Amendments for HB20-1064

House Journal, February 11
41 HB20-1064 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to
42 the Committee on Appropriations with favorable
43 recommendation:
1 Amend printed bill, strike everything below the enacting clause and
2 substitute:
3 "SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 40-4-120 as
4 follows:
5 40-4-120. Community choice in wholesale electric supply -
6 investigation and analysis - duties of commission - reports - legislative
7 declaration - definition - repeal. (1) Legislative declaration. (a) THE
8 GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT:
9 (I) AT LEAST A DOZEN COMMUNITIES IN COLORADO, KNOWN AS
10 THE "READY FOR 100" CITIES, HAVE COMMITTED TO OBTAINING ONE
11 HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2025 TO 2035. IN ADDITION,
12 AT LEAST TWO DOZEN COMMUNITIES, KNOWN AS "COLORADO
13 COMMUNITIES FOR CLIMATE ACTION", HAVE ORGANIZED TO ADVOCATE
14 FOR CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS. THESE COMMUNITIES, WHICH
15 REPRESENT MORE THAN ONE MILLION COLORADANS, ARE EXPLORING
16 WAYS TO REACH THEIR ENERGY AND CLIMATE GOALS WITHIN THEIR
17 DESIRED TIME PERIODS.
18 (II) A KEY ELEMENT OF THE GOVERNOR'S POLICY INITIATIVE,
19 ENTITLED "ROADMAP TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2040 AND BOLD
20 CLIMATE ACTION", PRIORITIZES SUPPORTING LOCAL COMMITMENTS TO
21 ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY.
22 (III) THE ABILITY OF A COMMUNITY TO ACHIEVE ITS ENERGY
23 GOALS IS CURRENTLY LIMITED BY THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND
24 DECARBONIZATION TIMELINE OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY THAT SERVES THAT
25 COMMUNITY'S GEOGRAPHIC AREA. THE ABILITY TO PROCURE ELECTRICITY
26 FROM ALTERNATIVE WHOLESALE SUPPLIERS MAY ENABLE COMMUNITIES
27 TO ACHIEVE THEIR ENERGY GOALS SUBSTANTIALLY FASTER AND MORE
28 COST-EFFECTIVELY.
29 (IV) COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY (CCE, ALSO COMMONLY
30 KNOWN AS COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION OR CCA), IS A LOCAL
31 ENERGY MODEL THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN A NUMBER OF STATES AND
32 HAS PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN HELPING COMMUNITIES ACHIEVE THEIR
33 RENEWABLE ENERGY OR COST-CONTAINMENT GOALS, OR BOTH. THE
34 STUDY OF CCE WOULD ANSWER KEY QUESTIONS AND ILLUMINATE THE
35 POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ADAPTING THE CCE MODEL AS
36 AN OPTION FOR COLORADO COMMUNITIES.
37 (V) IN THE CCE MODEL, COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SERVED BY AN
38 INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY MAY CHOOSE THEIR WHOLESALE
39 ELECTRICITY SUPPLIERS, WHILE THE ELECTRICITY CONTINUES TO BE
40 DELIVERED BY THE INCUMBENT UTILITY. IN STATES THAT HAVE ENABLED
41 CCE TO DATE, CCE IS NOT PERMITTED IN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SERVED
42 BY A COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION OR A MUNICIPALLY OWNED
43 ELECTRIC UTILITY.
44 (VI) IN THE CCE MODEL, AN INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY
