SB156, titled the “Colorado Right to Earn a Living Act” and captioned as reducing the costs of state regulation, would significantly restrict how Colorado state agencies can impose occupational licensing and other professional entry requirements. The bill bars agencies from adopting or administering an occupational regulation unless it is demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a specific, legitimate public health, safety, or welfare objective. It also requires every agency to review its occupational regulations by July 1, 2026, report on those rules, and repeal, amend, or recommend legislative changes for any regulation that does not meet the bill’s standard.
The bill creates a new petition and court-challenge process for people to object to occupational regulations. Any person could ask an agency to repeal, amend, or stop enforcing a rule, and any person could also file a civil action in district court to enjoin an occupational regulation. In court, the plaintiff would prevail if they show the rule burdens entry into a profession or occupation and the government cannot prove the rule is required by law or is the least restrictive means of achieving a legitimate public purpose. Successful plaintiffs would be entitled to injunctive relief and attorney fees. The bill also requires agencies to explain, when proposing rules, how any occupational regulation complies with the new standard.
Beyond occupational licensing, the bill repeals a large number of climate, air quality, and clean-energy programs and funds created in prior legislation. These repeals include several grant programs and cash funds related to clean air, electric bicycles, electrifying school buses, energy code development and training, building electrification, high-efficiency electric heating and appliances, the air quality enterprise, PFAS-related programs and surcharges, and certain air toxics monitoring and enforcement provisions. It also makes conforming changes to multiple statutes governing energy codes, plumbing and electrical code conflicts, the Colorado Energy Office, carbon management planning, and air quality monitoring.
The general sentiment reflected in the committee history appears negative toward the bill, at least in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee. The committee first voted 2-3 against advancing the bill to Finance, then used a reverse roll call to postpone the bill indefinitely by a 3-2 vote. That outcome indicates the bill did not have enough support to move forward in committee.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad deregulatory approach and its repeal of numerous environmental and clean-energy programs. Supporters would likely view the measure as a way to reduce licensing barriers, lower compliance costs, and expand economic opportunity. Opponents would likely object that it weakens state oversight, could undermine consumer and public protections, and eliminates funding and programs tied to air quality, climate policy, and building energy standards. The bill’s litigation provisions and its strong presumption against occupational regulation are also likely to be controversial because they shift power away from agencies and toward court challenges.
The bill would add a new part to title 24 establishing statewide limits on occupational regulations and a new legal framework for challenging them. It would amend the state rulemaking statute to require agencies to justify any proposed occupational regulation, conduct a comprehensive review of existing occupational rules, and respond to petitions within 90 days. It would also create a private right of action with fee-shifting for successful challengers, which could materially affect licensing, certification, registration, and other professional-entry requirements across state government. In addition, the bill would repeal or modify numerous statutes related to clean energy, air quality, PFAS, and emissions programs, removing several funds, boards, grant programs, and monitoring requirements from Colorado law.
The available voting history suggests the bill was viewed unfavorably in committee. It failed on a motion to refer to Finance and then was postponed indefinitely, indicating insufficient support to continue. Because no committee transcript was provided, there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the bill was controversial and did not command a majority in the committee.
The central controversy is between occupational licensing reform and regulatory/public-protection concerns. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill protects the right to work, reduces unnecessary barriers to entry, and limits excessive government interference in professions and occupations. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill goes too far by making it easier to challenge licensing and other occupational rules, potentially weakening safeguards for health, safety, and welfare. A second major point of contention is the bill’s repeal of multiple environmental and energy-related programs, which would likely draw opposition from advocates of clean air, climate policy, building electrification, and state environmental enforcement.