Senate passes strike‑below to encourage advanced transmission technologies in utility planning

The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee advanced Senate Bill 127 after approving a strike‑below that asks utilities to examine advanced transmission technologies in their planning and allows regulators to design incentives to encourage adoption.

The strike‑below requires that electric utilities and qualifying cooperatives evaluate the potential use of grid‑enhancing technologies and advanced conductors in their electric resource plans (ERPs) and in ten‑year transmission plans. If a utility chooses not to adopt ATTs, the amendment requires the utility to provide a justification in its filing. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is authorized to examine shared‑savings incentives and may consult the Colorado Energy Transmission Authority (CETA) on plan evaluations and incentive design.

Senator Sarah Simpson, one of the sponsors, described the change as the product of months of stakeholder negotiation with utilities, the Colorado Energy Office, CETA and industry groups. "We went from a bill that was 13 pages long as introduced to really one that's just a little over four pages," Simpson said, adding that the strike‑below narrows scope and allows the PUC to consider incentives to offset costs for customers.

Supporters from utilities and clean‑energy trade groups testified in favor of the goal but sought clarifying language and process alignment. Leah Rubenschen of Advanced Energy United and Mike Krueger of the Colorado Solar and Storage Association praised the bill’s intent to use proven technologies — such as dynamic line ratings, power flow controllers and advanced conductors — to increase capacity and reduce the need for new rights‑of‑way.

Several utility witnesses — including Tri‑State Generation and Transmission and Black Hills Energy — registered in the amend position and cautioned that the ERP process focuses on resource acquisition and that transmission planning and ERPs follow different schedules and analysis tools. Tri‑State asked that the legislature avoid binding transmission evaluations into a generation‑focused ERP; Black Hills and others also questioned references to CETA financing because CETA currently lacks an established bond/financing authority.

Western Resource Advocates supported the strike‑below while seeking small clarifications — for example, allowing the PUC to consider different performance metrics and expanding attributes PUC may weigh for incentives. Sponsors said they will continue stakeholder work if the bill moves: the strike‑below passed on committee voice and then on a roll call; the final committee vote reported was 8‑1 in favor.

The strike‑below also adds a non‑voting PUC representative to CETA and explicitly permits utilities and the PUC to consider shared‑savings structures that reward utilities and customers when ATTs reduce system costs. Supporters said ATTs are not a substitute for major new transmission lines but can be a cost‑effective addition to planning toolkits.

The committee adopted two sponsor amendments (L001 and L002) to incorporate stakeholder revisions; sponsors moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The bill now advances toward further hearings on language, timing alignment between ERPs and transmission filings, and the mechanics of incentives and any CETA financing role.