Colorado · Fiscal notes
Bills and Laws
Updated Oct 12
What a fiscal note is
Colorado prices its own bills before it votes on them. A fiscal note is what the legislature's own nonpartisan staff estimated a bill would cost the state, written again each time the bill changes. This page has read the note on 7,078 of the 7,310 bills listed, at the first version of the estimate and at the last; the rest have no note in this record yet.
Every figure here is a forecast at a version, not a cost.
Find a bill
Type a bill number, or a word from the title. The boxes filter; they never answer — you pick the bill.
Press / from anywhere on this page to jump to the box. When your typing leaves exactly one bill, Enter opens it.
7,310 of 7,310 bills · showing the first 150 — narrow the list, or add more below
"Moved" is the distance between what the state first said a bill would cost and what it last said. A negative figure is a saving, not a mistake. A note books reduced spending as a negative expenditure, and the sign here is the publisher's own. "At introduction" is the earliest note in this cache and "Latest" the last one. The last one is often not a final note. A final note is not guaranteed, even for a bill that became law.
A fiscal note is a forecast at a version. It is not a cost. Every figure above carries the date it was written and the version it describes. What a bill actually cost is a different question, and Colorado does not publish the answer.
This is the one table on this site that needs JavaScript. Every other table here works without it. This one cannot: sending all 7,310 rows at once would make the page too large to load, so the search box, the filters, the sorting and all 16 sessions are put together in your browser.
The finding
Most price tags never move. The ones that do, mostly fall.
Comparing each bill's first estimate with its last needs both to carry a figure. 3,675 bills do. Here is what happened to them.
Of the 1,081 bills whose estimate moved at all, down beats up by about 2.1 to 1. The most common thing that happens to a Colorado bill's price tag is nothing. The second most common is that it is taken out of the bill.
2,213 bills had no state fiscal impact
Their first note prints no impact table, because the state's own analysts found the bill costs the state nothing, and the note says so. That is a finding, not a gap. It is the largest single group here, and it is counted on its own so no other total can absorb it.
512 bills were priced in words
Older notes often print a sentence where a figure would go — "Workload increase and potential cost increases." That is a real published finding. It is carried as the sentence the state wrote, labeled PENDING (qualitative), and it is never turned into a zero.
18 bills were priced only if something happens
Their only table is headed Conditional State Fiscal Impacts — figures stated for a condition that may not hold. A conditional is a different claim from a forecast. So these are kept apart from the bills with a figure and from the bills with none.
The record
What is here
Every bill gets a fiscal note. There is no dollar threshold, so a bill the state expects to cost nothing gets a note that says so.
232 of the 7,310 bills have no note in this cache at all. They are listed with that reason rather than dropped. A bill missing from a list of every bill is the one thing a reader cannot see.
The Outcome column starts in 2025
This page reads what happened to a bill out of the fiscal note. Only a note written after the bill was disposed of prints it. Where a bill in 2025 or 2026 has no such note, the page takes the ending from the bill history on the legislature's own page for that bill: the Governor's signature or veto, a committee voting to “postpone indefinitely”, or a floor vote that lost it. Nothing else. So 1,310 of the 7,310 bills here carry an outcome. Every one of them sits in a 2025 or 2026 session. The other 6,000 are marked Not stated. That is this page not having read it, not the state not having published it. The legislature prints every bill's disposition on the bill's own page, and every bill here links to that page. So the outcome filter narrows you to 2025 and 2026 as well.
What this page will not tell you
Three questions, and one of them has no answer anywhere
What a bill actually cost
No Colorado source reports spending bill by bill. A fiscal note estimates what a bill will cost. The Long Bill — the state's yearly spending act — gives money to departments. Neither says what was spent because of one bill. So the question a reader most wants answered cannot be answered, and no number is offered in its place.
What all these bills add up to
Refused, and not pending better data. A dollar total of these estimates is dominated by single bills in every sample measured. On one sample it moved +83.2% across 200 bills and +3.8% with the one largest swing removed. A total like that is a statement about one bill wearing the clothes of a statement about the legislature.
