Grocery & Utility Bill Reduction Measures
SB139 is a broad cost-reduction bill that combines several unrelated policy changes. Its headline provisions would add nuclear energy to Colorado’s statutory definitions of “clean energy” and “clean energy resource,” which would place nuclear power alongside existing renewable and low-carbon resources in state law. The bill also repeals a series of state-imposed fees and charges tied to groceries, utilities, retail deliveries, plastic carryout bags, egg-laying hen confinement standards, and local nicotine taxes, while making conforming changes throughout the statutes.
A large portion of the bill dismantles or scales back multiple enterprise-based fee programs created in recent years. It repeals the community access enterprise and clean fleet enterprise retail delivery fees, the bridge and tunnel retail delivery fee, the clean transit retail delivery fee, and the air pollution mitigation retail delivery fee, along with related definitions, fund provisions, and reporting or rulemaking language. It also repeals the energy assistance system benefit charge and related supplemental utility assistance provisions, and removes the 10-cent paper carryout bag fee, the retail delivery fee exclusions in tax statutes, and the authority for local special sales taxes on nicotine products. In effect, the bill would substantially reduce or eliminate several charges that currently help fund transportation, climate, and utility-assistance programs.
The bill’s stated policy rationale is to reduce household costs by lowering fees on consumers and deliveries while also promoting nuclear energy as a reliable, carbon-free resource. If enacted, it would change Colorado law by expanding the state’s clean-energy definitions and by repealing or narrowing numerous statutory fee mechanisms that currently support environmental mitigation, infrastructure, and assistance programs. It would also require extensive conforming amendments across titles dealing with energy, transportation, taxation, and local government finance.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history was negative in committee. In the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee, the bill failed on a motion to refer it to Appropriations and was then postponed indefinitely on a 3-2 vote. That outcome indicates the committee majority did not support advancing the measure, even though the bill’s sponsors framed it as a household-cost relief package.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s sweeping repeal of existing fees and the inclusion of nuclear energy as clean energy. Supporters likely view the bill as a way to reduce consumer costs and broaden Colorado’s clean-energy portfolio, while opponents may object that it would eliminate dedicated funding streams for transit, bridge, air-quality, utility-assistance, and other public programs. The bill also appears to bundle many unrelated policy changes into one measure, which may have contributed to its lack of support.
If enacted, SB139 would amend Colorado statutes to include nuclear energy in the definitions of “clean energy” and “clean energy resource,” potentially affecting clean-energy planning, financing, and eligibility determinations. It would also repeal or revise multiple fee-authorizing provisions and associated funds, including retail delivery fees, utility-related charges, and several enterprise programs tied to transportation, emissions mitigation, and energy assistance. The bill would therefore reduce revenue streams currently used by state enterprises and programs, while also altering tax and fee treatment in several related statutes affecting retailers, utilities, local governments, and consumers.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was not well received in committee. It was first rejected on a motion to send it to Appropriations and then postponed indefinitely by a 3-2 vote in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee. That pattern indicates a divided but ultimately unfavorable committee sentiment, with enough opposition to stop the bill from advancing. No committee transcript was provided, so the recorded votes are the primary indicator of sentiment.
The most notable contention is between the bill’s consumer-cost framing and the loss of funding for existing public programs. Supporters appear to favor eliminating fees on groceries, utilities, deliveries, and other consumer transactions, and to support recognizing nuclear energy as a clean resource. Opponents are likely concerned that repealing these fees would undercut funding for bridge repair, transit electrification, air-pollution mitigation, utility assistance, and other state enterprise activities. The breadth of the bill, which combines energy policy, tax changes, environmental regulation, and fee repeals, may also have been a point of concern for lawmakers who prefer narrower legislation.