. Mr Schiebel please read the title to Senate Bill 157

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 157 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote?

Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 63 ayes, 0, no, 2, excuse. Senate Bill 157 is adopted. Cosponsors. Representative Morrow, cosponsors. Representative Ricks, co-sponsors. Mr. Schiebel. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 154

Madam Majority Leader

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 154 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote?

Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. with 63 ayes, 0 no, 2 excuse. Senate Bill 154 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the titles. House Bill 1286.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1286 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote?

Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 59 aye, 4 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1286 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1424.

Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Froehlich. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for permission for a third reading amendment.

We require, we are asking for permission because we require a technical fix regarding retention of audio-video recordings.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L23 to House Bill 1424 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you. As previously mentioned, this clarifies who retains the audio-video recordings. and we ask for a yes vote.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1424 as amended on third reading and final passage.

Thank you Madam Chair or Madam Speaker We mark time constantly Meetings deadlines committee votes We a body that runs on schedules But there another clock running in Colorado and across this country and one that doesn't appear on any calendar. According to an investigation by the New York Times between 2017 and 2022, nearly eight minutes, a sexual assault or sexual misconduct case was reported to Uber. That clock has been running ever since whether they want to acknowledge it or not. Now I want to tell you about 29 minutes. 29 minutes. That's how long I was in a lift from when I was picked up to when the driver had indicated that the ride had been completed. I'd had a few drinks with friends and I thought I was being responsible. I followed every safety rule I knew. I checked the app. I confirmed the car. The driver said my name. I got in and I thought I was safe. A few minutes into the ride, the driver started asking personal questions. Then comments escalated to what he wanted to do to me, how he felt my husband wouldn't mind if we had sex. The man had decided what was going to happen before I got into his car and he knew how he wanted his night to turn out. As women, we're taught from the time we're very small that our safety is less important than someone else's comfort. That instinct does not disappear when we get into a car alone with a stranger. It intensifies. Margaret Atwood once said that men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid men will kill them. So we fawn, we de-escalate, we smile and we hope that it's enough to keep us safe. And I know what some of you are thinking. You're not saying it out loud, but the questions are there. Why didn't she get out? Aren't there safety features she could have used? Was she polite? Why didn't she fight him off? And I want you to notice that not one of those questions is about him. That's victim blaming. And it's the first wall survivors hit before law enforcement, before the courts, before the companies that are supposed to protect us. The question is why he felt entitled to do anything at all. According to investigative reporting from the New York Times, Uber knows that the sexual assaults that happen on their watch follow distinct patterns. Women most often are the victims, whether they're passengers or drivers. The attacks typically occur late at night and on the weekend, with pickups originating near a bar. In the vast majority of cases, the offenders are men, drivers, or passengers, and intoxicated passengers are especially vulnerable. I appreciate you all standing. You're welcome to sit. When the driver pulled up just past my house, the nightmare that I thought was almost over was just beginning. He put the car in park and got into the back seat and I completely froze. He started kissing me and trying to turn my face toward him and I disassociated. When I tried to get out, he blocked my exit. He pushed me back into the car and went on to sexually assault me. I don't know how much time elapsed between when the car stopped and when I was finally able to break free. But what I do know is that I ran down my neighbor's driveway as he called after me, and I hid in her backyard until it was safe to go home. I know that I desperately pounded on my own back door, patio door, waking the dogs up until my husband opened it and I fell into his arms, sobbing and trying to explain what had just happened while our two children slept upstairs. What I did not know and what I had no way of knowing was that the man who assaulted me was not even the authorized driver for Lyft He was an imposter someone using another person account Account sharing is against the rules and was apparently invisible to Lyft There was nothing I could have done differently, no safety protocol that would have protected me, because the safety that Uber and Lyft have been selling us is a lie. You've seen their ads, and I know that you have. the 15-second videos that show happy friends smiling drivers and the words safety flashing across the screen. They've spent billions crafting the image that makes you believe that when you use their app, when you hail a ride, when you get into the car, that you are protected and they are there for you, that you are safe. But here's what they haven't told you. From 2017 to 2022, there were 400,181 Uber trips that resulted in reports of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. But Uber had previously only disclosed 12,522. You might be asking yourself, why would they only disclose a small number of sex assaults when the real number is so bad? It's because Uber and Lyft use the details of a complaint to rank a sex assault from serious to what they consider to be least serious. Then, when they share the minimized numbers, they explain it all away because they control the narrative, the reporting, the platform. It's not a rounding error. It's a cover-up. In our first stakeholder meeting this session, Uber sent an all-women team to tout their great safety accomplishments, including launching a women-to-women ride preference. They presented it like it was new, but it wasn't. It was something they considered launching in the United States in 2019 and then set aside for six years. Six years. The New York Times found that Uber's own data scientists and safety experts spent years studying the problem of sexual assaults happening on their watch. They tested tools to be more effective, sophisticated matching algorithms, mandatory video recording, pairing female passengers with female drivers, and instead of implementing safety measures, they opted instead to grow their base and protect their business model that classifies drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, allowing Uber and Lyft to avoid paying significant costs associated with traditional employment, including minimum wage, overtime, employee benefits, and time for rest breaks, and the impacts of their decisions are playing out right here in Colorado right now. Last year, John Pastor Mendoza was sentenced to 290 years in prison for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and attempted sex assault of dozens of women. Over four years, he used his job as a Lyft driver to victimize women in Denver, giving them water bottles laced with drugs, causing them to black out. Some of them woke up in an unknown home missing their underwear and other personal belongings like their cell phones. In 2004, a Lyft driver was sentenced for raping a 13-year-old passenger in Aurora. The victim told police she was with friends at a park and a friend's older brother ordered her a Lyft to take her home around 1.40 a.m. The driver picked up the victim and during the ride he began reaching into the back seat to touch her upper thigh and asked to hold her hand. Shortly after, he drove the car into a secluded parking lot and climbed into the back seat He raped and performed oral sex on the victim and after the assault he gave her although he couldn explain what the money was for Just last week an Uber driver was arrested in Arvada for sexually assaulting a woman after the woman went to a bar in the Denver area and requested an Uber ride with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend got out of the car to open the door to their home, and the driver got into the back seat with the victim. When he saw her boyfriend coming back, he drove away with the passenger are still inside. This driver's been on the app for one year and completed a thousand rides, and police are now looking for other victims. Nearly 3,400 cases of sex assault have been consolidated into a multi-jurisdictional federal proceeding, and in January, a federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a rape survivor after rejecting Uber's argument that they are not responsible for their driver's actions. Last month, a North Carolina federal jury found Uber liable again. The next cases will be heard in September, and I expect that they'll find what we already know. While drivers of Uber and Lyft are classified as independent contractors, the marketing and control that both companies hold mean that their drivers are agents of the companies and as such should be responsible for the safety that they promise. Last session, we passed House Bill 1291. We did the work, survivors testified, and we negotiated in good faith and then it was vetoed using industry talking points and I was devastated. I felt completely defeated. I felt silenced. I felt like the sign-off and approval of that billion-dollar company mattered more than what happened to me and to thousands of other people and I felt violated all over again. We regulate taxis. We regulate buses. We regulate airlines. Not to punish them, but because when a person steps into a vehicle, they deserve to know that someone other than a corporation decided the minimum standard for their safety. The memories of the assault haunt me in my dreams in this work, in the way I parent, and there's not a day that goes by that I'm not impacted. When I think about time, I know that I'm not the same person I was before the assault, and I don't know that I will ever see that version of me again. And what's more is that it's unlikely I will ever get the justice that I or thousands of other survivors deserve. Uber and Lyft have had time to do the right thing. They have the resources, they have the data, the tools, the control, and they know the warning signs. This bill is reasonable. It is common sense. Members, the watch on your desk asks, how much longer will Colorado wait for safety? Survivors have waited long enough and time is up. Vote yes. Thank you.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

House Bill 1432 by Representatives Soper and Stuart Kay, also Senators Roberts and Pelton R. concerning health care payment programs.

Madam Speaker, I move. House Bill 1432 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Senate Bill 189 by Senators Rodriguez and Coleman, also Representatives Duren and Bacon, concerning the use of automated decision-making technology in consequential decisions. Any connection therewith? Making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 189 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for permission for a third reading amendment. Please briefly explain.

It's a concept about paying for job losses through a fee on AI tokens. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 189.

Representative Morrow votes yes.

Representative Weinberg votes no.

Representative Ricks votes yes.

you, members, for permission. This is a concept I was working on for quite a while this session, waiting for an opportunity to get it into another bill or to have a late bill put in place. You should have a copy of this on your desk. This is about human capital resilience, is what I'm calling this, and it's about the growth of AI and how it's going to affect job growth. Gemini Pro 2.5, just in a year from April 24 to April 25, went from utilizing 9.7 trillion tokens to 480 trillion tokens in a year. And for your information, token is just kind of a measure of how much computing capacity it takes to put a little bit of data through a GPU. But according to a recent Goldman Sachs report, workers displaced by AI could also see a decade of lower future wages. Historically, tech-displaced workers take an average of 3% pay cut, but workers will also face a higher unemployment risk in future years following that, and they're calling this a scarring effect because how much it persists. We've seen layoffs due to AI. Most recently, I just saw an article, the company Block, which owns Cash App and Square, nearly half of their 8,000 workers, 4,000 were just laid off, and they were saying it was from AI. On a report just from yesterday from CBS, they were saying, a report from Challenger Gray and Christmas, that more than one in four jobs in their report were cut due to AI, and this was a leading reason of AI loss for the second month in a row. They're saying 26% of the total cuts in April were due to AI loss. The largest losses were in the tech sector. But whether this is the actual reason or not, there's a dispute about whether AI is actually causing the job loss. It's costing money going into these jobs, and people are not getting paid as much as they have been getting. White-collar jobs are really at risk. This is not really happening before. Cloudflare just cut 20% of their jobs, 1,100 workers, because of a six-fold increase in AI usage. Their stock price dropped 19% in one day. Another Goldman Sachs report said that AI job losses raise the unemployment rate by 0.1%. A report from the Tampa Bay Business Wealth Journal said that when white-collar jobs decline, housing is impacted negatively with rising delinquencies, foreclosures, and a softer lending, which leads to fewer buyers. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that an average mortgage default rate will jump 2.4% for unemployment, and now it will go up to 8.5% unemployment, and that's going to triple the rate of defaults. First, we'll see a freeze in the housing market, and then we can see a crash in the housing market. the housing downfall

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, members. I want to recognize my colleague from Jefferson County in regards to her insights and her interests. For what it's worth, I think any conversation that we need to have in this space is probably worth having by the legislature. But I am respectfully going to ask for a no vote. The structure of this bill does not veer into this lane. and I think we might all be aware of how much time and space we have taken to get to the conclusion of what Senate Bill 189 is before you. So I will end with a little bit of deference here in saying thank you to the original bill sponsors of Senate Bill 205, which includes my colleague here from Jefferson County, my colleague from Adams County, and my, I'm calling my uncle from Denver, the majority leader in the Senate. They are pioneers, and they are incredibly insightful. But again, going to respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment, and I hope we can get to the discussion of the underlying issues in Senate Bill 189.

