Colorado · individual fact

Colorado prices and inflation

Compare Colorado’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.

BLS does not publish a statewide Colorado CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.

All-items price level103.12024 · #12 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level98.72024 · #15 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level127.42024 · #4 of 50 · highest first

Colorado over time

Explore Colorado readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Colorado officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Colorado effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Colorado change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

All-items price level Colorado · source units
ColoradoPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

All-items price level2024: 103.199101.9104.8Colorado, 2014: 103.1Colorado, 2015: 103Colorado, 2016: 102.7Colorado, 2017: 102.9Colorado, 2018: 100.3Colorado, 2019: 102.5Colorado, 2020: 103.8Colorado, 2021: 102.8Colorado, 2022: 102.3Colorado, 2023: 101.9Colorado, 2024: 103.1201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 29National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementColorado · Colorado orders a response to tariff-related costs · 2025-07-14Colorado tariff responseNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shockColorado · Colorado approves an income-based utility payment program · 2026-06-02Colorado energy affordability● Colorado Legislature · 9● U.S. Congress · Colorado delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 11■ Colorado agencies · 32005-08-012026-06-30

23 of 23 reviewed Colorado actions match · 23 date markers shown. 29 major events shown separately.

Colorado · 2024: 103.1 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Colorado with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Colorado All-items price level · source units
PeriodColoradoRankU.S. benchmark
2024103.1#12 of 50100
2023101.9#14 of 50100
2022102.3#13 of 50100
2021102.8#11 of 50100
2020103.8#10 of 50100
2019102.5#12 of 50100
2018100.3#16 of 50100
2017102.9#11 of 50100
2016102.7#12 of 50100
2015103#12 of 50100
2014103.1#10 of 50100
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Colorado · state comparison

How does Colorado’s cost of living compare?

The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.

Colorado · 2024103.1
Colorado rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

All-items price level

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.

Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Colorado with the published U.S. category value shown.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Colorado
All-items price level history in Colorado99.4101.9104.320142024
2024 · Colorado: 103.1 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado All-items price level history
PeriodColoradoCompare
2014103.1
2015103
2016102.7
2017102.9
2018100.3
2019102.5
2020103.8
2021102.8
2022102.3
2023101.9
2024103.1

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Colorado stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Colorado has a dark outline.

Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Colorado · 103.12024 · Rank #12 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Colorado with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland105—
#8New Hampshire104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado · your comparison103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Colorado · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

Colorado · 20243.8%
Colorado rank#10among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Annual change in regional price deflator

Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.

An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Colorado
Annual change in regional price deflator history in Colorado-1.7%3%7.6%20152024
2024 · Colorado: 3.8% · Rank #10 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodColoradoCompare
20150.2%
20160.7%
20172%
2018-0.6%
20193.7%
20202.4%
20213.1%
20226%
20233.4%
20243.8%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Colorado stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Colorado has a dark outline.

Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Colorado · 3.8%2024 · Rank #10 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Colorado with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado · your comparison3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Colorado · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.

Colorado · 2024$65,223
Colorado rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.

Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Colorado
Real personal income per person history in Colorado$45.01K$56.51K$68.02K20142024
2024 · Colorado: $65,223 · Rank #7 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Real personal income per person history
PeriodColoradoCompare
2014$50,265
2015$51,351
2016$50,937
2017$52,749
2018$56,590
2019$57,869
2020$59,735
2021$64,359
2022$64,668
2023$65,363
2024$65,223

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Colorado stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Colorado has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Colorado · $65,2232024 · Rank #7 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Colorado with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado · your comparison$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s Colorado candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

23 statements from 13 candidates

2026 Colorado Governor / Lt. Governor — General Election

4 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

Erik Underwood

1 statement

Approval Voting · Governor / Lt. Governor · CO

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Facilities cannot increase utility costs for Colorado families. Big Tech pays for their own infrastructure, not working families.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, water, and environment

Candidate campaign source

Facilities cannot increase utility costs for Colorado families. Big Tech pays for their own infrastructure, not working families.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Erik Underwood — candidate-owned primary source 10 ↗

Greg Lopez

2 statements

Unaffiliated · Governor / Lt. Governor · CO

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

My administration will support responsible development of Colorado’s energy resources while encouraging new technologies like nuclear energy and maintaining grid stability. Energy policy should protect the environment without forcing families to have to pay higher utility bills, economic uncertainty…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, water, and environment

Candidate campaign source

My administration will support responsible development of Colorado’s energy resources while encouraging new technologies like nuclear energy and maintaining grid stability. Energy policy should protect the environment without forcing families to have to pay higher utility bills, economic uncertainty, or reduced reliability during extreme weather conditions.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Greg Lopez — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Greg Lopez
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

I will support practical conservation efforts, responsible forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfires, water protection initiatives, and policies that encourage innovation without destroying jobs or increasing the cost of living.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, water, and environment

Candidate campaign source

I will support practical conservation efforts, responsible forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfires, water protection initiatives, and policies that encourage innovation without destroying jobs or increasing the cost of living.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Greg Lopez — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Victor Marx

1 statement

Republican · Governor / Lt. Governor · CO

CPI / inflation mention

I will support legislation expanding earned-income tax credits, preserving the senior homestead exemption under C.R.S. § 39-3-203, and authorizing inflation-based caps on property taxes for owner-occupied homes. These measures will be funded through administrative efficiencies, elimination of oversp…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

