Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grid Resiliency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears wide support for DeGraaf’s grid resiliency bill but postpones it after debate
Summary
Representative DeGraaf’s HB 11‑24 would create a Colorado Electric Grid Resiliency Task Force to inventory critical transformers, run rigorous engineering assessments and recommend prioritized mitigations. Numerous emergency‑management experts and engineers testified in favor; Xcel Energy opposed the bill as duplicative. The committee ultimately postponed the bill indefinitely.
Representative Ken DeGraaf presented HB 11‑24 to create a Colorado Electric Grid Resiliency Task Force charged with conducting uniform engineering assessments of critical high‑voltage transformers, prioritizing mitigations and spare‑equipment strategies, and coordinating requests for federal or state funding.
The sponsor framed the risk in historical and technical terms: geomagnetic disturbances and extreme solar‑weather events (including Carrington‑scale events) can induce DC currents in long transmission systems and damage or destroy high‑voltage transformers that take years to replace. "For Colorado’s estimated 50 applicable high‑voltage transformers, mitigations would only cost about $25 million statewide," DeGraaf said, arguing assessments are needed to seek federal support and prioritize protections.
A broad set of witnesses — engineers, former NERC and utility officials, national‑security groups and emergency‑management practitioners — testified in support. They emphasized long lead times for replacement transformers, the existence of protection technologies (neutral/solid‑ground blocking devices), and the public‑safety consequences of prolonged outages. Richard Geyer (Ph.D., magnetotellurics research) and licensed engineers said international IEC standards and recent engineering work show Colorado’s exposure to GIC (geomagnetically induced current) risk and recommended assessments to quantify local vulnerabilities.
Xcel Energy’s senior substation engineer Aaron Wilson said Xcel supports grid resilience but opposed the bill as written, calling it duplicative of mandatory federal reliability standards and warning that unfocused requirements could raise costs, introduce non‑standard hardware, or shift vulnerabilities if devices are deployed without a targeted assessment.
The sponsor offered technical amendments (L001–L006) to clarify meeting frequency, protect critical energy infrastructure information as CEII, limit task‑force authority over utility operations, and allow independent verification. The committee adopted those amendments by voice.
After debate that included fiscal concerns about implementation costs, the committee first voted on a motion to move the bill to the Finance Committee; that motion failed on roll call. A subsequent motion to postpone HB 11‑24 indefinitely passed on reverse roll call. The clerk recorded the votes; the committee adjourned following the vote.
Why it matters: The testimony highlights a technical policy area where engineering assessments, national‑security experts and utilities disagree about gaps and the appropriate role of state legislation versus federal reliability standards. Proponents urged targeted assessments and a prioritized plan; opponents warned against duplicative or prescriptive mandates.