Assistant Majority Leader Bacon. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, members. I want to take a moment to thank this chamber and to thank everyone who worked on this bill. There were 19 participants in this task force. I think when I was in front of you over a special session, And we had a sense of where it might go. And I'll probably be the first ones to talk about just any of my general excitement about engaging with the first floor on policy. And what we had to really work out here is a few things. First, we had to say we need to find a resolution on this in regards to the impacts of Senate Bill 205. What was amazing about it was that it put Colorado on a map in a space where we do believe, where I think all of us deep down believe we need some policy. When I was in front of you in special session when we voted to extend the potential timeline of 205, I said a couple things to you. I said, we have so many wonderful professionals in this room. How do we feel as healthcare providers if an algorithm is making decisions? How do we feel about ourselves just as consumers if my job, my healthcare decisions, my rent, my loans were made by machines and we had no idea what it was that they considered? And at the end of the day, we spent a lot of time as elected bodies building up guardrails on how to protect consumers, what do we do if we're discriminated against, or what do we do if we have a harmful diagnosis. And then came along this technology. Well, guess what? Our concerns and risks don't go away. The tool changed. and it's up to us to figure out how to maintain those protections in a 21st century context. We cannot only give away perhaps our decision making, but we cannot give away our will. Even though we have technology that will support us in becoming more efficient the question is what are we giving up And I know I don care what side of the aisle anyone is on I know we kind of all uncomfortable a little bit When I presented this bill in committee, I said, take out your phone right now and just Google, how do people feel about AI? The irony is, yes, we're using our phone and we're asking Google, that's probably driven by AI. But the truth of the matter is, we are at a place where we have to, it's 2026, we're more than a quarter into the 21st century, and we're going to have to step up and keep up. And so does this bill go far enough? Well, it depends on who you ask. I'm pretty sure if you ask literally anybody who worked on it, the answer is no. But it's a good starting place because we need to keep an eye out on not only how businesses are developing, but any potential impacts and harm that may be happening to any one of our constituents. And the only way we can do that is by what's in this bill. What is in this bill are transparency measures. It says people just need to know when this technology is being used to make some of these consequential decisions. We are going to get reports from the Attorney General's office about businesses that may violate their requirement to disclose, not only to the people who buy the tech, but the people who use it with us. and so this is a first step and we should be proud as Colorado that we have said at the end of the day this may not be and actually I don't think it is that we are regulating AI but rather we're saying if you are going to use it this is what our expectations are and that's really important for our country. And so I look forward to continued conversations. Despite all of our ups and downs and debates and here to X amount or X time in the night, we still have a lot of potential and really great thinkers in this room. We do have to continue to talk about together what kind of privacy expectations should we have over our data. We do have to talk about what is the impact of this commerce on our economy or not, including who will and will not have jobs. That has to come. But today, we're asking that these businesses be transparent and that people have an opportunity to correct their own information that maybe a human being can look at it. And in the event it causes harm, we have a pathway, just like we did if a person did it. So this is not a leap. This is a hop. I don't know. I can't hop anymore. This is a hop, but it's in the right direction, and we're going to respectfully ask for an aye vote, hopefully from everyone in this chamber. Thank you all.

Representative Weinberg votes no Representative Ricks how do you vote Yes Representative Ricks votes yes

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 171.

concerning prohibiting the disposal of pre-production plastic materials at a location that does not have a certificate of designation to operate as a solid waste disposal site and facility.

Representative Weinberg votes yes.

Representative Ricks votes yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 42. Senate Bill 42 by Senators Weissman and Imoble, also Representatives Zocay and Sirota, concerning the classification of certain state revenue for the purposes of calculating state fiscal year spending pursuant to Section 20 of Article 10 of the state constitution and in connection therewith, clarifying the statutory definitions of collections for another government and damage awards and making an appropriation.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1429. House Bill 1429 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning the consolidated administration of public assistance programs, any connection therewith making and reducing an appropriation.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of the House Bill 1274. House Bill 1274 by Representatives Lindsay and Garcia, also Senators Wallace and Weissman, concerning authorization for a state agency to award a percentage of the total value of a grant agreement to a non-profit grantee of a grant program of the agency upon the execution or renewal of the grant agreement and in connection therewith, making an appropriation.

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 135 Senate Bill 135 by Senators Bridges and Kipp also Representatives Bacon and Lukens concerning state public education K-12 funding and in connection therewith increasing appropriations for state public education K-12 for 10 years allowing the state to retain an amount of state revenue in excess of the limitation of state fiscal year spending equal to state public K-12 education funding and submitting a ballot question to the registered electors of the state.

Yes, thank you. Our drafters did find some editing and technical errors, and we would like to correct those.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

AML Bacon. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L37 and ask that it be displayed. One moment, please. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, members. Again, these are some clerical errors. We need to strike the language of voter approval of the ballot measure included and just substitute the section because we're just making a reference to what would then be in statute. And that is the proper way to write. regards to these questions.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 135 as amended on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the... What's that? I think I might just go sit down now. All right, so we're going to talk about this really quick. We're going to talk about how 80% graduate, only 25% pass. There is absolutely no guarantee that the money will solve this problem. This is a blank check to an empty promise. Priorities get funded prior to preferences. This is a preference. We are pre-spending a nonexistent surplus to the tune of nearly $1 billion. dollars Colorado has not prioritized Coloradoans have prioritized education and there is we are nearly at per pupil per year So maybe that will expedite them a little bit All right, so seriously, this is a blank, I'm sorry, but despite the good intentions, this is a blank check to an empty promise. There's no guarantee the money's going to go where it's going to go. These priorities, if the education is a priority, it needs to get funded prior to everything else. I talked a lot about it yesterday. We talked about multiple times hundreds of millions of dollars that are going into programs that have absolutely no benefit for the citizens of Colorado, not even an attempt to show a benefit from this body to the citizens of Colorado. Hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. This pre-spends nearly $800 million worth of potential surplus. What happens when that doesn't deliver? This bill has promised, written a blank check, provided a blank check, signed it, and it is based, again, on an empty promise. So the citizens of Colorado have prioritized education. They've come back for education time and time and time again. Citizens of Colorado, I would highly request that you vote no on this because it is just another undermining. We are pre-spending any possible surplus. That is a tax increase on the citizens of Colorado. Money that is overtaxed and then you turn it into a retention is just confirming that it is a tax. So let's get our budgeting priorities in order. If education is a priority, let's fund that. there is absolutely no guarantee that the money that is promised with this blank check is going to materialize. We're asking teachers to make determinations, make life choices based on money that may or may not even be there. And then what we're going to be committing to is we're going to then I think what's going to happen with this is the money will fail to materialize. the teachers and they will be expecting it and then we'll have to come back and say oh wow that didn't that didn't happen because the business community is not recovering under this the uh the reign of uh the the gold dome cesspool here so i ask for a no vote representative gonzalez

thank you speaker pro tem and first i do want to compliment the the sponsors you're trying to address a real issue and secondly you're appropriately going to the voters to ask their permission to do this. But my opinion of the bill has not changed in the last 13 and a half hours. The ballot question is misleading. It does not describe what the bill does. It does not fully describe the scope of what is being asked. And I think that it's been hijacked for purposes beyond education just to provide spending authority to this body. You know, just a couple of years after we redesigned and updated the school funding formula, we're deciding that we just need to add another 2% on top of that without just a flat rate. We aren't looking at what specifically is needed. but the ballot question itself promises things that we as a legislature cannot deliver because class sizes, teacher retention, and teacher pay are functions of local school boards. Hope is not a method, so just putting it in the ballot question is not going to make it so, but misleading the voters or letting the voters, and not purposefully, but leading voters to believe that that's going to be the outcome if this passes is wrong. We can't promise that. We should not be putting it in the ballot question. We are giving ourselves the authority to collect 24% more money than we did this year. Times are hard Retaining that money makes the lives of our citizens even harder Every one of them has a right to set their own priorities and executing those priorities takes their own resources We shouldn be taking resources from the people in order to run the priorities that we set in this house. I I urge a no vote, and I do urge any citizen confronted with this ballot measure, if it were to pass, to do their research and decide if it is the right solution for the problems that your families face and the state faces. I think you'll vote no.

Representative Slough. Thank you, Speaker Pro Tim. and to the representative from Denver, yes, let's talk about root causes. But it is certainly not TABOR. TABOR protects people, and it protects people's tax dollars. The problem are all of the other programs that people more to one side of the aisle in front of me than the other tend to choose to put into place. I could go on and on and list them. There's too many of them. Those are the things that we should be looking at. Those are the priorities. your number one priority may not be somebody else's number one priority that's reality that's life education ought to be very high on our priority list well above so many of the other things that we fund many of the other things that we fund ought to be wholesale cut period taber is not the problem taber is what makes sure that people the citizens your constituents It's how we protect their life, their livelihood, the time and effort that they put into earning the money that we so easily take from their pockets through taxes and fees and everything else. So yes, let's talk about the root causes. Tabor is not the root cause. It's what protects us. The root causes are the programs that we shouldn't be paying for.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. A well-educated citizenry is necessary for good governance in the administration of our republic. The purpose of education in the citizen realm, in the governmental realm, is an important one. To develop generation after generation of individuals who have virtue, who have knowledge, who have understanding, and who can self-govern, and who can continue to grow a civilization to greater and greater heights. It's an important task. the focus on the next generation is paramount what are we doing of any value if they are not top of mind when we talk about funding education there are a lot of different elements and in 10 minutes we don't really have time to get into most of them but there are a few things that I would like to bring up as relates to increasing the amount of funding. Because we recognize that when we increase in one area, decreases have to be made in others. And what I mean by that is, while this doesn't actually raise in the initial calculation someone's tax liability, it does ultimately alter their tax liability because the amount of monies that they would otherwise be refunded under our current system will be eliminated for the foreseeable future. So if they were expecting to get over the next 10 years, let's say $1,000, $1,200, and it grows by $200 every year, those are dollars that that family could expend in other ways. And for us as the state to collect them for the purpose of education is a shifting. And the question becomes, is that a valid shift? And there are just some things. Yesterday we talked about average teacher pay and the fact that in many counties, the average pay of teachers in the districts in that county is at par if not above the average salary of a person employed outside of the school system in that county. And so to suggest that our teachers are underpaid is a questionable proposition in light of the fact that others, the average of their neighbors, are getting paid less than them. We also need to look at student enrollment. Did you know Colorado enrollment has dropped by nearly 30,000 students or dropped by nearly 30,000 students during the first COVID era decline, 2020 to 2021? A 2025 report found that another 6,867 students left the public school system between 2022 and 2025. And the newest 2025-2026 count showed an additional drop of about 10,000 students, bringing statewide enrollment down from over 910,000 pre-pandemic to roughly 870,793. If we're seeing a drop in students, then presumably we would see a drop in the need for funds. Enrollment has declined consecutively for the last five years. many districts are seen falling elementary enrollment suggesting fewer younger children statewide that they attribute to lower birth rates which this body incentivizes by paying for the death of the next generation rising housing costs pushing families out, homeschooling growth, online charter alternatives and demographic shifts so the pay is at par. The number of students is diminishing. And then we look and we see that from 2015 to 2025, student enrollment in Colorado on that decade, right, increased by 1%. Teacher hiring increased by 4.7 percent but administrative hiring increased over 27 percent and those administrators they make on average 37 000 more dollars than the teachers seems like we're building a top heavy bureaucracy as opposed to a student friendly educational system So do we need these new dollars or are we overreaching because we have a contentment problem? The bill sponsors yesterday admitted that a large amount of the dollars that will now be freed up can go to whatever other programs this body has in their mind. Is this really about students? Or is it about the priorities of the people in this room and wanting to make sure that there are line items available for them? A happy man is one who wants what he has. An unhappy one gets what he wants but never stops wanting. My district often says, well, this next year has to be better, right? They can't do as much crazy, right? We've reached the bottom of the barrel, right? They can't go any deeper. They can't think about any more ridiculousness. This is their words. And year after year I come home and give new updates and they stand amazed But there is a discontent There is this deep desire, seemingly, to create a utopia without recognizing that the definition of utopia is no place. It doesn't exist. We could take every last dollar from the people of Colorado and still this body would want to create more programs and spend more money and embrace the good idea fairy to the fullest extent. Last but not least, I do want to again put on the record my opposition to the ballot language. Our title board members looked at the language of this particular referred measure and said it doesn't express properly to the people what is being done here. It needs to be altered. It needs to be changed. We were told yesterday when we were asked to vote on it that the language is no longer valid because the bill has been changed, but you'll note that that language from the beginning hasn't changed. So if the text was so substantially changed that it required that that amendment fail, then presumably this language should also have been amended. But it wasn't. It wasn't. And I can't say exactly why, But I'll tell you, going back to a comment I made earlier this week, my father would interpret that to mean that it's not being changed because we want to use the heartstrings of people to be able to free up more dollars for a slush fund here.

