Summary#

HB 26-1420, “Wind Energy Facilities Light-Mitigating Technology,” amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-30.7-106; it does not create a new agency or program. Its stated goal is to change the approval and extension process for light-mitigating technology required at certain wind facilities.

• Owners or operators of covered new facilities must seek approval from the FAA, the FCC, and any other applicable federal agency, and install, test, and begin operating the technology in line with those agencies’ requirements.
• The application deadline remains six months after the facility receives an FAA “no hazard” determination. The installation deadline is 24 months after final federal approval, subject to the technology being available from its manufacturer or supplier.
• A facility owner or operator may ask the local government where the facility is or will be located for more time. The extension must be at least 24 months; the local government may grant a longer extension or further extensions.
• The local government must grant an extension if the owner or operator shows documented circumstances outside its control that constrained timely compliance, or if final federal approval is delayed. Penalties under this section cannot be imposed during an extension.
• The act applies to applications and extension requests pending on or after its effective date. The supplied material does not give that date.

What it means for you#

• Wind facility owners and operators: If your facility is covered, you must apply for the required federal approvals and install, test, and operate the technology on the stated timeline. You may seek an extension from the local government. The bill does not remove the installation requirement.
• Local governments: You must grant an extension when either of the bill’s stated conditions is met. You may grant more time or additional extensions.
• Other members of the public: The bill does not directly change public rights, taxes, or access to services. It changes approval timelines and local extension decisions for covered wind facilities.
• The supplied text shows that Colorado law already required light-mitigating technology at certain new facilities. The full current statute was not supplied, so the existing rules and how every amendment changes them could not be independently verified.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• Local governments will have to consider extension requests, but the bill gives no estimate of staffing or other costs.
• The bill does not state an appropriation, fee, tax, or payment to facility owners.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define “light-mitigating technology” or “approved” technology in the supplied text.
• It does not set local procedures, decision deadlines, evidence standards, or an appeal process for extension requests.
• It does not explain which federal agencies will be applicable to a particular facility or how approval requirements from multiple agencies will interact.
• The installation deadline depends partly on technology being available, but the bill does not define how availability is to be established.
• The supplied material does not state the act’s effective date.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to keep the installation requirement while accounting for delayed federal approvals and circumstances outside an owner’s or operator’s control.
• A possible argument for the bill is that owners should not face penalties for delays they cannot control.
• Giving local governments power to grant longer or additional extensions may allow them to address circumstances that do not fit a fixed deadline.
• The 24-month installation period after final federal approval preserves a time limit for installation, subject to technology availability.

Case against#

• One concern is that required technology could be installed later than under a fixed deadline, because extensions must last at least 24 months and may be extended further.
• The bill requires extensions for broadly described documented circumstances outside an owner’s or operator’s control, but does not define what evidence is enough.
• It is unclear how local governments will handle requests consistently, or how the public can challenge an extension decision.
• The bill does not provide a cost estimate for local governments’ added work.