Under current law, a person engages in an unfair and unconscionable act or practice in violation of consumer protection laws if the person engages in price gouging during a declared disaster emergency. The act provides that a person engages in price gouging in the sale or offer for sale of certain goods or services if, after the governor declares a disaster emergency, which declaration may be based on a market disruption, the price of the good or service is increased by 10% or more above the price at which a similar good or service was sold or offered for sale before the disaster began. The act also establishes that seasonal pricing is not considered unreasonably excessive pricing and therefore is not price gouging. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Sponsored bills
Under current law, the independent ethics commission created in article XXIX of the state constitution does not have jurisdiction over officials or employees of special districts or school districts. The bill gives the independent ethics commission jurisdiction to hear complaints, issue findings, assess penalties, and issue advisory opinions on ethics issues concerning a special district official or employee or school district official or employee. However: "Officials" include only members of a school district or special district board; "School district employee" includes only the superintendent or head administrative officer designated by a school board to execute its policy decisions who is appointed or hired by, directly reports to, and is subject to the direction of the school district board; and "Special district employee" includes only an employee of a special district who is appointed or hired by, directly reports to, and is subject to the direction of the special district's board. Existing law establishes ethical standards for a special district official or employee or school district official or employee. The bill incorporates those standards under the independent ethics commission's jurisdiction and expands the standards to include those described in article XXIX of the state constitution. The bill appropriates $120,856 in general fund to the judicial department for use by the independent ethics commission for the 2025-26 state fiscal year. To implement the bill, the commission may use $96,917 for program costs and $23,939 for the purchase of legal services. The bill also appropriates $23,939 to the department of law for the 2025-26 state fiscal year. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the bill's appropriation to the judicial department. To implement the bill, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the independent ethics commission. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Maddy summaryHouse Joint Resolution 25-1027 designates a specific portion of Colorado State Highway 1 in Larimer County, from East County Road 60 to Interstate 25, as the "Commissioner Lew Gaiter III Memorial Highway." It authorizes the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to accept donations for the initial placement of signs and to explore a cooperative agreement with Larimer County for sign maintenance.
Maddy summaryHouse Joint Resolution 25-1030 expresses the State of Colorado's strong opposition to the use of forced labor in the production of goods. The resolution states that Colorado will use its purchasing power to support businesses that ethically source or manufacture products without forced labor. It also encourages state and local economic development offices to attract businesses that avoid these labor practices. This joint resolution aims to influence state and local government purchasing decisions and promote ethical business standards.
Maddy summaryHJR 25-1026 designates Colorado State Highway 402, from United States Highway 287 to Interstate 25, as the "Rep. Hugh McKean Memorial Highway." It also authorizes the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to accept donations for the initial placement of signs and to explore agreements with Larimer County for sign maintenance.
The bill creates 2 enterprises in the division of insurance (division) in the department of regulatory agencies. The bill creates the strengthen Colorado homes enterprise (strengthen homes enterprise), which is a state-owned business that imposes and collects a fee from insurance companies (insurers), including the FAIR plan association, that offer on policyholders of homeowner's insurance policies issued by insurance companies (insurers) and the fair access to insurance requirements (FAIR) plan association in the admitted market covering property located in or risks in Colorado. which The fee is collected on a per-policy basis and is equal to 1.5% of one-half percent on the dollar amount percentage of the total premiums that the insurer collects in the immediately preceding calendar year from homeowners for issuing homeowner's insurance policies ( insurer fee); except that an insurer shall not collect the fee on policyholders that have resilient roof systems. With the insurer fee revenue, the strengthen homes enterprise board administers a grant program (grant program) to strengthen homes against the risk of future damage claims caused by high winds, wildfire, hail, and other extreme weather events (extreme weather events) by allowing a homeowner to use grant money to upgrade their roof system with certain resilient roof materials. By paying the insurer fee to support the grant program to retrofit homes with resilient roofs, policyholders may defray the cost of retrofitting their property to resist losses due to common perils, including windstorms, wildfire, and other extreme weather events, and insurers reduce their overall risk in the market due to hail and other extreme weather events, in order to promote insurance market stability throughout the state. The bill also creates the wildfire catastrophe reinsurance enterprise (reinsurance enterprise), which is a state-owned business implementing and administering the wildfire catastrophe reinsurance program (reinsurance program). The reinsurance program makes reinsurance payments to insurers that offer homeowner's insurance on properties located in the state to partially mitigate losses in the event of a state or federally declared wildfire-related disaster (wildfire-related disaster). The purpose of the reinsurance program is to stabilize the homeowner's insurance market in the state and to attract and retain homeowner's insurers. In exchange for access to the reinsurance program, the reinsurance program requires insurers to sell homeowner's insurance in areas of the state that are at high risk for wildfires. To pay for the reinsurance program, the reinsurance enterprise: Issues revenue bonds secured by the reinsurance enterprise; Issues a catastrophe bond to a person that purchases the bond but pays the principal to cover costs of a wildfire-related disaster if it occurs; May impose and collect an insurer fee on insurers to cover a shortfall if a wildfire-related disaster does not occur during the bond term and the reinsurance enterprise has insufficient money to redeem the bonds at maturity; and Beginning in the 2026 calendar year, impose and collect a fee on a per-policy basis on each policyholder of a homeowner's insurance policy issued in the admitted market covering property in or risks in the state. The amount of the fee is equal to one-half percent on the percentage of total premiums collected by each insurer in the immediately preceding calendar year. Invests the revenue from the revenue bonds and insurer fees. In addition, the bill sets the loss ratio for homeowner's insurance by presuming that the rates charged to purchasers are excessive if the insurer's loss ratio is less than 75% over a 3-year period and, if rates are in excess of the loss ratio, requires insurers in the admitted market participating in the reinsurance program to submit rates that are at least 5% less than the previous year one set of rates taking into consideration the reinsurance program and one set without. In addition to offering a replacement-cost policy in accordance with current law, an insurer may offer a replacement-cost policy that has a reasonable coverage limit or percentage cap for additional living expenses if the insurer provides a premium decrease for the coverage limit or replacement cap that is approved by the division. For the 2025-26 state fiscal year, the bill appropriates $7,410,037 to the department of regulatory agencies from the strengthen homes enterprise and also appropriates money to the department of law for legal services to implement the reinsurance program. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