I can't support that. And while I suspect this will be voted through, I really hope the people of Colorado see through it and vote no.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Brotin. This is the first time I've spoken twice, something on third reading, and I did not plan to speak about this on third reading. But I did bite my tongue quite a bit yesterday during seconds. and I didn't want to do that, but I should have. I should have spoken to this. I do not like this. I'm sure you're shocked. But I appreciate the words from the representative from Penrose, and I do want to echo the ballot language problem. A handful of years ago in the town of Berthoud, there was a ballot measure that was put for the people. And at the end of the vote count, I believe it was two votes that separated the yes and the no. So if one person had voted differently, it would have been a tie to the person. If two people had changed it differently, it would have been a vastly different outcome. It meant the spending of millions of dollars in the town of Berthoud I think the money that eventually got spent could have been spent better We're not talking necessarily about that other than the ballot language was very difficult for people. For me, I'll just speak for myself. My wife and I both read it a good number of times. I don't think that the ballot language on that was very clear. I don't think that the ballot language for this is particularly clear. I think most people are going to take as much time as it seems like sometimes around here we get to vote on things when they're dropped on us last minute. People are going to read it, and I fear that they won't recognize the entirety of what the measure will do because of the unclarity. It's also been spoken to the budgets of school districts, which is an important thing. There's always two things that we need more money for, and the children in schools is always one of them. And it's probably not untrue. There's probably places where we could spend more for education. Teachers probably deserve a little bit more than they get. but I don't think administration costs need to be where they're at. The other representative from Greeley, who will speak after me again, and he spoke earlier, we were in the same meeting a good handful of months ago now before this session started where we heard some of the concerns from one of our school districts talking about how a lot of the things that have been put in place by this body that now require them to do ABC through XYZ more, and in addition to what they normally would want to do, which is educate children and help those children to be able to learn, not necessarily just be given knowledge that the teacher may want to impart. Although I think it's more important to teach children how to learn, not necessarily teach them facts, because sometimes those facts aren't exactly facts, but we pay for programs to tell them that some of those facts are facts, and they're not really facts. But now we have to layer on administration costs. We have to make sure that teachers get training in DEI, things like that that are not the school's place. But now we've got to track that training. We've got to have another person in the district that just make sure that the training gets done and a number of other things that we layer on to their costs. How about we layer off some of those costs and see where the money is at? And then how about we also make sure that in this ballot language people are crystal clear

And I think that this issue should not be partisan. I don't think it's being made partisan, but I think we should be fragile with the situation about our education, our public education systems. I think that I invite and welcome dialogue from our teachers. You know, I'm not a teacher. I admit that, but we do have a teacher that's an elected here who, you know, I think if we work together, we can find some ideas that are innovative to help and fund our public schools and our teachers and our students, because I think that that's something that we need to have these tough discussions. I will also say, I know a lot of you in this room do not like Tabor. You do not. And I think you see it as a potential roadmap.

Thank you, Mr. Spirigotem. again, I would just say the Colorado is overwhelmingly approved of TABOR and this is TABOR compliant. You are taking it to the voters. I get that. That's part of TABOR, the dynamic that's the design of TABOR. And I know that there's a lot of controversy over, you know, circumventing that and I think there's other bills that circumvent TABOR. But at the same time, I think we should be very mindful about what we're trying to address here. Because I don't trust government math. This is no disrespect to our non-policy team. I know some projections have been off and I just think that what happens then if we have the funding let's say this passes and we're still having the same problems what happens then what's our plan B what's our potential plan C but I will just say I will keep it short I appreciate the dialogue but you know the color brands love Tabor you know I think we should all be on the record on how we really feel about it and I encourage a novel on this bill representative Garcia Sander

Representative Kelty.

I'm just going to pause you one second. Nothing to do with your remarks. We'll pause your time. Members, I need you to take your seats, please. Rep. Kelty, please proceed.

Representative Lukens, AML Bacon. Representative Lukens.

AML Bacon.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 26-135 as amended on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, sir. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 42 aye votes, 21 no votes, and two excused, Senate Bill 26-135 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Ricks and Representative Morrow, co-sponsor. Please close the machine.

115, excuse me.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move Senate Bill 115 on third reading and final passage. Representative Soper. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I'd like to ask permission to run a third reading amendment that I also have the blessings of the sponsors. Would you like to tell us any more? Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. This is really more of a technical amendment. It's ensuring that a person only has one evidentiary hearing and that after they've had that, they can't continue to petition. Representative Avery. I guess we're okay with this. Appreciate that. Members, the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 115. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote? Yes.

Speaker's excused. Please close the machine. With 62 aye votes, 0 no votes, and 3 excused, the motion is adopted. Representative Soper. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move Amendment L025 and ask that it be properly displayed. That's a proper motion. One second. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. This is exactly as I just described it a minute ago. It's more belts and suspenders and giving clarity to the bill. I'd ask for a yes vote. Further discussion, Representative Mabry.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-25 to Senate Bill 115. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62 aye votes, 0 no votes, and 3 excused, the amendment is adopted. We are back to the bill. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move Senate Bill 115 as amended on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 115 as amended on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Representative Martinez is excused. I don't have a dollar amount in mind, but I just feel like whatever you feel like is appropriate on a Saturday morning. You know, I feel like seven is a good compromise. A ten. Ten. Let's call it seven dollars, members. Please close the machine. with 42 aye votes, 21 no votes, and two excused. Senate Bill 26-115 as amended is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. And, oh. Members, I just want to offer that our speaker pro tem was far too generous. That was more like a $100 fine, so. I will put $100 in the kitty.

Mr. Schiebel, please.

Representative Garcia, you were not in the well. Okay, fine. Okay. Representative Garcia. Thank you. Members, I'm down here to talk about this really important bill because it's not like it's lunchtime or anything, and it's not like one of our colleagues is running out to meet a delivery driver or anything, but it's really important to talk about why drug out-of-pocket expenses is an important topic. I think we all know that it's expensive when there's a prescription drug that we have to pay for out of pocket, and having a bill to address this is really important. Representative, we are going to stand in a brief recess. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Representative Mabry, $20 fine. Representative Garcia, $5 fine. Thank you. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 167 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schievel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Bacon, Goldstein, Lukens, Soper. Representative Lukens, $5 fine. AML Bacon, $5 fine. Please close the machine. With 48 aye, 15 no and 2 excused, Senate Bill 167 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Ricks co Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 145 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 145 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Please. Close the machine. With 52I11 known to excuse, Senate Bill 145 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Ricks, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the third reading calendar until Monday, May 11th. Balance of the third reading calendar will be laid over until Monday, May 11th. Mr. Schiebel, reports of committees of reference.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 9, 2026 at 1233 p.m. Senate Bill 15, House Bill 1112, Senate Bill 187, Senate Bill 93, and House Bill 1326. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be made special orders today, May 9th at 1233 p.m. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, AML Bacon will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I remove my motion. I withdraw my motion on special orders.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 9, 2026 at 1236. Senate Bill 15, House Bill 1112, Senate Bill 187, Senate Bill 193, and House Bill 1326.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 15 until after Senate Bill 193.

House Bill 1112 by Representatives Paschal and Smith, also Senators Hendrickson and Simpson, concerning state regulation of underground injection control wells.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1112 and the Energy and the Environment Committee report and the Appropriations Committee report.

Man, I forgot. It's been so long.

Okay. We're going to first go to the Appropriations.

Okay, so in appropriations, which was just a few short hours ago, we made changes to the out-year revenue, which is what the concern of the JBC was. And so we just appropriated for the next two years, which was already in the cash fund of the Department of Natural Resources, and then should the department seek to move the program forward,

but original structure was that this program would get started up inside the Department of Natural Resources using their own internal cash funding for a FTE and a half, and then in the future, it would pay for itself through permitting fees.

Representative Paschal.

That's okay.

The last two amendments was to provide clarity about the standards of the State Department of Natural Resources versus the federal standards and made it clear that the state standards would not go beyond what the current federal standards are. And then in the First Amendment, we established that the primacy that is being sought is intended to establish timely and efficient authorization and permitting processes. And this was in response to concerns that permitting through a Colorado program could be less streamlined and more onerous. The goal is to make it more streamlined and easier. And as such, we were supported by the oil and gas industry because of that making it more streamlined. And we ask for an aye vote on the E&E committee report.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Chair. I move L013 to House Bill 1112 and ask that it magically appear on the jumbotron.

Okay.

After fines, insert by clear and convincing evidence based on substantial evidence in the record. And then after finding, finding that the commission shall also make a written findings demonstrating that any more stringent requirement is the least restrictive means necessary to the identified public health or environmental objective. The purpose here is to raise the evidentiary and written findings threshold before the commission can impose requirements more stringent than the enforceable federal baselines for the classes of wells that we're talking about here. So what we have is the potential of really streamlining the process by getting the federal layer out of it, but we also have the risk of restricting Colorado to what I think is more history-wise. So I think making the demonstration that any more stringent requirement is the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the identified public health or environmental objective. These things should not be just imposed by Colorado. We've seen them do this in things like asbestos regulation. Members thank you Representative DeGraff We seen this repeatedly in Colorado quest to become number one in regulation and crushing businesses so this would just help avoid that. I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Burram. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to come and support this amendment for the same reason that we just want to make sure that the rules that are implemented here within the state are not more stringent than what the federal rules are for the EPA. I know that we are unique in the country to where we have a big oil and gas. I'm talking as an oil and gas guy here right now. Is that we already have so much regulation in that industry, we just don't want to make sure it becomes more stringent with this bill passing. So I urge an aye vote on this bill just to be on the safe side, on the safeguard. You can still have your rules and regulations through federal levels. We just don't want to go above and beyond.

