House committee advances bill to require regional seats on Public Utilities Commission

House Finance Committee advanced House Bill 11‑26 on a recorded 8‑5 vote, sending the measure to the Committee on Appropriations after adopting sponsor amendments that delay some implementation costs.

Representative Monica Martinez, prime sponsor, told the committee HB11‑26 would expand the Public Utilities Commission from three to five commissioners and require geographic representation so rural parts of Colorado have guaranteed seats. Martinez said the change is an equity measure and repeated that “it’s been 99 years since we've had a PUC commissioner that lived in Pueblo.”

The bill would preserve party balance on the commission (no more than two members of a single major party) while allocating seats by region. Martinez offered amendment L4 to allow remote participation in the first year and to delay dais construction costs; she said the amendment lowers the bill’s out‑year fiscal impact by about $56,000.

PUC Director Rebecca White testified the agency is officially opposed to HB11‑26 but offered cautionary remarks about timing and cost. White said the PUC is due for a comprehensive sunset review next year and that many structural questions raised by the bill would surface in that review. She also noted that the fiscal note reflects the salary and staff costs for two additional commissioners and their staff.

Clean‑energy and consumer groups, including Western Resource Advocates, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) and Colorado Communities for Climate Action, testified in opposition. Witnesses argued that most states of comparable size keep three commissioners without geographic restrictions, that expanding the commission will raise ongoing costs (the fiscal note shown in committee approached about $986,000 in initial estimates) and that those costs are generally recovered through the fixed utility cash fund and therefore passed along to ratepayers. Park Speroso of Western Resource Advocates told the committee that the fixed utility cash fund “is the primary source of funding for the PUC … but in practice those costs are passed along to ratepayers.”

Sponsor Martinez and allies said they have heard community concerns about cost and timing but maintained that the bill is narrowly tailored to increase geographic diversity on the commission. After questions from committee members about population balance among regions, Martinez said she is open to revising regional boundaries if the bill advances.

The committee adopted L4 and then voted to send HB11‑26 as amended to Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The roll call in committee recorded the measure passing 8 to 5.

Supporters framed the bill as an equity measure to bring rural voices to rate‑setting and utility policy decisions; opponents urged waiting for the PUC sunset review, questioned whether geographic seats would improve regulation, and raised concerns that the fixed utility cash fund would be used to pay the costs and that those costs would flow to ratepayers.

The bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee; the committee action does not change the statute that governs how the fixed utility cash fund may be used or the PUC’s regulatory authority.