Updated on May 10th, 2021
The CCLC has taken positions on the following 2021 Colorado General Assembly bills:
HB21-1189 | Regulate Air Toxics | Concerning additional public health protections in relation to the emission of air toxics. SPONSORS: Reps Benavidez/Valdez, Sens Gonzales/Moreno | SUMMARY: The bill expands upon the requirements of HB20-1265 as applicable to covered facilities by: Directing the air quality control commission to consider, at least every 5 years, adding new types of covered air toxics and adjusting the applicable emission thresholds; Requiring that a covered facility’s outreach to communities near the covered facility, in particular disproportionately impacted communities, be conducted in the 2 most prevalent languages spoken in the communities; Requiring covered facilities to conduct fenceline monitoring of covered air toxics and to publicly report the results of the monitoring; and Requiring covered facilities to take corrective action within 15 days after a violation occurs. The bill also requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment to conduct community-based monitoring of covered air toxics in areas near covered facilities and to publicly report the results. | Fiscal note here.
CCLC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Passed E&E Amended, Hearing House Finance 05/10 1:30p
HB21-1238 | Public Utilities Commission Modernize Gas Utility Demand-side Management Standards | Concerning the modernization of gas energy efficiency programs. SPONSORS: Rep Bernett/Sen Hansen SUMMARY: The bill updates the methods used to determine the cost-effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) programs of public utilities selling natural gas at retail, including requiring that the calculation of future benefits reflects the avoided costs to ratepayers resulting from reduced consumption of natural gas. The bill specifies that the calculation must be based on reliable estimates and published scientific data and must include methane emissions. In addition, the bill adds savings targets and budget control mechanisms to the approval process for gas DSM programs, paralleling the existing process that applies to electric DSM programs. See 350Colorado Fact Sheet and CRES Policy doc here. Additional bill text (ALL CAPS is new text in statute): “Demand-side management programs” or “DSM programs” means ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS OR COMBINATION OF PROGRAMS:
(a) Energy efficiency, INCLUDING WEATHERIZATION AND INSULATION;
(c) Load management;
(d) BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
40-3.2-106 (6)(a); and
(e) Demand response programs. or any combination of these
(II) GAS DSM PROGRAM PLANS MAY BE COMBINED WITH ELECTRIC DSM PROGRAM PLANS, BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PLANS, OR OTHER PLANS THAT REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS AND ONE OR MORE OF THE GAS DSM PROGRAMS OR MEASURES, REPRESENTING AN AGGREGATE TOTAL OF AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF OVERALL RESIDENTIAL GAS DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING EXPENDITURES SERVING INCOME-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS, MUST be targeted to low-income RESIDENTIAL customers and, if so, may be provided directly by the gas utility or indirectly through financial support of conservation programs for low-income households administered by the state IN NCOME-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS…
TO MEET THE ENERGY SAVINGS TARGETS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION, GAS UTILITIES SHALL CONSIDER INCLUDING INCENTIVES FOR CUSTOMERS TO UTILIZE BEHIND-THE-METER THERMAL RENEWABLE SOURCES. THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT GAS UTILITIES FROM OFFERING PROGRAMS OR INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE CUSTOMERS TO REPLACE GAS-FUELED APPLIANCES WITH EFFICIENT ELECTRIC APPLIANCES.
IN THE BASE CASE ANALYSIS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 40-1-102 (5)(b), the commission shall apply a THE SOCIAL cost of carbon dioxide AND THE SOCIAL COST OF METHANE emissions to the nonenergy benefits BENEFIT-COST CALCULATION for programs that are defined to be ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR beneficial electrification PROGRAMS OR THAT INCORPORATE BEHIND-THE-METER THERMAL RENEWABLE SOURCES…BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL USE A SOCIAL COST OF METHANE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND NINETY DOLLARS PER SHORT TON. (This bill will have a fiscal note and GHGs emissions document and links to them will be posted as soon as they are).
CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT. Also supported by CRES, CoCO, and Sierra Club |
STATUS: Passed House, on to Senate soon
HB21-1269 | Public Utilities Commission Study Of Community Choice Energy | Concerning an investigation by the public utilities commission to evaluate the parameters of an energy policy allowing communities in Colorado that are served by an investor-owned electric utility to choose alternative wholesale electricity suppliers. SPONSORS: Reps Hooton/Kipp, Sen Donovan | SUMMARY: The bill concerns the concept of “community choice energy” (CCE), under which a community, or group of communities, may choose to purchase their electricity from a wholesale supplier other than the local investor-owned electric utility. The bill declares that CCE has the potential to enable communities to meet their renewable energy goals and to reduce their electricity rates by allowing wholesale competition and local control over the energy supplier and energy mix without changing the local utility’s current status as sole supplier of electric transmission, distribution, billing, and customer service functions. To lay the groundwork for evaluating the potential adoption of CCE in Colorado, the bill proposes an investigatory proceeding at the public utilities commission that would invite testimony and documentation from interested stakeholders, utilities, the public, invited subject-matter experts, and persons with firsthand knowledge of CCE operations, including regulators from states in which CCE has been implemented. The bill directs the commission to submit a report summarizing the investigatory proceeding to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over energy matters by December 15, 2022. | CCE Fact Sheet.
CCLC Position: Support.
Rationale: We supported this bill last year and membership (particularly Larry Milosevich) was instrumental in its drafting. We need to study whether separating supply from delivery will maximize meeting utility GHGs emissions reduction goals and apply pressure to upgrade goals across the electricity sector. Quoting from the Fact Sheet: CCE is a promising energy policy that merits serious study to see if it is indeed worth pursuing. Dozens of Colorado communities, representing more than a million people, have ambitious renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, but no practical way to achieve them. CCE offers a possible path forward for these communities, and they deserve a serious evaluation of this approach. Competition and community choice should increase efficiency and innovation in our wholesale electricity system, and thereby drive down costs. Let’s study it and figure out the details. There is little downside, much potential upside, and very low risk to studying CCE. This link provides a number of documents supplied by Sponsor Hooton to address the bill in more detail: Study Overview, Presentation, FAQ, Community Memo, and the LCS (Legislative Council Staff) Memo providing an educational overview.
STATUS: Passed House E&E amended, onto Appropriations
SB21-246 | Electric Utility Promote Beneficial Electrification | Concerning measures to encourage beneficial electrification, and, in connection therewith, directing the public utilities commission and Colorado utilities to promote compliance with current environmental and labor standards. SUMMARY: The bill directs the PUC to establish energy savings targets and approve plans under which IOUs will promote the use of energy-efficient electric equipment in place of less efficient fossil-fuel-based systems. This directive would substantially follow the model of existing demand-side management (DSM) policies established by the PUC.Section 2: “BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION” MEANS CONVERTING THE ENERGY SOURCE OF A CUSTOMER’S END USE FROM A NONELECTRIC FUEL SOURCE TO A HIGH-EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC SOURCE, OR AVOIDING THE USE OF NONELECTRIC FUEL SOURCES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION OR INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, IF THE RESULT OF THE CONVERSION OR AVOIDANCE IS TO: (a) REDUCE NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OVER THE LIFETIME OF THE CONVERSION OR AVOIDANCE; AND (b) REDUCE SOCIETAL COSTS OR PROVIDE FOR MORE EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF GRID RESOURCES. (a) “Cost-effective”, with reference to a natural gas or electric demand-side management program, A BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM, or related ANY measure RELATED TO EITHER A DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT OR BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM, Section 2 also requires that any installation, upgrade, or new construction under a beneficial electrification program must be performed either by utility employees or by qualified, Colorado-licensed contractors. Section 3 directs the PUC to apply current standards for measurement of the social cost of carbon emissions, including methane, in evaluating the cost, benefit, or net present value of utility plans and proposals for beneficial electrification. Section 4 THE COMMISSION AND IOUs SUBJECT TO COMMISSION JURISDICTION SHALL: (I) …include…THE SOCIAL COSTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE EMISSIONS, INCLUDING THE AVOIDED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE DIRECT COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUEL IN APPLIANCES OR INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT THAT IS REPLACED WITH ELECTRICITY; (II) THE AVOIDED UPSTREAM EMISSIONS OF METHANE FROM THE PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY OF FOSSIL FUEL TO THE APPLIANCE OR EQUIPMENT; AND (III) THE INCREMENTAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY; (c) BASE THE COST OF METHANE EMISSIONS ON THE MOST RECENT ASSESSMENT OF THE GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF METHANE DEVELOPED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, USING A DISCOUNT RATE OF TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OR LESS; EXCEPT THAT, BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL USE A SOCIAL COST OF METHANE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX DOLLARS PER SHORT TON … SHALL USE A DISCOUNT RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OR ANY LOWER VALUE ESTABLISHED BY THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE SUCCESSOR TO THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT. (d) INCLUDE UPSTREAM LEAKAGE OF METHANE EMISSIONS IN THE EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION, AND TRANSPORTATION OF FOSSIL GAS IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IF THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION DETERMINES AN ESTIMATE FOR UPSTREAM METHANE LEAKAGE. (4) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOW AN ELECTRIC UTILITY TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO ITS CUSTOMERS TO REPLACE GAS APPLIANCES WITH HIGH-EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC APPLIANCES. |
CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT
STATUS: on Senate Floor this week
SB21-200 | Reduce Greenhouse Gases Increase Environmental Justice | Concerning measures to further environmental protections, and, in connection therewith, adopting measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and adopting protections for disproportionately impacted communities. SPONSORS: Sens Winter/Moreno, Rep Jackson | SUMMARY: Current law requires the air quality control commission (AQCC) to adopt rules that will result in the statewide reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2050, as compared to 2005 emissions. Section 2 of the bill supplements these requirements by directing the AQCC to: Consider the social cost of GHG emissions; Require GHG reductions on a linear or more stringent path; and Finalize its implementing rules by March 1, 2022, including specific net emission weight limits for various emission sectors, subject to modification by the AQCC, including through the use of a multi-sector program; Directing each wholesale generation and transmission electric cooperative to file with the public utilities commission a responsible energy plan that will achieve at least an 80% GHG reduction by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels and specifying that if a plan is not filed, the cooperative must achieve at least a 90% GHG reduction by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels; and directing each retail, wholesale, and municipal electric utility and cooperative electric association to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 95% between 2035 and 2040 and by 100% by 2040. Section 3 adds GHG to the definition of “regulated pollutant”, prohibits the AQCC from excluding GHG emissions from the requirement to pay annual emission fees that are based on emissions of regulated pollutants, gives the AQCC rule-making authority to set the GHG annual emission fee, and authorizes the use of these fees for outreach to and engagement of disproportionately impacted communities. Section 4 requires the AQCC’s GHG reporting rules to establish an assumed emission rate representing the average regional fossil fuel generation emission rate for electricity generated by a renewable energy resource for which the associated renewable energy credit is not retired in the year generated. Section 5 creates an environmental justice ombudsperson position and an environmental justice advisory board in the department of public health and environment. The ombudsperson and the advisory board will work collaboratively to promote environmental justice in Colorado. Sections 2 and 5 specify processes for soliciting and facilitating input from disproportionately impacted communities regarding proposed AQCC rule changes and departmental decision-making.
CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT
Rationale: This is one of the hallmark bills of the session, and is designed to address the many shortcomings that environmental and community groups have been expressing about progress (or lack thereof) on HB1261. It FINALLY includes GHGs as a specific pollutant that must be permitted, fee’d and emission controlled (not just CO2, CH4, etc). Further, at only 6.5 FTE (Full-Time Employees) our Climate Change unit is severely hampered (particularly in comparison to California, whose lead we often follow, which has more than 200 FTE working on this issue) and with staff juggling an intense schedule of rulemakings over the next couple of years, it’s important to have staffing to work on enforcing rules, not just writing them, which this bill will provide. It’s also designed to (quoting Senator Winter) address all 4 pillars of the climate crisis: electricity via both codifying ‘promises’ by utilities to reduce GHGs, and by requiring more aggressive emissions reductions. It addresses O&G emissions reductions by defining maximum emissions of 13MMT by 2025 and 8MMT CO2e by 2030, which largely prevents the planned expansion of O&G production by 30% over the next 10 years. It addresses buildings (by requiring built environment rulemakings on home heating and GHGs), transportation (via this summer’s planned AQCC rulemaking) and Environmental Justice, by helping the public navigate the system and participate in the Rulemaking process by providing them an ombudsman, which our various groups have been stressing the need for since 1261/181 were passed. And it devotes some money to addressing the needs of our DI communities as they participate in the process, by providing staff and funding for things such as after-hours meetings located within DI Communities, providing multi-lingual and child-care services, snacks and transportation, and potential compensation for speakers/panelists from the community to help, etc. Strenuously supported by Sierra Club and CoCO, all hands on deck requested by sponsor Winter. Fact sheet here. Sierra Club benefits here.
STATUS: Passed Senate T&E Amended, passed Finance, on to Senate Appropriations; 🚨 extensive outreach planned to persuade Polis not to veto—COME TO THE WEST LAWN OF THE CAPITOL AT NOON ON THURSDAY 5/13!—Also important to contact your Senator NOW for a YES vote Here’s the Fiscal Note – it requests $4M and adds 31 FTE.