The per-bill direction is stable. That is what is published instead.
Bills before 2016
PENDING Notes exist for every Colorado bill since 1989, on an older state system that still answers. It is recorded here so the gap is a known absence rather than a silent one. It has not been read yet.
There is no scorecard here and no party column. Adding up the estimated cost of the bills a member sponsored would invent a measure and dress it as a fact. A party column would make everything above it read as a partisan scorecard. This site is neutral infrastructure.
How this is read
Method
Which note comes first
Each bill's notes are put in order by the date each note prints about itself. Where two notes carry the same date, the FINAL banner an older note prints at the top of page one breaks the tie. Where neither settles it — 26 bills — both notes are shown and no direction is claimed. A direction there would be a coin toss wearing a percentage.
This matters more than it sounds. The cached file names do not run in date order: the two are the other way round for every session before 2026. Read them by file name rather than by printed date and "down beats up 2.1 to 1" becomes the opposite claim. Every other check on the page still passes.
Which figure is compared
The comparison is state expenditures in the budget year — the fiscal year the note itself labels as the budget year. Notes print two, three or four years. The column count also changes between versions of the same note. So the year is bound to the ruler the note prints, never to a column position.
What each note is checked against
Where a note prints a fund breakdown, the fund lines must add up to the total the note prints. That total must also equal the figure in the summary table. Both checks run on every read. A note that fails is reported, never quietly dropped.
What a bill is about is the legislature's own summary
Each bill record opens with the Bill Summary written by Colorado Legislative Council Staff, printed word for word from the bill's own page on leg.colorado.gov with the date it was read. This site does not write, shorten or rephrase it. The summary says which version of the bill it describes, and that note is printed beside it. Where the legislature publishes no summary, the record says NOT PUBLISHED and the space stays blank.
Sponsors are shown as the legislature's own identifier
The record gives each sponsor as a web address fragment, such as chris-degruy-kennedy.
Turning that into a name means guessing where the capital letters go, and this site does not
guess about a person's name. Each one links to the legislature's own page, which prints it
properly.
Source
Fiscal notes and vote records are published by the Colorado General Assembly at leg.colorado.gov (opens in a new tab). Notes are required by Joint Rule 22, with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). The notes on this page were taken from each bill's own page on the legislature's site on 17 August 2026; the notes of the 139 bills that changed since then were taken again on 2026-09-23; the notes of 4 more bills were taken on 2026-09-24.
Large-Load Data Centers
Concerning measures to ensure accountability for large-load data centers.
Cost estimates
Every figure here is an estimate by Legislative Council Staff on the date shown, about the version of the bill in front of them that day. It is not a cost.
The appropriation
The bill requires money it does not carry — the note says an appropriation is required and does not say the bill includes one.
An appropriation is money the legislature sets aside. It is not money spent.
The appropriation field, read from the note: For FY 2026-27, the bill would have required an appropriation of $644,506 to multiple state agencies. See the State Appropriations section for more detail.
Bill summary
The bill creates certain requirements for large-load data centers, which are defined in the bill as:
- A new data center that has a peak load of more than 30 megawatts or multiple new data centers with a collective peak load of more than 60 megawatts; or
- An existing data center that adds a peak load of more than 30 megawatts or multiple existing data centers that add a collective peak load of more than 60 megawatts.
No later than June 30, 2030, the public utilities commission (commission) is required to make a determination on whether 100% hourly matching by large-load data centers is technically and economically feasible. If the commission determines that 100% hourly matching is not technically and economically feasible, the commission must make a determination of the highest percentage of hourly matching by large-load data centers that is technically and economically feasible (hourly matching requirement), which percentage the commission must update on a regular basis.
Beginning January 1, 2031, an operator of a large-load data center (operator) must generate, purchase, or otherwise acquire a quantity of electricity generated from renewable resources necessary to meet 100% of the operator's large-load data center's total annual electricity consumption. An operator must also achieve the hourly matching requirement. An operator must comply with these requirements through a tariff, contract, or program entered into with a utility, one or more power purchase agreements entered into with an independent power producer, or a self-supply of electricity.