Representative DeGraff. I was in the committee hearing, and I don't remember the amendment that you're talking about, and I do recognize that this is supported by oil and gas because they're trying to expedite the process. So what this does is it just makes sure that the expedited process does not become more onerous. I don't think that the oil and gas industry right now is cognizant of the, well, I know this is a concern of theirs. When I spoke with them, they're more betting that it won't happen, hoping that it won't happen in order to expedite it. You know, you have the devil you know versus the devil you don't. So this was a concern when I spoke with oil and gas. You know, as far as I know, it's not in the current bill, and it is still a current risk, that the Colorado Zealots are just going to pile on more requirements that are not at the federal level, and that's actually going to work against this process. I recommend an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're presenting to you today with House Bill 26-1112. This important legislation grants Colorado the authority to seek full primacy under underground injection wells, encompassing all six classes of injection wells currently regulated by the EPA. We currently already have primacy over oil and gas, and we are in the process of seeking primacy over for carbon sequestration. This includes the rest of the classes of injection wells, class 1, 3, and 5. For those unfamiliar, the UIC program oversees wells used to inject fluids underground, classified by type of fluid, and their relation to underground sources of drinking water. Class 1 wells handle industrial and municipal waste disposal. Class III are for solution mining materials. Class IV manages hazardous waste but are currently banned, so we're not seeking that one. Class V covers a broad array of non-hazardous injections, such as stormwater drainage and, importantly, aquifer recharge projects. This bill builds on Colorado's existing primacy for Class II wells related to oil and gas operations and our anticipated authority for Class VI wells using carbon sequestration by directing Colorado to seek primacy and extend oversight to Classes I, III, IV, and V through the Energy and Carbon Management Commission and the Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety with support from other relevant state agencies with expertise over the various types of wells covered by the UIC program. This tailored state-level approach not only enhances our water stewardship efforts, but also supports emerging energy technologies like geothermal, hydrogen production, and aligning with our broader climate and energy goals. By streamlining permit and reducing regulatory redundancies, we hope to create a more efficient, predictable framework that reflects Colorado's unique environmental priorities, fosters economic growth, and ensures robust protection for public health and our natural resources. This is an opportunity to lead with Colorado values, so with that, I'd ask for your support on this bill. And I'll pass to my co-prime, Rip Smith.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you.

Representative Smith, one second. Come on, y'all. Cannot hear in the well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative DeGraff.

Okay, to the amendment. Thank you. Now this calls after the notwithstanding any provision in this section contrary,

Not exactly sure what land use means here.

Representative Paschko. This has nothing to do with the bill. He's speaking about a completely different bill. I urge a no vote. Okay.

No, I agree. It should not be part of what this bill is. It does talk about local governments regulating. It does talk about all that. So this should just fit in nicely with that, and this should be no problem. There should be absolutely no reason to ever call for the citizens of Colorado to need to call this forward. It's just a way to make sure that they, to help them understand, to have a little bit of confidence that this is not the purpose of the bill. So when somebody says you can't, that this is contrary to the purpose of the bill, it makes me a little bit nervous about what the purpose of the bill is. Again, this just clarifies that these regulations under the bill cannot be, it doesn't say that they are interpreted to authorize this. It just says that they cannot be interpreted to authorize unconstitutional takings. That's all it said. You cannot use this bill to justify unconstitutional takings. So it makes me a little bit nervous if you can't incorporate an amendment such as that into a bill.

Representative DeGraff. Okay, I'm glad we're getting some clarification out about the bill. I was wondering where this goes, but now I'm a little bit nervous about the bill and what its intents are in becoming more restrictive and possibly using it to justify unconstitutional taking. So I'm hoping that one thing that we can do, because we are talking about fees, And that's on page 5 after line 14 is 2. After line 14 so I move L015 to House Bill 1112

If we're going to raise fees, if we're going to rake in fees to fund a program, this just says those fees should be used for this program. That's all. That's another phrase that should just, amendment that should just go into the bill, shouldn't even need to be said, should just go without saying. But sometimes those things that should go without saying, they actually need to be said, and that's one of them, as we've seen in the budgetary process, where we bring in money for one thing and then we rake it into another fund. So I'm already disappointed on the bill overall. I was hopeful that it would be more to streamline the process instead of adding more layers of regulation. But right now, if we're going to be taking funds that ultimately are paid for by citizens because of the increased cost, that those funds actually go towards what this bill says it's going to. I ask for an aye vote.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, that makes me a little more nervous. We have fees that can go to other things. We have increased in regulation, and we have kind of a de facto endorsement of potential taking of property or the ability to interpret these regulations for unconstitutional taking of property, which is unfortunate because from a purely structural standpoint, standpoint, the state taking primacy over UIC wells could actually be economically valuable for Colorado. It could mean faster project timelines, localized technical expertise, more predictable investment, climate, all those things that Colorado typically stands against these days. Better integration with geothermal, hydrogen, mining, and carbon infrastructure, and less dependent on EPA Region 8 backlog, which we heard about in committee is very significant. States with mature primacy programs have often become more attractive to industrial investment because permitting decisions are closer to the geology, the operators, and the local economy. That's what this bill should be focused on. The bill should be focused on those items and then with the assurance to the citizens of Colorado that the fees won't be used for pet projects, that the regulation won't be just used to enforce more superstitions and that the property seizure option won't be an allowable interpretation. The risk to Colorado is not merely to administrator federal standards but to add state only climate conditions. Create cumulative impact reviews, complete discretionary ESG style permitting, expand intervention or effectively slow-walk politically disfavored projects because that's the Colorado way. That could turn what could have been localized ...efficient permitting into a second layer of activist-oriented review with federal backing. The irony is that the same authority structure that could make Colorado into a leader in geothermal, advanced drilling, subsurface energy storage, hydrogen infrastructure, and carbon management could also be used to make those same projects economically non-viable if regulators become over-ideological, which is their starting point. So the bill's real value depends less on statutory language and more on guardrails, timelines, objective permitting criteria. Those are the things that we're just trying to add on with the very simple amendments. Simple amendments that if the fees aren't going to be raked into other pots of money, that would be no problem. If the language of the bill is not intended to be used for the justification of seizure of property, that should have been an easy amendment. If the bill was not intended to add layers of regulatory bureaucracy, that should have been an easy amendment. So I appreciate the clarification. I'll now be a no.

Senate Bill 187 by Senators Maulbe and Bridges, also Representatives Brown and Taggart, concerning the creation of a commission to study Medicaid and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Representative Brown.

Thank you. Madam Chair, this bill creates a commission made up of 10 legislators to study Medicaid over the next several months. I think we all know that Medicaid is growing unsustainably, and we have different structures that administer benefits to people. This bill will make sure that we are hearing not only from the community in a really productive way, but we are also having conversations about what the right structures are that are in place to be the most efficient and effective way to administer programs in our state. And we'd ask for an aye vote.

It's an honor to serve with you. I'd just like to say a couple of things to my caucus in the sense that it has been raised several times about the potential of misuse, abuse, and I won't use the third word as it relates to this critical area. This is an opportunity for us over the next six months to bring experts in, at least on a monthly basis. people that know where the problems are because they're on, they're in the field, whether they're hospital presidents, whether they're individuals from RAISE, whether they individuals and providers they bring an expertise that we need to draw upon and we have this unique opportunity right now with a change in leadership We have a unique opportunity to get as much information as we can to help make this program as efficient as we possibly can, given the fact that it's already over a third of our budget. And I would ask you to give your support to this because I think it is a very, very worthy cause.

To the amendment, Representative Brown.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L3. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L3 is passed. To the bill, Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it's an honor to serve with you.

There's a lot of reform that's ripe to happen. But we just cut close to a billion, over a billion from our budget. We asked many to take it on the chin. we cut the year-round committees, for example, the year-round water committee, and yet this year is the worst drought in the 150 years of our state. That's also another epic problem that we have and one that I hear about every single day from my constituents is what are you doing about the drought? What is the legislature doing to study what needs to be done next? because there are things we can do. And the response I have to tell them is, oh, well, we decided as the legislature it'd be a good time to cut the one committee that could look at the drought response in the worst drought ever, all for budgetary reasons. Here, in this bill, we're appropriating half a million dollars, $500,000. for someone to help staff, schedule, convene, research. And yet we were told in committee that any legislator can convene a group of legislators to study any topic they want to do. And knowing that our Joint Budget Committee meets year-round, perhaps it would be good for them to dive into the Medicaid issue a little bit deeper without a $500,000 appropriation. They could add bonus members, which is what this seeks to do. So our six JBC members, then there's the four bonus members that are added on. They can add on and study that. The other concern I have with this direction is we were also told in committee that we'd be seeking input from our hospital executives, our insurance executives, those who have expertise maybe from within the department, others from think tanks, and that they would all provide testimony to the different committee meetings that are held of the Medicaid Commission. The problem that I see with that is you really want to have certain experts already on the commission. That's something we did when we established a cell phone connectivity interim committee. We had both legislators and industry and government officials on that committee, and we studied why it is that we have certain gaps in cell phone connectivity. And it was really, really, really helpful to have those experts also on the committee. Well, this is only legislators, and they're going to take testimony, and I assume those experts will also be talking to the person who's getting paid all this money to help write the report at the end of the day. but surely Hickpuff cares about reforming Medicaid and at least not having it rise by so much per year and some of the waste, fraud and abuse that's going on that they would help with staffing for example we shouldn't be looking at the cost that this drives when we have JBC staff, we have HICPF staff, we have government officials that are already being paid that we could succumb for just a few meetings to help put together a report back to the General Assembly. And that's the main reason why I'm against this bill. I'm not against forming a commission. I'm not against looking at the problems that we have with Medicaid because we have a lot of problems. And it's actually far too long since we've delved into this. But spending $500,000 here when we've told every other problem within the state, do it yourself, tough it up, find experts, convene your own meetings, many people will be proud to get together to talk about how to reform Medicaid. It's that type of an issue that just drives everyone to come together. So I would certainly ask the sponsors to consider stripping the half million off and doing it within current staff resources between both the JBC staff and HICPF staff Thank you Is there any further discussion Representative Bradley Thank you Assistant Majority Leader Speaker

questions I would like to have answered. Thank you. Representative Sirota.