SB21-264 | Adopt Programs Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities | Concerning the adoption of programs by gas utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SPONSORS: Sens Hansen/Coram (bi-partisan) SUMMARY: Section 1 of the bill defines a “gas distribution utility” (GDU) as a gas public utility with more than 90,000 retail customers. The bill requires each GDU to file a clean heat plan (plan) with the public utilities commission (PUC). A plan must demonstrate how the GDU will use clean heat resources to meet clean heat targets (targets) established in the bill. The targets are a 5% reduction below 2015 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels by 2025 and 20% below 2015 GHG emission levels by 2030. Section 1 makes a legislative finding that meeting these targets will facilitate the electric generating utility sector’s compliance with the state’s GHG emission reduction goals by reducing GDUs’ carbon dioxide and methane emissions. A plan may use qualified offsets as one method to meet the targets. A GDU that uses only clean heat resources in its plan to meet the targets is not subject to any other GHG emission reduction requirements during the 5-year period covered by the plan. If a GDU does not file a plan, the air quality control commission (AQCC) will adopt rules to require the GDU to meet a 30% GHG emission reduction by 2035 when compared to 2015 levels. The PUC will initiate a rule-making proceeding by August 1, 2021, to adopt rules that establish a cost cap for each GDU’s compliance with its plan. The cost cap is 2% of gas bills for all of a GDU’s full-service customers. A plan that costs equal to or less than the cost cap and uses clean heat resources to the maximum practicable extent need not meet the targets. A plan that uses only clean heat resources and meets the targets need not comply with the cost cap. The PUC is directed to approve a plan if the PUC finds that doing so is in the public interest. A municipal GDU must file a plan that demonstrates a 20% GHG emission reduction by 2030 compared with 2015 levels. Small GDUs may file a plan, which is subject to the cost cap and must contain its own targets. Section 2 requires the AQCC to initiate a rule-making proceeding by January 1, 2022, to define qualified offsets that plans may use to meet a target. The AQCC will start another rule-making proceeding by January 1, 2029, to determine mass-based GHG emission reduction goals for plans for 2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050.Section 3 gives the oil and gas conservation commission authority over class VI injection wells used for sequestration of GHG, including through the issuance of permits.
CCLC Position: We supported an earlier version of this bill, SB21-161
STATUS: Assigned to Senate Transportation and Environment, hearing date TBD
SB21-108 | PUC Gas Utility Safety Inspection Authority | Concerning gas pipeline safety, and, in connection therewith, increasing and clarifying the rule-making and enforcement authority of the public utilities commission. SPONSORS: Sen Story
CCLC POSITION: ENDORSE
Status: Passed Senate Appropriations, onto Senate Floor
HB21-1246 | PERA Public Employees’ Retirement Association Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies | Concerning divestment action by the public employees’ retirement association against companies financially involved with fossil fuel companies. SPONSORS: Rep Sirota/Sen Jaquez-Lewis SUMMARY: Beginning one year after the effective date of the bill, the board is required to: Divest the funds managed by PERA (fund) of any stocks, securities, equities, assets, or other obligations of companies on the exclusion list in which any money or assets of the fund are directly invested; and cease new direct investments of any money or assets of the fund in any stocks, securities, or other obligations of any company that is a fossil fuel company. The board is required to complete divestment from fossil fuel companies by a specified date. Beginning one year after the effective date of the bill, the board is required to endeavor to ensure that no money or assets of the fund are invested in an indirect investment vehicle unless the board is satisfied that such indirect investment vehicle is unlikely to have in excess of 2% of its assets directly or indirectly invested in fossil fuel companies.
CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT
Rationale: CCLC has endorsed this position previously, and has supported 350Colorado in its drafting. We cannot end fossil fuels extraction without starving it of the funds it needs to continue its Ponzi scheme. Public employees do not deserve to have their retirement benefits suffer from poor investment in a dying industry. 350Colorado Fact Sheet here. For a glimpse at the problem, see here. STATUS: Indefinitely postponed in House Finance Hearing on 04/19, back next year.
SB21-114 – Minimum Setback New Schools From Existing Oil And Gas
Concerning the establishment of a minimum setback requirement from existing oil and gas facilities for new public school building sites. SPONSORS: Sen Kirkmeyer |
CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE
Rationale: Designed to thwart state regulations by enshrining local control for O&G-heavy counties/cities. Intended to allow building new schools nearer than 2,000’ from existing wells, with a specific exception for fewer feet if the well has been plugged. A plugged well is not a safe well, needless to say. We fought long and hard to establish minimum setbacks from homes/schools just last year, and this bill attempts to allow local ordnance to supersede the state. The bill was amended in committee to ensure a minimum of 2000’ setback from wells for any newly constructed public school and to remove P&A’d wells from the exemptions.!