45 CONTINUES TO OWN AND OPERATE ITS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
46 SYSTEM TO SERVE BOTH CCE CUSTOMERS AND ITS OWN CUSTOMERS, WITH
47 APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION, AND THE UTILITY CONTINUES TO
48 IMPLEMENT DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, MANAGE CUSTOMER
49 SERVICE, AND PROVIDE METERING AND BILLING SERVICES. THE UTILITY
50 CONTINUES TO OWN ITS POWER GENERATION TO SERVE ITS OWN
51 CUSTOMERS. IF A COMMUNITY CHOOSES TO ADOPT CCE, THE UTILITY
52 WOULD DELIVER THE ELECTRICITY FROM ONE OR MORE ALTERNATIVE
53 SUPPLIERS TO CCE CUSTOMERS.
54 (VII) THIS SECTION CONCERNS THE "WHOLESALE, OPT-OUT"
55 MODEL OF CCE, PURSUANT TO WHICH INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS ARE
56 AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED AND RETAIN THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THEIR
1 COMMUNITY'S CCE OFFERINGS AND PURCHASE THEIR ELECTRICITY FROM
2 THE UTILITY UNDER ITS TRADITIONAL "BUNDLED SERVICE". THE RETAIL
3 MODEL OF CCE, IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS IN DEREGULATED "RETAIL
4 CHOICE" STATES CAN SHOP FOR THEIR ELECTRICITY FROM AMONG MANY
5 COMPETING SUPPLIERS, DOES NOT PROMOTE THE STABLE REVENUE
6 CONDITIONS NEEDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH LEVELS OF RENEWABLE
7 ENERGY. THE RETAIL CCE MODEL IS EXPLICITLY NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS
8 SECTION.
9 (VIII) A WELL-DESIGNED WHOLESALE, OPT-OUT CCE PROGRAM
10 WOULD INTRODUCE AN ELEMENT OF WHOLESALE COMPETITION AND
11 COMMUNITY-LEVEL CHOICE INTO THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY AND COULD
12 PROVIDE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE AMBITIOUS RENEWABLE ENERGY
13 GOALS WITH A MEANS TO REACH THOSE GOALS MORE QUICKLY AND
14 COST-EFFECTIVELY.
15 (IX) THIS SECTION PERTAINS ONLY TO THE STUDY OF CCE, NOT TO
16 ITS IMPLEMENTATION. WHILE CCE IN OTHER STATES SHOWS THE
17 POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITIES TO MAKE LOCAL ENERGY DECISIONS, REACH
18 THEIR ENERGY GOALS, REDUCE ENERGY COSTS, AND FOSTER LOCAL
19 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL EMPLOYMENT, IT IS PRUDENT TO
20 FIRST STUDY THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND THE REGULATORY, LEGAL,
21 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF CCE IN COLORADO BEFORE ANY
22 CONSIDERATION OF ENABLING CCE AS AN OPTION FOR COMMUNITIES IN
23 COLORADO.
24 (X) THE TWO INDEPENDENT STUDIES DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION
25 WILL ANSWER KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL VIABILITY OF CCE
26 IN COLORADO AND WILL IDENTIFY BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED
27 FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF STATES THAT HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
28 CCE. THE STUDIES WILL PROVIDE THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO
29 DETERMINE WHETHER CCE WOULD PROVIDE NET BENEFITS TO COLORADO
30 COMMUNITIES.
31 (b) THEREFORE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECLARES THAT IT IS IN
32 THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DIRECT THE COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE
33 VIABILITY OF THE WHOLESALE, OPT-OUT MODEL OF CCE IN COLORADO
34 AND TO ANSWER KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT CCE IN COLORADO THROUGH
35 TWO INVESTIGATIONS:
36 (I) BY OVERSEEING A THIRD-PARTY FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY;
37 AND
38 (II) BY CONDUCTING ITS OWN INVESTIGATORY PROCEEDING USING
39 THE MECHANISM OF AN INVESTIGATORY DOCKET TO STUDY REGULATORY
40 AND LEGAL ISSUES.
41 (2) Definition. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "COMMUNITY CHOICE
42 ENERGY" OR "CCE" MEANS A MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS CITIES OR
43 COUNTIES, OR GROUPS OF CITIES AND COUNTIES, TO COMBINE THEIR
44 PURCHASING POWER AND CHOOSE ONE OR MORE ALTERNATIVE
45 WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY SUPPLIERS ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS,
46 BUSINESSES, AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE JURISDICTION WHILE THE
47 INCUMBENT UTILITY MAINTAINS ITS EXISTING GENERATION AND
48 CONTINUES TO OWN AND OPERATE ITS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
49 SYSTEM AND DELIVER THE ELECTRICITY TO BOTH ITS OWN CUSTOMERS
50 AND CCE CUSTOMERS.
51 (3) Feasibility study. (a) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION
52 (3), THE COMMISSION SHALL OVERSEE, AND REPORT TO THE GENERAL
53 ASSEMBLY THE CONCLUSIONS OF, A STUDY ON THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
54 OF ALLOWING CCE IN COLORADO.
55 (b) THE COMMISSION SHALL:
56 (I) SELECT, THROUGH A TRANSPARENT AND COMPETITIVE
1 SOLICITATION OVERSEEN DIRECTLY BY THE COMMISSIONERS AND ISSUED
2 ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2020, AN INDEPENDENT AND QUALIFIED
3 AGENT TO PERFORM THE STUDY, USING SELECTION CRITERIA THAT ENSURE
4 THE AGENT DOES NOT CARRY BIASES THAT ARE ESPECIALLY FAVORABLE
5 OR UNFAVORABLE TO CCE OR TO INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES;
6 (II) DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF, AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE
7 ADDRESSED BY, THE STUDY, SUBJECT TO THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN
8 THIS SUBSECTION (3);
9 (III) ACQUIRE THE DATA NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT
10 THE STUDY FROM THE INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN A TIMELY
11 FASHION, UTILIZING CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS
12 AS NEEDED; AND
13 (IV) REPORT THE PROCESS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE FEASIBILITY
14 STUDY, AS WELL AS THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CONCURRENT
15 INVESTIGATORY DOCKET SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION,
16 IN A FINAL REPORT TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY COMMITTEE OF
17 THE SENATE AND THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE OF THE
18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR COMMITTEES, ON OR
19 BEFORE JUNE 1, 2021.
20 (c) THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY IS TO ASSESS FINANCIAL
21 FEASIBILITY AND RISK, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR RATE
22 COMPETITIVENESS, PRINCIPLES FOR CALCULATING THE AMOUNT AND
23 DURATION OF ANY TRANSITION FEES, AND AN ESTIMATE OF SUCH FEES,
24 ALSO KNOWN AS EXIT FEES, THAT COMMUNITIES FORMING A CCE
25 AUTHORITY WOULD PAY TO OFFSET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS OF
26 UTILITY ASSETS AND CONTRACTS THAT WERE PROCURED ON THEIR BEHALF
27 AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THE AGENT SHALL MAKE THESE
28 ASSESSMENTS AND DEVELOP THESE PRINCIPLES USING INDUSTRY BEST
29 PRACTICES AND ASSUMING A RANGE OF SCENARIOS THAT INCLUDE:
30 (I) THE LEVEL OF CCE PARTICIPATION IN COLORADO, INCLUDING
31 THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE COMMUNITIES THAT CHOOSE TO FORM OR JOIN
32 A CCE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSUMED OPT-OUT RATE OF THEIR
33 CUSTOMERS, TO EVALUATE THE MARKET SCALE AND REVENUE
34 GENERATION NEEDED FOR CCE TO SUCCEED IN COLORADO;
35 (II) FACTORS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EXIT FEE CONSIDERATION,
36 INCLUDING THE AGE AND TIME OF SERVICE COMMENCEMENT OF
37 GENERATION ASSETS AND EXISTING CONTRACTS; AND
38 (III) RATE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL FOR CCE TO
39 BE COST-COMPETITIVE IN COLORADO, ASSUMING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
40 RENEWABLE ENERGY CONTENT THAT CORRESPOND TO THE RENEWABLE
41 ENERGY STANDARD SPECIFIED IN SECTION 40-2-124 AS WELL AS
42 SCENARIOS EXCEEDING STATE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING ONE HUNDRED
43 PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND CONSIDERATION OF REASONABLY
44 ANTICIPATED TRENDS AND CONTINGENCIES AFFECTING THE PRICES OF
45 FOSSIL FUELS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES AND THE MIX OF NEW
46 RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES VERSUS RENEWABLE ENERGY
47 CERTIFICATES.
48 (d) THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY IS LIMITED TO CONSIDERATION OF
49 THE FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING CCE IN AREAS NOT CURRENTLY SERVED BY
50 MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES OR COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC
51 ASSOCIATIONS.
52 (4) Investigatory docket. (a) ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2020,
53 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION (4), THE COMMISSION SHALL