Representative Taggart.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, Assistant Majority Leader. And thank you to my colleague from Grand Junction for actually listening and answering questions. That's what we do up here. I appreciate that. I would like to understand, though, Medicaid was intended for three things. And Colorado has expanded it to cover low-income adults, home and community-based services, which is for the disability community, long-term care and nursing home coverage, behavioral health and substance abuse treatment expansion, disability support services, reentry health care for people leaving incarceration, expanded continuous eligibility policies for some groups. My question, when we have been in a fiscal crisis, $1.5 billion in debt, when we're telling everyone some people had $16,000 pet projects with a fiscal note, not making it out of appropriations, it's made some people mad, How do we justify a $415,000 price tag when we could just sit at the table with the expertise that we have in this room? How do we justify a $415,000 price tag when we can start diving into it? My problem is this. We go to Smart Act hearings, and the departments come, and they don't even answer our questions. They don't even come answering our questions about fraud and abuse. so why do we bring another contractor into the scene when maybe the 10 legislators just start first before we attach a $500,000 fiscal note so why don't we dive in sift out what's going on we have a 285 million dollar federal audit that we know about we have a 77 million dollar ABA fraud audit that we know about we have a 25 million dollar ride share audit that we know about We have a million ABA fraud audit that we know about We have a million ride share audit that we know about and a wheelchair audit Well we don even have an audit We don even know how much that is going to cost or has costed our state So my question, when we're in a fiscal crisis and we're asking Coloradans to tighten their belts, why do we add at the end of session a $500,000 note instead of 10 legislators sitting down at the table and then trying to figure out where we go first and foremost? That's my question.

Is there any further discussion on the bill? Representative Luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I wanted to lie on the record. A member who used to sit right here, who's a good personal friend of both myself and the good representative from Grand Junction, had a saying, and that was, Medicaid is the Pac-Man in the budget. It's essentially eating all the other line items within the budget. When he made that famous statement that was quoted in the media, that was the late 90s. And Medicaid, guess what, is still the Pac-Man in the budget. And for our Gen Z members, Pac-Man was a video game, and we didn't tax it. But members, considering the fact that Medicaid has been this problem for 30 years or more within our state, I mean, it's still the fastest-growing area of our budget. When H.R. 1 takes effect fully in 27 and 28, we will see forced reform that has an impact on Colorado. The work requirements and six months coming off Medicaid, whether we like it or not, that will have a real cost savings for our state. That may be the tough love from Washington that was sent down our way. And perhaps if we hadn't have done Medicaid expansion, it wouldn't be so painful for us now. This is entirely appropriate to study. Having a commission, I believe, is important. But I agree with my colleague from Douglas County that for a facilitator is kind of mind And yet I also find myself agreeing with my colleague from Grand Junction that yes having led organizations I have also brought in facilitators And yet, with our hospital, I can tell you that when we were at our worst financial time, when we were negative days cash on hand, we managed to convince someone to help be our facilitator who didn't charge us anything. He saw the value in the help of the community, and he was from a neighboring community. So realizing just how we have to think about these things when we're in the type of crisis that we're in right now, There are other creative ways, such as learning a lesson from the legal community, maybe offering a percent of whatever cost savings is found or realized not to exceed a certain amount could also go into whoever your contractor is. But we need to find some real cost savings and also not be spending this type of taxpayer dollars. So it's challenging for me to be able to go back home and to talk to my constituents about the types of money that we're spending, especially considering the fact that I represent one of the poorest districts in our state. And for those reasons, that's why I will continue to be a no vote.

Aye.

No.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 193. Senate Bill 193 by Senators Moblin and Kirkmeyer, also at Representatives Brown and Tigert, concerning local ordinances' impacts on state employees.

To the Appropriations Report.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Appropriations Report.

Aye.

The ayes have it. The Appropriations Report passes. To the bill, Rhett Brown.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And ask that it be properly displayed?

One moment. L2 is properly displayed. Rep. Camacho.

That funding is critical in ensuring those who utilize the city infrastructure during the workday contribute to its work upkeep, including public safety, roads, sidewalk, street sweeping, and more. This cut, if this amendment isn't taken, will result in layoffs at a time when the city has already experienced serious financial distress. So for that, I ask for a yes vote. Rep. Gonzalez.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L2. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L2 passes. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 193 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 193 passes. Madam Majority Leader. Oh, Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 15.

Madam Majority Leader.

One moment. L-15 is properly displayed.

One moment. L-16 is properly displayed. Majority Leader Duran.

Is there any further? Minority Leader Caldwell.

Rep. Espinoza.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L16, which amends L15. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L16 passes. To L15, is there a majority leader, Duran?

All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. L15 as amended passes. To the Judiciary Report. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Judiciary Report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Report as amended passes.

Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just add, very grateful for all the hard work, the collaboration that our advocates had, conversations, Minority Leader. Thank you so much for your leadership in this. It's a great, important bill. Honored to be on it, and I would ask for a yes vote.

House Bill 1326 by Representatives Duran and Wilford, also Senators Rodriguez and Cutter. Concerning the continuation of the Public Utilities Commission and the connection therewith, implementing recommendations in the 2025 sunset report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1326 and the Energy and Environment Finance and Appropriations Committee report. To the Appropriations Committee report. In Appropriations, we had a J Amendment for continuation and Department of Law costs. And I ask for a yes vote.

To the Finance Committee report, Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. In finance, we ran three amendments to simplify citing appeals, removing duplicity with House Bill 1043 and exempt TNCs that serve school districts from requirements around facial recognition software usage to verify driver identities, as they already have extra layers of regulations around how they operate, and to increase the annual TNC permit fee by $50,000. And with that, I move L034 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. L-034 amends the Finance Committee report so that the after-mentioned budgetary changes can be made here on the floor. We have a slew of amendments coming, but those are to the bill, so we ask you to hang with us as we work through them all. You all have a description sheet on your desk of the amendments, and we encourage you to look at them. We ask for a yes vote.

Representative Richardson. Go ahead sorry I just going to leave my stuff Go ahead Sorry I don have a lot of room That's okay. I'll just... Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L017 to the Finance Committee report and ask that it be displayed. Okay, it is displayed, members, this is a multi-page amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This, as stated, was a multi-page amendment that was distributed on May 1st, so I know you've all had a chance to page through it, but it provides this chamber with actually an opportunity to perhaps right or wrong and bring our regulatory structure in line with our federal and state constitutions, which is always a good thing. So this amendment, if adopted, would align the authorities of the PUC with that of, as I said, our state and federal constitution as well as recent court findings. You know, we are all pretty much familiar that the federal constitution does have protections against takings. Our state constitution, I think it was mentioned in an earlier amendment to another bill in Section 15 of Article 2, talks about the takings of property and that they should only be done for public use. And our state constitution specifically states that a judicial determination of public use is required. Currently, the way our rules are set, BUC regulated utilities, when they get a certificate of convenience and necessity is the actual term, when that is received by an investor owned publicly regulated utility, they then have the authority to exercise eminent domain. And that really kind of puts the cart before the horse. We're facing a situation now, and I'm going to use a particular project on the Eastern Plains, power transmission project that began back in about the year 2020 with the certificate of public convenience and necessity being issued in 22 that would help transmit power from various sources across the eastern plains, multiple counties, and bring power to the city. probably something that is needed and certainly that would be convenient for the public that lives in the cities. But it really highlighted a problem. So, again, in 2022, an entity that we're all familiar with, that rhymes with the name of a famous spreadsheet we also use regularly, was granted the authority to initiate eminent domain Prior to that they started looking across the map at where they would like these power lines to run Pretty familiar with it because I started getting calls almost immediately from citizens of Elbert County while I was a county commissioner. They were being contacted and told that they were on the route of a power line and their property was desired along this route and they should make a deal with this utility. Otherwise, it would just be taken in the courts. It was an almost immediate threat that condemnation would be used, that the power of eminent domain would be used and their property would be taken whether they were interested in providing it or not. I would say fast forward, but actually slowly forward, to the fall of 2025, three years later, that utility finally made an application to the county commissioners for the route across the county for their land use portion of their application. So that hearing wasn't held until last summer, early last summer. so in june july a county commission was being asked to decide whether this routing across the county of elbert was appropriate almost simultaneously commissioners in el paso were also considering a very similar application but in the case of elbert county there are about 52 properties that were being crossed by this power line, or that was the desire of the corporation that was making the application, was to cross 52 properties in one small county just to have this line transit essentially north to south. Many of these properties were five acres. The right-of-way they were requesting was 150 feet wide. So if you're not familiar with acreage of about that size, but something of that size, five acres is about 660 by 330 feet. So depending on how the transit was made, almost half the property could be consumed by this right-of-way. So there were quite a few people that were not happy that there was a desire to have their property crossed. When the actual hearing before the county commissioners took place, 18 of the properties had already had condemnation proceedings initiated against them in the courts. So prior to even having a route approved, this corporation was using the powers that had been granted to them to condemn property. now in this case and in the case in el paso the county commissioners denied the applications the route was not approved in the case of elbert county they did not feel that the application was complete it was specifically regarding several safety considerations that had not been fully coordinated so now we have a point where people's property has been taken for a public project, but the route of that project was denied. So what in essence had happened was an actual, a speculative taking was going on. This utility had initiated a court process to take people's property rights for property that they had been denied the use of when they made application to the county. Now, when that happened, those landowners who had already been pushing back against this condemnation process all filed to either have the cases dismissed or at least stayed until a final determination was made, which makes sense. I mean, why would the courts proceed to take somebody's property if there was no defined and approved public use for it? As that kind of worked through, the district court did rule that, in fact, based on their constitutional authority, as the sole authority that can determine that something is actually public use, that they needed to have a route approved so they could have something to rely on to determine that there was an actual public use of this land. So everything was stayed. The denial was appealed to the PUC. The PUC did side with the utility, which you would think would end this and restart the condemnation process, but it did not because the county has appealed and the chances are that this is going to go back and forth very likely up to the supreme court the non-prevailing side is going to keep appealing until there's a final decision and this can drag on for years but while this drags on for years we've got citizens whose property is really you know kind of up in the air they do not know what's going to go on in the final situation, but they're dealing with it every single day. And there is a true impact to the citizens of our county. We may feel, we may believe that eventually everybody loses once condemnation starts, that the property owner generally is kind of on the short end of the stick. A value is determined. They're paid off. and the entity that wants their property gets it. And that's probably what will happen. But the impact, as I said, are real. In three cases here in my own county, we have one widow who attributes the stroke and eventual death of her husband to the shock of opening a letter from this energy company saying that their property was on their intended route and if they did not make a deal, they would condemn their property. We had a gentleman that relocated his home and business out of fear of losing his land. He sold his property during a very tough real estate market, lost about a half a million dollars, moving to a location where he felt he would have some peace and be able to continue what he wanted to do. As a result, he's put off his retirement by probably a decade. And finally, and these are just a selection, we have another property owner, somebody who is fighting cancer, that has made the decision not to invest in treating her cancer, but in trying to save her property to pass it on to her children. And now we've got years to go before a final determination is made on this. So all of that truly was unnecessary except for the fact that we have rules that allow the PUC to grant condemnation authority way too early in the process And the utilities are using that authority as a cudgel against our citizens to drive them into making deals. We have a system in place where, theoretically, a utility can use the authorities of eminent domain to take all the property along a route that they want to follow and then walk into a local government and ask for what becomes just a rubber stamp approval of a route they've already acquired. So that really takes the people's ability to actually appeal to their elected officials out of the loop. They can complain to their local officials, but there is nothing that can be done about it. It is just wrong, and I don't think it is within the clear meaning of our Constitution. The certificate of necessity and public need is not a determination of public use. Our Constitution very specifically says that public use can only be determined by the courts. so granting that authority before there's even local approvals to actually use a piece of property and actually to set a case where somebody can say yes there is a public use is wrong so i would ask that you accept this amendment stay true to the most recent court rulings and the constitution of our state and accept this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague who just ran this amendment. You did a very good job of explaining the reasons why this amendment's needed, and I kind of wanted to delve into this because he's my colleague to the north on the eastern plains, and right now, every power line, it seems like, that's moving through this state or coming into this state is running through the eastern plains. I just want to give you a quick history of why this amendment is so important, and especially to the people of southern and southeastern Colorado. We've really dealt with a lot of land takings in this area. One of the first land takings that created a huge issue was when they had to build Trinidad Lake, when the Army Corps of Engineers had to put a dam in in Trinidad. At that time, you had coal mining communities in that area, and there was a couple communities that had to be moved and relocated, whether they wanted to be or not. That's kind of the start. And then we had Pino Canyon Maneuver Site, which the federal government come in and they made a taking of land, massive amounts of land, generational ranches that had been there forever. Come in, we want the property. At the end of the day, they're going to get the property, but that was another taking in southeastern Colorado where it pits government against citizenry. and then there was the first shot at the conservation easements which now they have been corrected but the first shot of the conservation easements is they had people come in overvaluate land give tax credits and then when the state realized that some of these people were that were doing the evaluations on this property to set the rate had over inflated it they came back to the rancher and the farmer expecting that tax credit back and there was a loss of ranches and farms because they couldn't pay the note. They had to borrow the money back. It was taken. And then the Southern Colorado or Southern Plains Land Trust came in and bought a bunch of property down in the southeast corner So the people of southeastern Colorado this is nothing new for them I even had two constituents of mine my second year here come up and meet with one of the larger energy corporations because they wanted to have some type of decision where this power line went through their property. And why they were so upset was they held out in hopes that if they stood as long as they could, and this was under the threat of the courts. They had been to community meetings, and they thought if they held out, they would be able to get more value based on the right to negotiate. And they were told no. And what makes it hard for them is as these power lines come through, as the power flows through them, it generates money in perpetuity. So they give this little dividend out to the rancher who has to deal with this problem. while power flows and money is made. And then you have some companies that have come in and they have proposed power lines in the southeast corner. And what they did is they hired a ranch kid to actually work with the ranchers because he understands the business. And he worked with ranchers to be able to move these lines through the pieces of property they want. Now, even though it probably cost the company a little bit more money to do this, they did it in a way that kept people happy. So you have to understand when myself and my good colleague from northeastern Colorado comes up and talks about these issues, there have been land takings after land takings after land takings in my district and his, and the ranchers and farmers are there on heightened alert. And then you see the federal line, the national line that they want to put through that right now, the ranchers in New Mexico come and alerted the county commissioners in Baca County because they want to put a federal power pathway

