PUC sunset bill would allow backroom commissioner talks and expand state override of local land use decisions

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

HB26-1326 PUC Sunset Bill

There is finally firm policy to share about the Sunset Bill for the Public Utilities Commission. HB26-1326’s bill page is linked first below.

I had heard some rumors so it’s good to have some specifics to examine. I wanted to get this out there faster than I had time to digest, so don’t expect more than a quick rundown of the things that I find concerning.

I will be watching the bill and hoping to speak against what I’m about to share with you. If you have concerns of your own that you want to share, please speak up.

In broad strokes, this bill continues the PUC for a while forward, but (as is their wont) the sponsors couldn’t help tossing in some extra goodies.

Some fees go up, some money from existing fees is redirected.

A lot of new regs go in for ride share companies (see screenshot 1).

Perhaps the most concerning and widely-applicable to people in the state are provisions relating to transparency and local land use. Some quotes from the bill summary flesh this out:

“Section 3 permits the commission members to engage in nonpublic communications regarding adjudicatory matters after the close of the evidentiary record if prior notice of the communications is provided and the final reasoning and determinations of the matter are later made at a public hearing;”

and

“Clarifying that a municipally owned utility, cooperative electric association, independent transmission developer, or independent power producer may appeal to the commission a local government’s decision to deny a land use permit or application for a major electrical or natural gas facility owned by the municipally owned utility, cooperative electric association, independent transmission developer, or independent power producer;”

These are concerning because any measure that lets a government body have less transparency should be concerning.

I remember reading once about a court ruling regarding attempts to “cure” open meetings laws violations by letting the government body come back to an earlier decision, holding an open meeting to revisit an earlier decision made in private. If you want to read an article on that ruling, see the CFOIC article linked below the bill.

The provisions here remind me of that.

Let the PUC have a discussion behind closed doors and give us the sanitized, theatrical recreation of that discussion. The one where they come out and publicly rubberstamp something from the backroom.

On top of this, you add the following: if we do this for the PUC, why not fold in the AQCC or any of the other unelected big decision makers?

In other words, the ground under my feet here feels both slippery and sloped.

As for the second quote, the change here is less allowing something that wasn’t allowed before so much as expanding the list of who can do something.

Up until now the ability to appeal local decisions to the unelected, crony-filled PUC has been reserved (unless I’m mistaken) for utilities. If you re-read the second quote above, you’ll note a lot more folks on the list that can appeal now.

Don’t like the opposition you’re getting from locals? Why not take it to 3 unelected officials who don’t live where your dispute is and don’t have to live with the consequences?

I will be watching the bill and hope to speak against it. I’ve already contacted my state senator about it to give him my thoughts.

If you are concerned about this bill as well, contact your state senator and add the bill link to your watch list.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1326

https://coloradofoic.org/colorado-supreme-court-upholds-cure-doctrine-for-open-meetings-law-awards-attorney-fees-to-plaintiff-in-woodland-park-school-board-case/

De-regulation for me, but not for thee…

The two bills below represent an interesting contrast. I will be curious to see who wins out (or both perhaps?).

The first is SB26-020. In broad strokes, this bill is intended to de-regulate (a little) child care in Colorado. The second is HB26-1282. This bill lightens up the oversight on child care centers that are run by public schools.

I wrote earlier in the week about the feeling by some preschool and child care providers in the private sector that things are being set up to tilt the balance in the favor of public school operated daycares and preschools.

I think the passage (or not) of one, neither, or both of these bills might well prove to be a bellwether for how this state views the two groups, public and private.

Who gets less (easier?) regulations and who doesn’t says something about what those running this state value.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.