An operator must enter into contracts of at least 15 years with a utility to pay for certain infrastructure and resource costs. An operator must also contribute to utility demand-side management programs and comply with certain operational water management and on-site backup generation requirements.
No later than June 30, 2028, and no later than each June 30 thereafter, an operator must report to the department of public health and environment certain information about the large-load data center, including information about the large-load data center's annual electricity and water consumption. The department of public health and environment must compile the information reported and provide a report to the general assembly and commission and make the report publicly available on the department's website.
A utility is prohibited from interconnecting or supplying electricity to a large-load data center unless:
- The operator has either provided an up-front payment or entered into a contract of at least 15 years with the utility, which up-front payment or contract must require the operator to pay for certain infrastructure and resource costs;
- On or after January 1, 2031, the utility has verified that the operator is in compliance with the hourly matching requirement; and
- The utility determines and ensures that the addition of the large-load data center to the utility's system does not negatively affect the utility's ability to provide reliable service to customers or meet applicable clean energy targets or increase the utility's greenhouse gas emissions.
A utility is prohibited from offering economic development rates to large-load data centers and is required to develop and offer demand response programs or flexible connection tariffs to the utility's customers that are operators. A utility is required to solicit and accept voluntary financial contributions from operators to certain utility programs, which contributions must supplement, rather than substitute, the utility's funding of those programs. A utility that is rate-regulated by the commission with customers that are operators is required to describe efforts to comply with the bill in the utility's annual report filed with the commission.
On or before June 30, 2027, the department of local affairs must publish model codes for the development of large-load data centers, which model codes must consider certain best practices. In developing the model codes, the department of local affairs must conduct a robust stakeholder and engagement process and evaluate, update, and review the model codes every 5 years.
With its development permit application for a large-load data center, the person responsible for the initial development of a large-load data center (developer) must submit a site assessment to the local government reviewing the application. A site assessment must include certain components.
If the siting of a large-load data center is proposed in a disproportionately impacted community or if an operator of an existing data center in a disproportionately impacted community plans to expand the data center's peak load such that the data center will become a large-load data center, the developer or operator must undergo a cumulative impacts analysis before the development or expansion begins. The developer or operator is required to contract with a third-party contractor selected by the department of public health and environment to perform the cumulative impacts analysis.
In reviewing a development permit application for a large-load data center that is in a disproportionately impacted community or is proposed to be in a disproportionately impacted community, the applicable local government is required to consider the applicant's cumulative impacts analysis and whether the mitigation strategies described by the applicant are sufficient to avoid any negative impacts identified in the cumulative impacts analysis. Prior to applying for a development permit that is in a disproportionately impacted community or is proposed to be in a disproportionately impacted community, a developer or operator must comply with certain public hearing, notice, and community outreach requirements.
If the siting of a large-load data center is proposed in a disproportionately impacted community or if an operator of an existing data center in a disproportionately impacted community plans to expand the data center's peak load such that the data center will become a large-load data center, the developer or operator must enter into a community benefit agreement with the disproportionately impacted community before the development or expansion begins. The developer is required to consult with the applicable local government and certain coalition groups and consider certain topics during community benefit agreement negotiations.
An operator is required to comply with certain labor standards.
FACT Bill summary by Colorado Legislative Council Staff, read 2026-09-23. Printed as published, word for word. Source: leg.colorado.gov (opens in a new tab)
What this bill appropriates
Two totals, two bases. An appropriation is money the legislature authorized to be spent, not money spent. For FY 2026-27, the Long Bill alone appropriates $49,560,763,693 FACT. The Appropriations Report from the Joint Budget Committee staff adds the other bills of the session: $49,694,444,712 FACT.
The General Fund is $17,351,445,407 FACT in the Long Bill alone and $17,461,279,123 FACT in the report. Both are correct, and we never add them. See both totals, with their sources.
Sources: HB26-1410 as enacted (opens in a new tab), chapter 436 of the Session Laws, read 8 October 2026. The FY 2026-27 Appropriations Report (opens in a new tab), read 11 October 2026.