Rep DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. The testimonies over around the eminent domain that was authorized by the PUC was devastating. My colleague spoke of that, so I won't. But no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, not deprive it with speculation. But the governor's four appointees of the PUC have authorized these entities to raise their way across, R-A-Z-E, raise or rate their way across Colorado, 25 acres per mile, $5 to $7 million per mile for these high-voltage lines, and just ripped their way across Colorado using the eminent domain authorized by the governor through the PUC. And the answer was for them to sit down, shut up, and take it. And the Denverites just say, well, we want our green energy, without any idea what that commits the people to, and justify this as their virtue-preening power as something that has to come from somewhere so the people whose property this affects They just need to take it. Now the PUC testified that it was being a good neighbor, and I would say that is definitely a neighbor that nobody wants. But ultimately this comes down to the executive actions of the governor attacking the people of Colorado with wolves and with bureaucracy. So this is a great amendment. This puts the agency in check. This helps make sure that citizens' rights are protected, that property rights are protected. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So on the amendment, number E for speculation. Most times in speculation, we don't allow speculation in a lot of areas. Some of the areas you can do it in, maybe the stock market. But in general, the government, we don't like to do speculative events, actions, because we don't have a known outcome. When you do this speculation for the land, you've already set the conditions for the outcome that you've predetermined. You are holding all the cards in your hand. You know exactly how it's going to go because you have the aces. And after you've taken the land, then you can say, oh, by the way, I have this land. I want to do this with it. We have processes and procedures for everything we do, everything, especially when it comes to utilities. There's more processes and procedures. You need a book this thick to go through them. So ask yourselves, why would we allow something to go outside of that and just say, oh, go ahead, you can speculatively acquire the land, whether you're ready to use it or not with power lines, transmissions, whatever it is you want to do, pipelines, doesn't matter. And if the landowners object, because remember, it is their land, and you decide, I'm going to take that. If somebody were to come to that, you know, we've heard it said here many times about events in the metro area where they just walk in and say, we're going to take this part of a neighborhood because we want to expand a road or expand a freeway. We're going to take your business. We're going to take your home because we just want to expand. We think this is a better use, better land use of that. When I say we, we the government, the government can go in and do that. and that's what's been happening here with the ranchers but the difference is when you do it here in the city they're already laying out you already have a road going through there you already have a freeway you're expanding things you're doing something building infrastructure and there's generally recourse for the business owners or the homeowners when you're going to come through and say we're going to take over this area to expand the freeway or the roads. When you out here you acquiring the land through speculation before you running the power lines It not like the power lines are there and you need to expand or make them bigger higher wider add to it You're going through an area where there's land out. Now, are there financial reasons and everything that come into play? Absolutely. We get that. but unlike the city where it's existing and you're saying we're going to widen it because it's already here and there's been a great number of fights over that we're saying because it's out or is this what we're saying because it's out in the middle of as my colleague says God's country but it's out of sight out of mind We're saying, well, because it's out there, it's okay, because there's nobody living there. There's not row after row of houses or streets or businesses. Is there a different set of adjudication rules that apply for what's in the metro city versus what's out in the country? Should not be that way. You should use the same set of rules. But we're not. That's what this amendment is for. that's what we're asking for I would urge an aye vote, thank you

Thank you Madam Chair I appreciate the words of my colleagues I just want to kind of end the discussion from my side on this with just briefly reading from our state constitution section 15 of article 2 taking property for public use, compensation, and how ascertained. And it reads at the beginning, private property shall not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation. I think we can all agree with that, that stronger protections truly than our U.S. Constitution because it doesn't address damage or private use. but the end of that section is really the heart of what is going on here, and that is that the question whether the contemplative use be really public shall be a judicial decision and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public. Our constitution doesn't even allow us to determine that the use of a property is a good public use. It leaves that to the courts. What we have put in place in a regulatory scheme here is allowing a regulatory body that doesn't even report to us as the legislature, that we don't control, the ability to initiate the takings of property, something we don't even have the right to make a determination of under our constitution. So this amendment does not change any timelines for approval. It simply puts the ball back in the courts and the right court of where it should be determined. So I would appreciate a yes vote on this and support of our state constitution.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues. And I do appreciate their passion for their districts and standing up for them Members I would ask for a no vote on this amendment for several reasons Let start with the protection from takings It's already enshrined in Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution, so this really doesn't add anything additional. Also, this would delay new projects, which would increase ratepayer impacts and stifle grid updates, transmissions being built, and Colorado getting critical infrastructure. so I would ask for no vote members. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Disappointed, but that's okay. All righty. I move L018 to the finance report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment strikes a section that's floated around a bit. if you're looking at the introduced version, it was 13. I think it moved to 12. It may be back to 13. But it specifically described the notion that electric co-ops, municipal utilities, and independent transmission and power providers have the authority to seek appeal of denials of applications to the PUC. and it's a little odd because they are not regulated by the PUC. So where did this section come from? It's in the Sunset Report, if you're looking at it, on pages 87 and 88, which has two points. It says it's to clarify current law, and actually the law is pretty clear because munis and co-ops have already opted themselves out and exempted themselves from PUC regulation, So then turning around and saying that you can appeal to the PUC really doesn't make a lot of sense. The fiscal note indicates that they will likely avail themselves to this at cost to the state government. But as it discussed in the previous amendment, when things get appealed to the PUC and one party does not get the answer that they want, there is an inevitable appeal, and it goes to the courts, and that can go back and forth between the courts several times, but the courts are already available. There is no record of munis or co-ops or anybody using this appeal to the PUC, even if they thought they could. It doesn't speed up any process, as might be posited by the sponsors or those that promoted the original language in the bill because it's just one more step that doesn't get you to a final answer. So striking this entire section reduces the bill, saves a little bit of ink, keeps the status quo as it is, and just truly makes sense. So I would urge a yes vote on this amendment Rip Gonzalez Thank you Madam Chair And I sat on the Finance Committee and we had a very robust discussion with witnesses

Rep. Wilford.

Rep. Richardson.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L18. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. L18 fails. Rep Wilford.

Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the finance report. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Finance report passes. To the energy and environment report, Rep Wilford.

L33 is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L33. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L33 passes. To the report, to the committee report, is Majority Leader Duran.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the E&E committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The energy and environment report passes. To the bill, Majority Leader Duran.

One moment. L1 is properly displayed Majority Leader Duran Thank you Madam Chair So L001 raising the cap on fines to utilities has fines going to PUC for IQ customer function and I ask for a yes vote

Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L1 passes. To the bill, Rep Wilford. Thank you, Madam Chair.

L2 is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L2. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no? The ayes have it. L2 passes. To the bill, Majority Leader Duran.

