Committee advances fixes to Energy and Carbon Management Act; statute to match commission rules on welder exams

The Statutory Revision Committee voted to forward LLS 26‑0705, a draft that aligns statute and agency rule on certification exams for welders who work on pressurized process lines and updates statutory references where the Energy and Carbon Management Act expanded the commission’s scope.

Eden Rowland of the Office of Legislative Legal Services said the statute previously referenced International Code Council Exam F31, which the Commission discovered is not the appropriate exam for pipeline welders. The Commission’s rulemaking adopted the American Petroleum Institute Standard 1104 (API) or an American Society of Mechanical Engineers qualification (ASME) as the applicable examinations; LLS 26‑0705 replaces the statutory exam name to match the rule and offers committee members the option to add a catch‑all phrase such as "other nationally recognized certifications" to preserve flexibility.

Committee members pressed on the timing and authority. Chair Jeff Robbins of the Energy and Carbon Management Commission said the Commission had undertaken more than 15 rulemakings since SB19‑181 and set an effective date in the adopted rule of July 1, 2026 to give time to align the statute and rule. Committee Member Morris, one of the drafters of the original statute, said the original language included "an analogous successor" exam but that if the named exam was wrong the analogous language would not solve the mismatch; members discussed middle‑ground language to avoid frequent re‑visits.

The draft also corrects several places in CRS 30‑4‑121 where references to "oil and gas operations" should read "energy and carbon management operations" so that license‑revocation and other enforcement provisions apply to all operations regulated by the commission. Counsel for the commission said some parts of the act remain intentionally limited to oil and gas operations and those references are unchanged.

Vice Chair Espinosa moved the draft with authority for technical corrections; the committee approved the motion without objection. Sponsors and co‑sponsors were assigned in both chambers.

Why it matters: The changes remove a drafting inconsistency that could leave industry certification requirements out of alignment with agency enforcement rules and clarify the statutory scope of the commission’s authority.