Committee hears debate on on‑bill financing bill; sponsors seek $100M loan from unclaimed‑property trust

House Bill 12‑68, a proposal to expand on‑bill financing for residential (and optionally commercial) energy upgrades, drew extensive testimony on Oct. 12 as sponsors described a plan to seed a statewide program with a $100 million interest‑free loan from the state’s unclaimed property trust fund.

Sponsor Representative Joseph told the House Finance Committee the bill would allow the Colorado Energy Office to contract with utilities to offer on‑bill repayment (OBR) programs that finance energy efficiency, electrification and home‑upgrade projects; customers would repay loans via their monthly utility bills. The bill directs the State Treasurer to make an interest‑free loan of $100 million from the unclaimed property trust fund to the Energy Office on Jan. 1, 2026; the loan must be repaid within 20 years.

"OnBill Finance supports the economy by supporting investments in building upgrades and jobs for tradespeople," Colorado Energy Office Executive Director Will Toor said in support. He described OBR as a tried‑and‑true financing approach and noted several smaller Colorado utilities already operate similar programs.

Supporters — including Fort Collins Councilmember Tricia Canonico, Boulder County senior strategist Brett Fleischman and the Colorado Clean Energy Fund — testified OBR removes traditional credit barriers because repayment is attached to the meter rather than an individual’s credit profile, can attract private capital and can reduce monthly energy costs for participating households.

But key state agencies and consumer advocates raised significant concerns. Leah Marvin Riley, policy director for the Colorado State Treasury, said the Treasury is in an "amend" position and cautioned against using the unclaimed property trust fund for a $100 million loan without agreed‑upon safeguards; she warned of ongoing litigation in the Tenth Circuit about past transfers from the fund and said removing principal will reduce interest earnings for the trust. Treasury staff estimated the annual interest loss at several million dollars (fiscal note figures vary by methodology) and urged consideration of alternative funding tools, such as tax‑credit financing used in prior programs.

Xcel Energy described its own PUC filing to offer OBR and said it cannot be a lender on its balance sheet. Patrick Murphy, Xcel’s program policy manager, urged bill language that allows third‑party lenders to receive funds directly and requested explicit language that any program losses or risks be borne by the enterprise or third party, not by the utility or its ratepayers.

Consumer advocates raised consumer‑protection concerns. Andrew Bennett of Energy Outreach Colorado opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the current language lacks uniform statewide consumer protections and could expose low‑income households to unsustainable obligations or predatory contractors. The Land Title Association and the Colorado Association of Realtors urged stronger public‑record notice or payoff procedures at sale so buyers, lenders and title companies have clear notice of outstanding OBR debts attached to a meter.

The Colorado Clean Energy Fund and other program operators urged standardization: Paul Sharfenberger said a fragmented patchwork of utility programs with differing paperwork and rules would discourage contractors from using OBR and would limit program uptake. Several witnesses asked the committee to require or incentivize uniform contractor enrollment, paperwork, and technical standards to achieve scale.

Sponsors told the committee they are negotiating with the State Treasurer and utilities on language changes, and that multiple amendments are expected as the bill proceeds. Committee members asked detailed questions about repayment mechanics, consumer safeguards at property sale, whether programs would cover commercial buildings, and the length of program terms.

No final committee action on HB 12‑68 was recorded in the transcript excerpt; sponsors said they expect further amendments and negotiations with Treasury and utilities before a referral or floor action.