Committee Hears Bill Using $100M Loan from Unclaimed Property Fund to Expand On-bill Financing

House Finance Committee members took testimony but did not take action on House Bill 12-68, a proposal to establish an on‑bill repayment (OBR) funding program seeded by a $100 million interest‑free loan from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund to the Colorado Energy Office.

Sponsor Representative Joseph described the bill as a way to expand utility on‑bill programs that let customers finance energy efficiency, electrification and other home upgrades with repayment attached to the utility meter. Under the bill as presented, the State Treasurer would make an interest‑free $100 million loan to the Colorado Energy Office on Jan. 1, 2026; the office would credit the money to a new on‑bill cash fund and make loans to utilities that apply to run on‑bill programs. Participating utilities would be required to file program proposals with the Public Utilities Commission.

Why it matters: On‑bill repayment programs allow residents to finance energy upgrades with no upfront cost and repay through monthly utility bills; sponsors and some local governments said the model increases access to efficiency and clean‑energy measures for renters and homeowners who otherwise lack affordable financing.

Supporters: Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, said the approach is a proven model used in more than 100 utilities nationally and will allow Colorado to inject capital into local energy upgrades while leveraging private investment. “This bill is a win, win, win for our economy, for individual utility customers, and for our environment,” Toor said. Tricia Canonico, a Fort Collins council member speaking for Colorado Communities for Climate Action, described using Fort Collins’ on‑bill program to finance solar and said monthly bills can fall even while loan repayments continue. Boulder County and the Colorado Clean Energy Fund also testified in favor, citing private capital leverage and program standardization.

Opponents and concerns: The Department of the Treasury said it is in an amend position and urged alternative financing mechanisms; Treasury staff raised risks from tapping the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund, cited prior transfers from that fund to the general fund, and warned of ongoing litigation in federal court related to use of unclaimed property funds. "Utilizing these funds for purposes beyond their intended scope could lead to legal challenges and undermine public trust in the program," Leah Marvin Riley, Treasury policy director, told the committee. Treasury estimated the state would forgo interest income if the money were removed, and witnesses referenced fiscal‑note impacts.

Utilities and consumer‑protection groups also requested substantial clarifications. Xcel Energy testified in an amend position, saying it is willing to offer an on‑bill program under a PUC‑approved structure but is uncomfortable being positioned as a lender or holding program loans on its balance sheet. Xcel asked for contract language making a third party the lender and for clarity that enterprise funding be provided directly to such a third party rather than to the utility and for protections that any risk of loss be borne by the enterprise. Energy Outreach Colorado, a low‑income energy assistance nonprofit, opposed the bill as written and asked for more robust statewide consumer protections, including safeguards to prevent inadvertent use of property collateral or foreclosure risk connected to unpaid on‑bill obligations.

Real estate and title groups asked for stronger consumer notice and closing protections. The Colorado Association of Realtors and the Land Title Association sought amendments to ensure buyers and lenders receive constructive public notice of outstanding on‑bill repayment obligations, and some witnesses asked that unpaid on‑bill obligations be cleared at the time of sale to avoid surprising subsequent owners.

Several witnesses and sponsors said they expect continued negotiations and amendments, particularly with the State Treasurer, to resolve funding and legal concerns. Sponsors indicated they plan to return with amendments and seek a vote at a later committee meeting.

Ending: The committee closed testimony on HB 12-68 without taking a committee vote; sponsors and stakeholders will continue negotiations on funding sources, consumer protections, and program design before the bill is scheduled for committee action.