A bill that would require local municipalities and counties in Colorado to implement an automated permitting process for residential solar panel installation passed its first committee hearing, but several of the aye votes for the measure came with reservations.
House Bill 25-1096, dubbed “Automated Permits for Clean Energy Technology,” was brought to the Colorado House Energy and Environment Committee by Democratic Reps. Lesley Smith and Kyle Brown. It has one prime sponsor on the Colorado Senate side, Democratic Sen. Matt Ball.
“HB-1096 seeks to remove the red tape to help Colorado reach its climate goals by asking local governments to adopt instant permitting solutions for residential solar projects,” Brown said in the hearing. “In 2023, Colorado had some of the longest solar permitting timelines in the western United States.”
Smith told the committee that she thinks asking local governments to offer instant permitting for these projects can alleviate costs and delays that may stop residents from installing clean energy equipment. She also noted that the bill leaves the method of instant permitting up to the jurisdictions themselves.
“There are a handful of free solutions that have already come to market, and over 250 jurisdictions across the country have adopted these solutions into their automatic permitting process,” Smith said.
Danny Katz, the executive director of CoPIRG, told Law Week that the bureaucracy around getting a solar permit can add significant costs to going solar. “Now that we have the kind of technology that we have, it seems absurd to accept that it can take weeks for a very standard solar application, to just get a simple permit to put it up on your roof,” Katz said.
He noted that the bill doesn’t alter the actual requirements local governments can set for the installation of residential solar, rather it focuses on the process. “So that if you’re a solar installer, you can answer a set of questions, and, assuming it’s a pretty standard solar project, which many of them are, you should be able to get an immediate answer whether you are approved or not approved on that front end,” Katz explained.
The technology required by the bill is not novel in Colorado. Katz said that the cities of Denver and Bennet, along with hundreds of others across the country, already have an automated process in place.
Katz testified in support of the bill at the committee hearing. He was joined in support by representatives from a number of environmentally focused organizations, including Conversation Colorado, 350 Colorado and Green Latinos. The Colorado Energy Office also testified in support.
Opposition and concerns from the bill came from up and down the front range and across the state, with representatives from Boulder County, Larimer County, Colorado Counties for Climate Action, Adams County and the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department all expressing concern.
Larimer County Commissioner Jody Shadduck-McNally, who was at the committee as a member of Counties & Commissioners Acting Together, said that she appreciated the goal of the legislation but had concerns that she thought warranted further consideration.
“I do think that I have deep concerns with the lack of local flexibility and… that we have to look at having only one application, and there are concerns about the AI issue and concerns with the application,” Shadduck-McNally said.
The executive director of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, Jacob Smith, said that he deeply appreciated the work done by the prime sponsors on the issue and the intent of the legislation, but that CC4CA was opposed to HB-1096.
“The software has already been available, essentially for free, and yet almost no local governments have adopted it,” Smith said. “Rather than trying to force local governments to use a supposedly beneficial tool that they aren’t finding beneficial, the focus, from our perspective, should be on understanding why this particular tool isn’t actually working very well for Colorado jurisdictions, even if it works in other states.”
Some of the issues raised by representatives from the local governments included compliance with zoning codes, zoning review issues, potential issues with inspection and a potential inability to comply in time with the bill’s implementation date.
Despite the issues raised, the bill was able to pass out of the energy and environment committee on a 9-4 party line vote. But several Democratic members of the committee who voted to advance the bill expressed a desire for changes beyond the two amendments passed in the committee. Those two amendments, according to the prime sponsors, were technical cleanups that also clarified that counties and municipalities can conduct manual reviews for up to 25% of permitting.
Rep. Jamie Jackson said that while she was a “yes” for the hearing, she hoped that work could be done to make the bill work for everyone.
Rep. Brianna Titone said she sees the intent of the bill as making the process of solar permitting similar to filing taxes, with the vast majority of people using e-file, but others needing a bit more work and a manual filing process. She pinpointed the 75% automatic permitting requirement as what may be giving some local governments pause.
“I think that might be one of the sticking points, and I think that if we can figure out a way to get the right language in there to make people feel more comfortable,” Titone said. “I think that we can get a lot of the municipalities and counties on board.”