I move amendment L024 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment adds language requested by Climate Jobs Colorado, who represents labor union workers in the energy sector. It adds language that the PUC needs to consider workforce implications when deciding cases related to the energy transition. It would also require the PUC to hire a person dedicated to outreach and equity and to have a dedicated person who has that lens of all the work the PUC does and in facilitating access to the process. And we ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L027 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment would require several transparency measures from the Public Utilities Commission. It would require utilities to file information on what cases they are expecting to bring in the upcoming year by the end of January. Filings that would be made public, then the commissioners would hold a public meeting at which they would outline all of the major upcoming case. This will help advocates plan when and in which cases to intervene. It will also require the PUC to compile an annual report for the General Assembly on the work that's been completed by all sectors over the last year. information like the number of resolved complaints, synopsis of major energy or rate decisions, and miles of gas pipelines inspected. Lastly it would require that in every decision the PUC would include information about the public comments outside groups and Coloradans made during the process and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment does several things that have been requested by various stakeholders. It allows the PUC to have some control over their budget, including some personal decisions. The amendment would also put some of the equity rulemakings that the PUC has been working on into statute. It also adds, as requested by Excel, that the governor considers certain additional qualifications when appointing new commissioners. And I ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move amendment L029 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment is a bit of a hodgepodge of different requests from various parties. COSA, the Colorado Solar and Storage Association, requested a change to the definition of energy storage in the Renewable Energy Standard. This is the Res Statute. Currently, energy storage is defined as renewable energy storage, which is storage paired directly with renewable generation. That's a very narrow definition that excludes standalone storage programs from being considered in a res plan and this amendment changes the definition to be more general to just energy storage. Secondly, in the amendment, it removes a strike through of existing statutory language that currently requires 3% of electricity to come from distributed generation like rooftop solar panels. This removal of a strike returns retains the status quo from amendment 37 that was passed by voters in 2004. COSA, the city of Boulder and CC4CA requested this requirement. Also in the amendment, all types of energy utilities have requested that we modify the language for res reporting requirements. This amendment would change the standard to be in compliance with their current clean energy plan and would apply to municipal, wholesale and investor owned utilities. Lastly, a small section in the amendment to make sure that the title 40 comports with Senate Bill 182, which was just passed. And we ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment to L-036 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment is part of the large deal that was struck between stakeholders, including utilities, labor and environmental groups, as are several other upcoming amendments. This one makes three buckets of changes to how the PUC operates. First as procedural changes, cases will be heard first by an administrative law judge before being taken by the commission or staying within ALG and changes around that reordering. Second, sets rulemaking around which hearings and meetings should be in person, hybrid, or remote The last bucket is about proceeding timelines This amendment shortens certain timelines and then if the PUC misses that timeline the application is deemed automatically approved And also intervening parties will be automatically approved as well when they request and intervene as the very beginning of a case, unless the PUC actively disallows them. And I ask for a yes vote. Is there any further

Thank you very much Madam Chair. This amendment is part of the larger deal struck between stakeholders. It removes all sections related to giving the Public Utilities Commission the ability to order securitization of large assets.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L-042 and ask it to be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members, this amendment strikes Section 12, which is the third party. We are going to continue having conversations on how we should, you know, come to a compromise, and I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment is the last part of the deal that was made. It requires a third party. Oh, no, it doesn't. Oh, yes. Yes, it does. Yes. Sorry. Just kidding. Got a little mixed up there. So this amendment is the last part of the deal that was made with stakeholders. It requires a third party study of the structure of the Public Utilities Commission, including looking at the size of the bench and current staffing levels and the various funding mechanisms to make up its budget. it will return a report to the General Assembly for future consideration, and we do ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment to L041 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment was requested by the Green Latinos. There's a statute for reimbursing certain costs that it takes to intervene as a party to a case at the PUC, like lawyer's fees. How it is written has never been successfully used. This amendment rewrites that language and sets a rulemaking for that compensation, with the caveat that under current budgetary circumstances, it will not be actionable. However, L040 that we adopted calls for an evaluation of the PUC's budgetary structures, including to identify potential financial paths forward. This section is pending available appropriations, and I ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

All right. We're closing it out here. So I move amendment L037 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment requires that the public utilities staff that receive complaints from the general public are trained in trauma-informed responses. And I do ask for an aye vote.

Those opposed, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. Thank you so much for your patience. I know it seemed like a lot, but you know what? A sunset like this takes a lot of work in collaboration and conversation, and we wanted to make sure we get it right, and for those things we're not sure of, we'll continue working on them. I want to take a moment to thank the many stakeholders who engaged with us on this incredibly important and complex bill. Whether you are with the labor union like IEBW, climate jobs for Colorado to being a utility like Black Hills or Excel, or a constituent with policy expertise in this area, know that your input truly reflects in how essential the Public Utilities Commission is and the wide range of responsibilities it carries. So thank you to all of you for your feedback your input and your patience I also want to thank my co sponsor Representative Wilford for diving deep into the details of this policy alongside me Thank you as well to the PUC team and Director White for your ongoing work serving our state, and to our staff, our bill drafters, fiscal analysts, Dora's team, and the governor's team. Thank you for the support in this process because it really did take all of us to get this done. Finally, thank you to the members for your continued engagement. I know we've been hearing from many of you. Many of you had questions and thoughts and ideas, and I want to make sure that we hear those today. Since being elected in 2018, I've worked on legislation to modernize our energy grid, expand renewable energy, and support our workforce. It has been an honor to carry this bill, especially in my final year in the House, because the work of Public Utilities Commission touches nearly every Coloradan and informs many of the policies we pass in this body, including many of my own. With that, let's turn to the bill. House Bill 1326 is a vital measure that continues the Public Utilities Commission for another seven years. The commission, housed within Dora, regulates natural gas, stream and water utilities, electricity, telecommunications, transportation, and certain natural gas and propane pipelines. In addition to the continuation, this bill includes a wide range of updates informed by the Sunset Review. These updates span energy, transportation, telecommunications, water, and pipeline safety. Today, you're aware of the amendments that we ran. Like I said, we appreciate your patience with that. I look forward to your questions that you may have, and with that, I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, as well as members for your attention. I know that this is, we've had a lot of amendments, but the reason that we had a lot of amendments was from the extensive amount of stakeholder outreach, conversation, and negotiation that we underwent throughout the entire legislative session. You may see that up here next to us, I've got a couple of binders that contain all of the feedback that we were responsible for combing through and all of the stakeholder ideas as well for how we can continue to modernize the Public Utilities Commission. This organization, this department is a massive organization that really oversees a tremendous body of work on behalf of the state. And I can tell you all that throughout this process, I initially really respected the Public Utilities Commission, but even more so after going through this process and really starting to understand the level of work that they are tasked with. I am particularly excited about a number of components of this bill, especially as amended, that will ensure that the Public Utilities Commission henceforth has the necessary support via staffing and an HR director that they really need in order to continue to make important decisions, not only for our utilities, but also for our transportation network companies, for our taxis and local carriers, as well as our pipeline safety. providers as well so they they have a quite quite a large amount of work that really does touch every Colorado household and business across the state I don't know that I have a whole lot more to add beyond what the majority leader offered but I do really want to emphasize that this was a team effort and I want to say thank you to all of the organizations that shared their ideas and their comments their concerns and their belief in a better direction for Colorado and the Public Utilities Commission I think that with everybody support we put forward a really good policy that will continue to modernize the PUC and ensure that Coloradans are heard in a way that they should be heard. A special shout out to the PUC staff, Director White, Director Salazar, and the Gov staff as well for all of your careful work negotiating, to the Environmental Coalition for all of your work, making sure that we were constantly keeping the environment front and center in these discussions. Thank you for the way that you engaged. It's so appreciated. And with that, I also want to thank the Majority Leader. And with that, I do ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll leave the podium here down. It's all right. The microphone goes up a little bit. I want to start off by saying, you know, thank you to the bill sponsors. They took on a big, a big weight with this PUC sunset. PUC is not something that you can just go through in one day, work on it in one day, work on it in one week, have an idea, and then go forward with it. It is a combination of an entire energy industry in one state. So I do commend them for bringing this forward and going along with working on this bill, because I know how important it is. I wish I was on it, to be honest, maybe next year, or maybe the next sunset. And I understand the PUC is very important to the state, and we need it. We need to be able to make it safe, make it affordable for energy in the state, and the PUC is the way to go for that through us, of course. That being said, all the nice things aside, this is where I disagree wholeheartedly with the PUC. Currently, the PUC is made up of three commissioners, governor appointed, By that piece, I can disagree simply, just by being governor appointed. Now, the commissioners that are currently appointed are not a fair representation of the energy sector of this entire state. That's one thing that I'm going to disagree with wholeheartedly as well, and a lot of my colleagues disagree with that as well. because two of those commissioners are Denver based, one is Boulder based. Like, we have more than just Denver and Boulder in the state of Colorado. I mean, we have energy, we have a big energy sector in oil and gas up north, no representation. We used to have a big oil and gas sector down south, southeast corner of Colorado. That went away, no representation. The mountain area, closest one is Boulder, the Boulder representation. So to see a fair representation of rulemaking that the PUC does is very important to a lot of us. Because we understand that not every area, not every sector, not every district in this state is the same. And those rulemakings are statewide. It's a blanket rulemaking for the entire state, which doesn't work for up north, doesn't work for down south. And we need that fair representation in the entire state. And that's my main concern with the PUC right now. I understand, like I said, we need the PUC. I'm not against it. I just don't think it's a fair representation of what we need in this state and what the people want. So that being said, I move L25 to HB 1326, and that's to be displayed, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment, what it does, takes effect July 1st of 2027. It expands the PUC commission from three members to five members. Three of those five members need to be from three of the five commissioners need to represent identified geographical regions of the state. Two of them can be at large. That's what most county commissioners have right now. Three districts, two at large. And I believe that would be a fair representation of the PUC in the state of Colorado. Now, the first region that needs to be appointed by the governor is the Denver metro area. I believe Denver metro area has the right to have their fair representation of a PUC commissioner right now. They currently have two. It doesn't mean they won't have two if this passes. They could have one at large and one in the district. The second one has to be the western region, consisting of the counties of Jackson, Chaffee, Fremont, Custer, Teller, Castilla, Alamosa, Conejos, Rio Grande, Mineral, Zaguache, Archuleta, Hinsdale, Gunnison, Pitkin, Lake, Eagle, Summit, Grand, Routes, Moffitt, Rio, Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Delta, Montrose, Array, San Juan, La Plata, Montezuma, Dolores, and San Miguel. Great representation right there. One commissioner from that area appointed by the governor. Eastern region, consisting of Huerfano counties, Pueblo, El Paso, Crowley, Otero, Bent, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Prowers, Baca, Las Animas, Logan, Sedwick, Phillips, Yuma, Washington, Morgan, Kit Carson, and Lincoln counties. Another representation there. I forgot to mention the ones that are the Denver metro area, which is actually two of my counties. Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Larimer, Well, Douglas, Jefferson, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Albert counties. Now, the other thing that I like about this amendment is that what it does is no more than three members of those appointed commissioners shall be affiliated with the same political party. Now, don't get me wrong, political, you know, people have the right to vote for their political beliefs but when they appointed the people did not vote for that The governor appointed that So I believe that is an important part of this Don get me wrong I worked in oil and gas for 30 years almost 30 years But I am an all of the above energy source guy. I understand we need all the above energy source. The thing that I disagree with is tax subsidizing one energy sector over another, pushing away an energy sector when we need all of them. How important it is to have all these energy sectors working together to be able to energize the state. And it's quite clear both sides of the aisle have a different viewpoint on that. By allowing this amendment to not have more than three members of the same political party is very important because that forces them to work together to come to a good conclusion, a good rulemaking that's best for the state of Colorado. Yes, there will be fireworks. Yes, there will be disagreements. But when I was on city council in Fort Levedon, we were all conservatives on city council. We had our disagreements. but we came down to a conclusion because we work together I truly believe that this is the way to go to be able to improve the PUC improve energy in the state of Colorado and move Colorado forward in the energy sector. I urge an aye vote

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very good amendment. A couple of my colleagues have talked about this even last year, the importance of expanding the PUC, and as my good colleague from Weld County just said, we're simply not getting a good representation on the PUC with three people, two from Denver, one from Boulder. It's just of the utmost importance that we have people on there that understand different parts of the state. We have, as we all know, an extremely diverse state with many different needs, and to have just three members right now, Denver-Boulder representation, that just doesn't cut it. So this is a great amendment. It's common sense, and certainly for those of us who believe that we need to really, this PUC that wields a lot of power needs to serve the entire state, I strongly urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as the great Barone would say, this is the best amendment that we've had all session. Why I like this amendment. So I'm from the Western Slope. I'm going to start with Holy Cross. Holy Cross, a utility company, Pitkin County, Garfield County, huge solar farm. La Plata County they have La Plata Electric they have all kinds of power but what's interesting on the western slope is we have the two largest lakes so we have Blue Mesa which is in my district which has hydropower it also has a lake above it called Taylor Lake hydropower then you have the second largest lake which is McPhee Reservoir hydropower you also have in Delta County a lot of solar why we need the representation is because we producing a lot of power and we have a lot of utilities on the western slope We also have in Montezuma County the world largest known CO2 field I mean, excuse me, yeah, CO2 field in the world. And so you combine all of that, we need to have a say, and that's why this is a good amendment. Let's let the voice of the western slope help carry this state forward on the PUC.