54 OPEN AN INVESTIGATORY DOCKET TO ACCEPT TESTIMONY AND
55 DOCUMENTATION FROM STAKEHOLDERS, INDEPENDENT ENERGY AND
56 UTILITY EXPERTS, REGULATORS FROM STATES IN WHICH CCE HAS BEEN
1 IMPLEMENTED OR IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, REPRESENTATIVES OF
2 OPERATIONAL CCE AUTHORITIES, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. THE
3 GOAL OF THE PROCEEDING IS TO CONSIDER THE REGULATORY
4 IMPLICATIONS AND LEGAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE CCE-ENABLING
5 LEGISLATION AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GENERAL
6 ASSEMBLY. CONCLUSIONS SHOULD INCLUDE BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS
7 LEARNED FROM STATES THAT HAVE ENABLED CCE AT THE WHOLESALE
8 LEVEL. THE COMMISSION SHALL EMPLOY PROCEDURES THAT PROMOTE A
9 PRODUCTIVE, EFFECTIVE, AND EVIDENCE-BASED PROCESS.
10 (b) THE COMMISSION SHALL SOLICIT INPUT FROM A BROAD AND
11 INCLUSIVE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS AND PRESENTERS TO ENSURE THAT
12 THE PROCESS IS NOT DOMINATED BY ANY ONE GROUP OR VIEWPOINT.
13 STAKEHOLDERS AND PRESENTERS MAY INCLUDE:
14 (I) COMMUNITIES WITH DECLARED GOALS REGARDING CARBON
15 EMISSIONS OR ENERGY SUPPLY CHOICES;
16 (II) BUSINESS GROUPS;
17 (III) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES;
18 (IV) CONSUMER ADVOCATES;
19 (V) ELECTRIC UTILITIES, INCLUDING INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC
20 UTILITIES, MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES, AND COOPERATIVE
21 ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONS;
22 (VI) INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS;
23 (VII) POWER MARKETERS;
24 (VIII) RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPERS;
25 (IX) CONSULTANTS OR OTHER EXPERTS IN ENERGY PROJECT
26 FINANCING;
27 (X) CONSULTANTS OR OTHER EXPERTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
28 DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES;
29 (XI) REPRESENTATIVES OF OPERATIONAL CCE AUTHORITIES THAT
30 USE THE WHOLESALE CCE MODEL; AND
31 (XII) MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
32 (c) THE TOPICS AND QUESTIONS TO BE EXPLORED IN THE DOCKET
33 MAY INCLUDE:
34 (I) WHETHER THE COMMISSION WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
35 STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A RULE-MAKING PROCEEDING
36 CONCERNING THE CREATION OF CCE AUTHORITIES IN COLORADO;
37 (II) THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF CCE
38 OPERATIONS, ON A SCALE RANGING FROM COMPREHENSIVE AS WITH
39 INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO MINIMAL AS WITH MUNICIPALLY
40 OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES;
41 (III) WHICH ASPECTS, IF ANY, OF CURRENT OR ANTICIPATED
42 INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION
43 SHOULD APPLY TO CCE AUTHORITIES AS WELL, AND TO WHAT EXTENT,
44 INCLUDING REGULATION IN THE AREAS OF:
45 (A) RESOURCE ADEQUACY PLANNING;
46 (B) ASSURANCE OF RELIABILITY AND HOW THIS IS PAID FOR;
47 (C) COMPLIANCE WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARDS AND
48 EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS;
49 (D) SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
50 OFFERED BY CCE AUTHORITIES;
51 (E) TIME-OF-USE RATES OR OTHER RATE REQUIREMENTS IF
52 MANDATED FOR INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES; AND
53 (F) STANDARDS FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS;
54 (IV) THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING
55 REASONABLE EXIT FEES AT A LEVEL THAT PROVIDES COST RECOVERY FOR
56 STRANDED INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY ASSETS AND CONTRACTS
1 AND DIRECT TRANSITION COSTS, AND THAT PROTECTS NON-CCE
2 CUSTOMERS, BUT DOES NOT UNDULY BURDEN CCE CUSTOMERS,
3 INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR EXIT FEES TO VARY OVER TIME OR BY
4 LOCATION, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIFIC EXPIRATION PERIOD FOR
5 EXIT FEES, MEASURES TO MITIGATE EXIT FEES THROUGH POTENTIAL
6 CONTRACT TRANSFER OR RESALE TO CCE AUTHORITIES OR OTHER BUYERS,
7 AND APPROPRIATE FORECASTING OF DEPARTING LOAD TO AVOID
8 OVER-PROCUREMENT;
9 (V) THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND
10 PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH CUSTOMERS MAY OPT OUT OF CCE AND
11 RECEIVE BUNDLED SERVICE FROM THE INCUMBENT INVESTOR-OWNED
12 ELECTRIC UTILITY;
13 (VI) WHETHER ANY OTHER CONSUMER PROTECTIONS WOULD BE
14 REQUIRED AND THE MEANS OF PROVIDING THOSE PROTECTIONS;
15 (VII) POTENTIAL CHALLENGES FOR CCE START-UP OR CONTINUING
16 OPERATIONS, INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING AND CREDIT
17 RATING CONSIDERATIONS, AND STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME THOSE
18 CHALLENGES;
19 (VIII) WHAT REGULATORY AND LEGAL ISSUES HAVE ARISEN IN
20 OTHER STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE WHOLESALE, OPT-OUT MODEL OF
21 CCE AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR THOSE ISSUES;