Status: Failed on Senate Floor
SB21-125 | Alternate Proposals Air Quality Control Rulemaking | Concerning the submission of alternate proposals to rules being considered by the air quality control commission. SPOMSORS: Cooke |
CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE.
Rationale: Intended to stifle or prevent public participation. Requires hiring consultants and legal staff, hold public meetings and provide thorough economic impact analysis just to offer an alternate proposal to a rule. Written by dirty energy lawyers to prevent CCLC member orgs from offering improved approaches to a rule or rules. This is a ‘message’ bill designed to pit O&G and RE Developers against local land use/zoning and against public health & safety. Status: Status: Failed in Senate Transportation and Energy Committee.
SB21-163 | Cost-benefit Analysis For Rules Additional Requirements | Concerning additional requirements for a cost-benefit analysis performed in connection with a state agency’s adoption of rules. | SPONSORS: Rankin | SUMMARY: (In part) If the executive director determines that the proposed rule would likely have materially disparate effects on different regions of the state, the agency must include in the cost-benefit analysis a determination of the anticipated benefits, costs, and adverse effects of the proposed rule on different regions of the state; If the executive director determines that the proposed rule would have a negative economic or noneconomic impact, the executive director shall inform the public by either making a public presentation about the negative impact and any counterbalancing positive impact at the rule-making hearing or publishing a written report summarizing the impacts; The executive director, upon request of any party to the rule-making or member of the general assembly or upon the executive director’s own motion, may require an agency to update a cost-benefit analysis to reflect material changes made to the proposed or adopted rule either before, during, or after the rule-making hearing; A member of the general assembly, no earlier than one year after a rule has been adopted, may request that the adopting agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis regarding the rule’s implementation; more…
CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE
Rationale: The requirement to note negative impacts on Rest-of-State is a poison pill for statewide emissions reductions goals. This bill applies to PUC, CDPHE, and COGCC which hamstrings all of our regulatory bodies. It would be a better bill if it also had a requirement for benefits such as applying a social cost of carbon and/or public health consequences but it doesn’t—just negative impacts. It’s designed to prevent our ability to implement the requirements of 1261 by attempted to segregate the Front Range from the rest of the state. Status: Failed in Committee.
HB21-1034 | Consumer Right To Use Natural Gas Or Propane | Concerning a guarantee of customer choice in the use of gaseous fuels to produce thermal energy. SPONSORS: Rep. D. Woog |
CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE
Rationale: The bill invalidates any statute or local ordnance that prohibits the installation in a new or existing home or business any system or appliance that uses natural gas or propane for cooking, hot water, space heating, or electrical generation, thus forestalling beneficial electrification and local land use/development enacted by a municipality. The language is vague enough that a developer seeking a no-gas subdivision could be required by a buyer to install gas. This inherently requires housing expansion to plan for/install/maintain gas infrastructure to protect the consumer’s right to choose gas. Status: FAILED in Committee 7-5 |
HB21-1205 | Electric Vehicle Road Usage Equalization Fee | Concerning a road usage equalization fee for plug-in electric motor vehicles. | SPONSORS: Rep Pico | SUMMARY: The bill requires a road usage equalization fee (equalization fee) to be imposed at the time of annual registration on each plug-in electric motor vehicle that is required to be registered in the state. The fee is set in an amount that is estimated to achieve parity between the aggregate amount of motor vehicle registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes paid per vehicle by owners of plug-in electric motor vehicles and vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or other special fuels and is annually adjusted for inflation.
CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE
Rationale: This bill attempts to preempt the forthcoming transportation bill being readied by Senator Faith Winter, which will increase fees for both ICE vehicles and EVs. This bill forms a working group of CDOT/DOR people which is tasked to report back in 2022. The proceeds are for existing road maintenance only. This bill attempts to define parity in what ICE users pay for gas taxes which disincentives new EV purchases, and entirely ignores the fees paid to charge EVs. This is a punitive bill that targets only EVs, rather than targeting the transportation sector as a whole. This bill actually penalized EV buyers, because if it passes they will have to pay for both charging fees AND gas taxes, which will inhibit the HB1261 goal of 940,000 EVs in CO by 2030. Status: Failed in committee.
PARTICIPATION: All hearing participation can be remote, using the free app WebEx – https://cart.webex.com/sign-up-webex. Create an account, as you would with Zoom, the download the app to your computer and/or download it for your phone. If you want to testify on any bill, here’s the link to register: https://www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2021A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp For additional information on testifying before a committee of the Colorado General Assembly, please read the memorandum found here. Also, the draft policies regarding remote testimony for the 2021 Regular Session may be found here.