Chair, thank you. So we heard some amendments earlier, and I just want to repeat back some language that really stands out to me from those amendments and as it relates to this amendment. 024 talks about how the PUC should have an outreach comms person dedicated to involvement and inclusiveness and adds an equity advisory board. L028 requires PUC to hire an equity-focused person and require the equity rulemaking language to be in statute. and also adds to what the governor shall consider when appointing commissioners. So if we're going to talk about inclusiveness, if we're going to talk about equity, this amendment seems to make a whole lot of sense because we are ensuring that there is geographical equity, that there is geographical inclusion when the commission is set. Now, I understand that you're talking about more money. It's going to cost more money. Look, man, we find ways of being able to fund what we want to fund around here. We'll take a little bit over here. We'll scratch a little over here, and we'll be able to, poof, there's some budget. It happens. You know it happens. Joint Budget Committee is waving at me. He's like, yeah, I got you. Sorry to call you out. But then on the other side, you know, we've got my colleague from Weld and Larimer counties that was told earlier today, no, we don't have money for that. We're not even going to hear your bill in appropriations today that you've been working on forever. It's been sitting around for like a month. We don't have money for that. Well, we can scratch out a little funding for this other thing. It's just, again, it's priorities. Is it a priority? And we're going to talk about equity and inclusion, which those are words that kind of make me shudder. But if we're going to use those words in the amendments that have been adopted, then how do we ignore the geographical equity and inclusion that this amendment presents? If we want to do it, this body can find a way to break open a piggy bank. Maybe it's the unclaimed property fund. We're rating that like bandits, man. I mean, you know, like might as well put on a ski mask. We're going up and taking so much money out of that thing. We can find money for it if we want to find money for it. If we're truly going to be honest about equity and inclusion, I think it's an easy yes vote here to have geographical equity inclusion. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I rise in support of this amendment. This is something that we ran last year as a separate bill and trying to get more inclusivity in with the Public Agilities Commission Why did we do that So the main reason why we did that is that the County of Pueblo is serviced and they have some of the highest utility rates in the state of Colorado. And this has been pretty historical. And again, why do we bring this up? Because right now, or as of today, it's been about 100 years since someone that has lived in Pueblo has sat on the Public Utilities Commission. I'm not going to say that they're correlated or causation, but there's definitely, I feel, correlation between not having a representative that sits on the Public Utilities Commission, understanding the community, understanding what has happened there and why they've been paying historically high utility rates. And so I think that this amendment is something that addresses that and being able to bring in representation to a community that, again, hasn't had it in 100 years. I don't think that that's acceptable, and I think that we should push to be able to get more representation from the rural parts of the state. And so I strongly, strongly stand in support of this amendment to bring representation to a community that hasn't had that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I stand with my friend Matt, who we ran this as a bill last year. He was the co-prime of this bill. He's 100% correct. We were looking at Pueblo. We were looking at the Eastern Plains. We just talked about how many power lines are running through the Eastern Plains, the production of energy that we have out of south and southeastern Colorado, and it's ultra important. And it was actually crazy in committee because, as my colleague will attest, we literally had people get up and testify that there wouldn't even be anybody qualified to represent that part of the state. and it was a complete slap in the face to our districts, it was a complete slap in the face not only to the Valley, to the Pueblo, to the Eastern Plains, it's wrong. We're a huge driver of energy. Where were the power pathways run through? Pueblo has been impacted at a massive level, and I represent parts of Pueblo as well. It's important that we add these members to the PUC. We should have a voice. We talk about a voice at the Capitol, and we just heard our colleague from Douglas County talk about equity, when it comes to representation at the PUC, and it shouldn't just be a handful of people, which we know the governor handpicks this, but there should be representation of the whole state. The state is different. Very different. So with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really feel like if we don't pass this amendment, that there's going to continue to be division in the state. And we need to continue to making sure that we are doing right and making sure that we're bringing all stakeholders to the table and making sure that we are represented well in this commission and making sure that we have advocates and fighting for the community. So I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. this amendment is the type of amendment that bridges the rural urban divide. We talk about that in this building all of the time. It is a real thing. There's four corners to this state. All four of them should be represented. It's not a laughing matter. We have to get this done. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with this amendment. I would like to see some competencies added to this. as opposed to just geographic, but geographic is very important, if nothing else. I don't think Denver and Boulder actually represent Colorado. When you see, it's always amazing to me, flying over Colorado, just how small those areas are. You know, the biggest part of Denver and Boulder, I think, are the egos, but they don't really represent Colorado. There is a vast, vast amount of space in the really productive parts of Colorado, the foundational economy parts of Colorado. So I would think that these would be better to be represented, especially when we talk about some of the things where we were talking about earlier with eminent domain, where Denver and Boulder are okay with cutting swaths across Colorado, destroying the ecology and the economies of the rest of Colorado in order to import for themselves green energy so they can feel virtuous about themselves. They're good about imposing wolves on the rest of Colorado so they can feel good about themselves. But I don't think the four appointees of the Polis Utility Commission really do really represent, and I say four appointees because three are directly appointees and one is an appointee of an appointee. So I consider them all appointees, and I think they do more of a job of representing Governor Polis than they do the public. they're responsible for implementing. And the director said, now the director could not speak to anything as far as what actual climate goals were, what they would accomplish, anything like that. Just deferred and said, well, we just have to do basically the stupid stuff that the General Assembly says we have to do. And that's true. So they're in a bit of a bind. But I question the expertise of a poli-sci major when you're looking at things like energy and transportation are big, massive parts of the PUC. And instead, the governor has basically appointed and the Senate has approved, rubber-stamped, a bunch of climate ideologues. And I think Colorado needs more than climate ideologues, and I think Colorado deserves better than climate ideologues. It's not okay that Denver and the representatives in this room from Denver are okay with destroying the land of the people of Colorado. to assuage their superstitions. And I also think when I look at this, and we talked about one of the things about third party, third party going to basically a commercial, one of the things that the PUC, we need to do with the PUC is we need to divest it of some of its scope. Because the PUC has a very broad scope, and the things that it has a scope over, it seems to not do very well. And so when you have somebody that does things not very well, the worst thing to do is add more to their list of responsibilities. First of all, so I think we ought to get Colorado actually represented in this regard, so I recommend an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you Madam Chair I appreciate my colleagues comments and I couldn agree with you more regarding representation What I wanted to add just to give you some assurance is that sponsors and stakeholders we been working for months and I mean months, to try and strike a deal that would balance and that everyone could agree to. The idea of five commissioner bench was thoroughly discussed, and given what large change it would be to the functioning of the PUC and the state, It should not be added into statute until it's studied and thoroughly vetted and figured out. Part of all the groups agreed that a study, and that was in Amendment L040 that we passed this evening, which would not only examine composition of the commission, but it would also look at a funding source. We know from the bill last year the potential fiscal on this was over $900,000, which we know this budget session we don't have. So there are many ways to configure a commission. If the state does decide to expand the five commissioners in the future, let's make sure it's a model that works for all of Colorado that's been discussed, stakeholder in the state, and can be funded, and that we can make sure that we have the representation we need from all of Colorado and throughout the state. So I just wanted to add that this will be discussed, and if you want more information on that and how you can follow that next year happy to have that conversation and thank you so much for your feedback. I think it's really important for that to be heard here. So thank you and I ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you Madam Chair. Okay, I agree. Coming to this year, the fiscal year that we're in, okay, we don't have the money right now, it hasn't been stakeholder well. And we can't figure out where the money's coming from this quick, coming at the end of session. So I move L26 to HB 1326 and ask to be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the same exact amendment. Same exact amendment. Same exact argument that I just previously had. But this one would take effect July 1st of 2029. That gives us another four years. Well, three years and a little bit. to be able to figure out where this money is coming from, where we can get the money, when we get the money, and properly prepare for the expansion of the PUC. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative McGrath.

Representative Luck. Is there any further discussion on Amendment 26? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment 26. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, nay. Amendment 26 fails. To the bill, Rep Luck.

It is properly displayed. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did not run this as a substitute. I learned my lesson yesterday

Emma Winter.

Representative DeGraff.

Rep. Aron.

Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for bringing the amendment. I think it's terrific because the working group that they will be assembling will now have and know exactly what your asks are and what you're thinking, So I so appreciate it, and I know those conversations will happen. And I know that the governor is required to look at diversity in that way, right, of counties in our rural areas. So I would ask for a no vote on this only because I'm rest assured that the working group, when they form together, will be having conversations, and they would have heard clearly from all of you your ask and what you're thinking. So thank you.

So right now, this would be the point where the legislation can put its stamp on this and say, this is how we want this to look. We want it to look this way. The governor can appoint accordingly, and then the Senate, with all the subseqiousness, can rubber stamp it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Mr. Schiebel, the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to partisan consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendations. They're on House Bills 11-12 is amended and 13-26 is amended. Passed on second reading. Order engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bills 15 is amended, 187 is amended, and 193 is amended. Passed on second reading. Order revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks is excused. Jackson Rootnell Weinberg, excused. Please close the machine.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Earlier this morning when I announced that the State Civic Military and Veterans Affairs Committee would be meeting, I failed to mention the location. We will be in the old state library 15 minutes upon adjournment, and we'll hear Senate Bills 186, 184, and 185. Thanks.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. House Appropriations Committee will meet Monday at 8.30 in the morning. We will hear the bills that are listed on your calendar later today. So see you then. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Monday, May 11, 2026. The balance of the calendar will be laid over until Monday, May 11.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in adjournment until Monday, May 11, 2026 at 10 a.m.

Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I wanted to add that it will be relaxed dress also.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to move our Appropriations Committee to 9.30 in the morning based on what the Majority Leader said. So we will see you in the Old State Library at 9.30 a.m. on Monday.