22 (IX) WHETHER AN INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY THAT
23 REMAINS THE SOLE PROVIDER OF DISTRIBUTION, TRANSMISSION, AND
24 OTHER SERVICES TRADITIONALLY PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY, SUCH AS
25 METERING AND BILLING, SHOULD ALSO BE THE PROVIDER OF LAST RESORT
26 FOR SUPPLYING ELECTRICITY TO CUSTOMERS WHO OPT OUT OF CCE;
27 (X) THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF CCE ON BEHALF
28 OF CUSTOMERS WITHIN A JURISDICTION;
29 (XI) WHETHER CCE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OFFER
30 DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS THAT EITHER EXPAND UPON OR
31 REPLACE SUCH PROGRAMS OFFERED BY THE INCUMBENT INVESTOR-OWNED
32 ELECTRIC UTILITY;
33 (XII) REGULATORY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO
34 FORMING CCE AUTHORITIES IN A STATE THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY
35 BELONG TO A REGIONAL TRANSMISSION ORGANIZATION OR PARTICIPATE
36 IN A WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKET, AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS,
37 INCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE AREAS OF:
38 (A) WHETHER LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO GUARANTEE
39 OPEN ACCESS AND FAIR PRICES FOR TRANSMISSION SERVICES;
40 (B) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
41 MEASURES, OR BOTH, CONCERNING WHOLESALE MARKET ACCESS AND
42 DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO;
43 (C) WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
44 MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT CCE IN
45 COLORADO;
46 (XIII) WHAT, IF ANY, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
47 SHOULD APPLY TO INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS AND POWER
48 MARKETERS WHO WISH TO SUPPLY ENERGY TO A CCE AUTHORITY;
49 (XIV) WHAT, IF ANY, DATA-SHARING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE
50 IMPOSED ON INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO HELP ENSURE THAT
51 A CCE AUTHORITY OR A JURISDICTION INVESTIGATING WHETHER TO FORM
52 OR JOIN A CCE AUTHORITY CAN REASONABLY EVALUATE ITS FINANCIAL
53 AND TECHNICAL VIABILITY AND IMPLEMENT ITS CCE PROGRAM;
54 (XV) HOW CCE MIGHT FACILITATE OR IMPEDE INCREASED
55 INTEGRATION OF DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES, SUCH AS ROOFTOP
56 SOLAR, COMMUNITY SOLAR, AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE INTO
1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, AND FACILITATE OR IMPEDE INCREASED
2 INVESTMENT IN BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION INCLUDING
3 ELECTRIFICATION OF TRANSPORT;
4 (XVI) THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENSURING THAT
5 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CCE DOES NOT INCLUDE CUSTOMERS IN THE
6 CERTIFICATED TERRITORIES OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES
7 OR COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONS;
8 (XVII) THE IMPACT OF ALLOWING CCE IN COLORADO ON THE
9 ABILITY OF COLORADO TO REACH ITS CLEAN ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE
10 GAS REDUCTION GOALS AND WHAT LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
11 REQUIREMENTS FOR CCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO FACILITATE REACHING
12 THOSE GOALS;
13 (XVIII) THE IMPACT, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, OF CCE IN
14 COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE FORMED OR JOINED A CCE AUTHORITY IN
15 STATES THAT HAVE ENABLED THE WHOLESALE, OPT-OUT MODEL OF CCE;
16 (XIX) THE IMPACT OF CCE ON LOW-INCOME CUSTOMERS,
17 INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS OFFERED
18 THROUGH THE INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY TO CCE CUSTOMERS
19 AND THE ABILITY OF CCE AUTHORITIES TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL
20 PROGRAMS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME CUSTOMERS; AND
21 (XX) THE RISKS A CCE AUTHORITY MIGHT FACE THAT MERIT
22 CONSIDERATION, SUCH AS RESOURCE PRICE RISKS, CONTRACT RISKS, OR
23 LOAD DEFECTION, AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.
24 (d) Report. THE COMMISSION SHALL SUMMARIZE ITS FINDINGS,
25 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INVESTIGATORY
26 DOCKET AND FROM THE CONCURRENT FEASIBILITY STUDY REQUIRED IN
27 SUBSECTION (3) OF THIS SECTION IN A FINAL REPORT TO THE
28 TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND THE
29 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
30 REPRESENTATIVES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR COMMITTEES. THE COMMISSION
31 SHALL SUBMIT THE REPORT ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 2021.
32 RECOMMENDATIONS MAY BE SPLIT INTO MAJORITY VIEWS AND DISSENTING
33 VIEWS IF NECESSARY.
34 (5) Repeal. THIS SECTION IS REPEALED, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1,
35 2023.
36 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
37 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
38 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.".
39
40