The bill sets the reimbursement rates that a health insurance carrier (carrier) may reimburse a health-care provider (provider) for covered services for the state employee group benefit plans (state group benefit plans) and for small employer group benefit plans (small group plans). The bill prohibits a provider that is subject to the reimbursement limitations from billing or collecting payment from a person covered under a state group benefit plan or small group plan for any outstanding balance for covered services that is not reimbursed by the carrier, except for the applicable in-network coinsurance, copayment, or deductible amounts. The bill requires a carrier to provide cost and quality of care information to the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) in the case of small group plans and to the director of the department of personnel (director) in the case of state group benefit plans, at the request of the commissioner or director, as applicable, and prohibits a carrier from entering into an agreement with a provider or third party that would restrict the carrier from providing the information. By September 1, 2027, and by September 1 each year thereafter, the director is required to provide a report to the governor's office, the state treasurer's office, and the joint budget committee that states the amount of calculated savings in general fund expenditures (calculated savings), if any, for health plan reimbursement for the prior fiscal year as a result of the reimbursement limits for state group benefit plans. The director is also required to include in the report the cost to the department in determining the calculated savings. By September 15, 2027, and by September 15 each year thereafter, of the money from the calculated savings, the state treasurer is required to transfer an amount equal to the department's costs in determining the calculated savings to the group benefit plans expenditure savings cash fund (expenditure savings cash fund), which is created in the bill, and specified percentages of the calculated savings from the general fund to the primary care fund and to the expenditure savings cash fund. The bill also requires the executive director of the department of health care policy and financing (state department) to conduct a study, in collaboration with specified state agencies, to determine the feasibility of establishing a similar reimbursement limit for group benefit plans offered to school district, higher education, and local government employees. The executive director is required to complete the study and report the findings to the general assembly on or before January 1, 2028. The bill allocates $500,000 from the calculated savings to a health care reimbursement feasibility study cash fund created in the bill and authorizes the state department to use the money to conduct the study. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
The bill requires a subject jurisdiction, on or after December 31, 2026, to allow a residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property that does not contain an exempt parcel, subject to an administrative approval process. A subject jurisdiction shall not allow a residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property unless the residential development complies with certain affordability requirements. The bill specifies that a subject jurisdiction shall not: Disallow construction of a residential development on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development is no more than 3 stories or 45 feet tall; Disallow construction of a residential development on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development complies with the height-related standards for the zoning district in which the residential development will be built or any zoning district parcel that is contiguous to the qualifying property on which the residential development will be built; Disallow construction of a residential development based on the number of dwelling units that the residential development will contain, except in accordance with standards listed in the bill; or Apply standards to a residential development on a qualifying property that are more restrictive than the standards the subject jurisdiction applies to similar housing constructed within the subject jurisdiction, including standards related to structure setbacks from property lines; lot coverage or open space; on-site parking requirements; numbers of bedrooms in a multifamily residential development; or on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering requirements; or minimum dwelling units per acre. A subject jurisdiction shall allow the following uses in a residential development on a qualifying property: Childcare; and The provision of recreational, social, or educational services provided by community organizations for use by the residents of the residential development and the surrounding community. A subject jurisdiction may condition additional uses in a residential development on the uses being allowed only on the ground floor of the residential development and the uses occupying no more than 15% of the ground floor area of the residential development. The bill requires a faith-based organization, school district, or state college or university to notify the county assessor that a subject jurisdiction has allowed the construction of a residential development on a qualifying property within the county. (Note: Italicized words indicate new material added to the original summary; dashes through words indicate deletions from the original summary.) (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
The act continues the early childhood leadership commission (commission) housed in the department of early childhood for 5 years, repealing on September 1, 2030. Before its repeal, the commission is subject to a sunset review. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
The bill prohibits a developer that has trained a foundation artificial intelligence model (foundation model) from preventing a worker from, or retaliating against a worker for, disclosing or threatening to disclose information to the developer, the attorney general, or appropriate state or federal authorities if the worker has reasonable cause to believe the information indicates one of the following: The developer is out of compliance with law applicable to public safety or security; The developer's activities pose a substantial risk to public safety or security, even if the developer is not out of compliance with any law; or The developer has made false or misleading statements concerning public safety or security or concerning the developer's management of risks to public safety or security. A developer must provide notice to all workers working on a foundation model of the workers' rights and responsibilities under the bill. The bill requires a developer to create and provide an internal process through which a worker may anonymously disclose information to the developer regarding a risk to public safety or security enabled by the developer's foundation model. The developer shall provide a monthly update to the worker who made the disclosure regarding the status of the developer's investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the developer in response to the disclosure. An aggrieved worker may commence a civil action in district court against a developer for a violation of the bill. A court may order relief against a developer that is found to have violated the bill, including: Reinstatement or rehiring of a worker, with or without back pay; The greater of either $10,000 or any lost pay resulting from the violation; Punitive damages; and Reasonable attorney fees to an aggrieved worker.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)