I will support legislation expanding earned-income tax credits, preserving the senior homestead exemption under C.R.S. § 39-3-203, and authorizing inflation-based caps on property taxes for owner-occupied homes. These measures will be funded through administrative efficiencies, elimination of overspending in non-essential programs, and revenue stabilization mechanisms under C.R.S. § 24-75-219. This targeted tax relief supports fiscal fairness and equal protection under Colo. Const. art. II, § 25. Colorado families, seniors, and veterans—especially those on fixed incomes—should not be priced out of their homes due to government-driven inflation.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Victor Marx — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Colorado U.S. House — District 2 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 4 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · CO

CPI / inflation mention

Restore Fiscal ResponsibilityFight to reduce reckless federal spending that fuels inflation and drives up the cost of living for working Americans. Congress must return to responsible budgeting and stop passing trillion-dollar spending packages that burden future generations.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: EconomicAffordability.

Candidate campaign source

Restore Fiscal ResponsibilityFight to reduce reckless federal spending that fuels inflation and drives up the cost of living for working Americans. Congress must return to responsible budgeting and stop passing trillion-dollar spending packages that burden future generations.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Kelley Anne Dennison campaign source 3 ↗
View 3 more statements from Kelley Anne Dennison
CPI / inflation mention

Fight to reduce reckless federal spending that fuels inflation and drives up the cost of living for working Americans. Congress must return to responsible budgeting and stop passing trillion-dollar spending packages that burden future generations.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: EconomicAffordability.

Candidate campaign source

Fight to reduce reckless federal spending that fuels inflation and drives up the cost of living for working Americans. Congress must return to responsible budgeting and stop passing trillion-dollar spending packages that burden future generations.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Kelley Anne Dennison campaign source 3 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Support American energy independence through responsible domestic oil, natural gas, and clean energy production. Colorado families should not pay higher prices because of policies that weaken domestic energy development while increasing dependence on foreign nations.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: EconomicAffordability.

Candidate campaign source

Support American energy independence through responsible domestic oil, natural gas, and clean energy production. Colorado families should not pay higher prices because of policies that weaken domestic energy development while increasing dependence on foreign nations.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Kelley Anne Dennison campaign source 3 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Lower Energy CostsSupport American energy independence through responsible domestic oil, natural gas, and clean energy production. Colorado families should not pay higher prices because of policies that weaken domestic energy development while increasing dependence on foreign nations.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: EconomicAffordability.

Candidate campaign source

Lower Energy CostsSupport American energy independence through responsible domestic oil, natural gas, and clean energy production. Colorado families should not pay higher prices because of policies that weaken domestic energy development while increasing dependence on foreign nations.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Kelley Anne Dennison campaign source 3 ↗

2026 Colorado U.S. House — District 3 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Dwayne L. Romero

1 statement

Democratic · U.S. House District 3 · CO

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Affordability is at the top of my priority list. Think about all the people in our district and what matters most to them — its cost of living: housing costs, access to health care, and prices at the pump and the grocery store for that matter. Washington has been making it harder for Coloradans to m…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Platform & Policy Priorities

Candidate campaign source

Affordability is at the top of my priority list. Think about all the people in our district and what matters most to them — its cost of living: housing costs, access to health care, and prices at the pump and the grocery store for that matter. Washington has been making it harder for Coloradans to make ends meet. I’m going to fight to make it easier, starting with repealing these disastrous tariffs and expanding the Family Tax Credits.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dwayne L. Romero — campaign source ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published Colorado candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Colorado incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Colorado legislators and Colorado’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Colorado’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

21 matching sponsorships or proposals · 21 Colorado incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Amy Paschal

Colorado House of Representatives, District 18 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Amy Paschal
Colorado Legislature · HB26-1284

Requirements for Tenant Utility Billing

Mar 18, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Jacque Phillips · Sponsored / Rep. Amy Paschal · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB26-1284: Requirements for Tenant Utility Billing. Official proposal summary: The bill establishes requirements for landlords, unit owners, and associations governing common interest communities (association) for billing a tenant for utility service. A landlord, a unit owner, or an association may individually bill a tenant using a submeter or bill a tenant through a ratio utility billing system, which is a system that allocates utility service costs among individual tenants based on a unit's square footage, occupancy, or other physical characteristics. Starting on January 1, 2027, all new residential construction must install individual submeters for each individual unit to measure water consumption for each unit. A tenant's utility bill for water utility service must be calculated based on the individual submeter reading. For existing residential properties and other types of utility service other than water service, the landlord, unit owner, or association may use a ratio utility billing system if they meet certain requirements. A landlord, a unit owner, or an association shall disclose to a tenant in the tenant's rental agreement the method by which the tenant's utility bills will be calculated. If a landlord, a unit owner, or an association uses a ratio utility billing system, they must deduct at least 10% of the total utility service bill before allocating individual costs to tenants in order to account for utility service to common areas of a residential premises. If a landlord, a unit owner, or an association is found in violation of the provisions of the bill, the aggrieved tenant may file a civil action in court and, if the tenant prevails, recover actual damages from utility bill overages, additional damages in an amount not to exceed 25% of the utility bill overages, and any attorney fees or court costs. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

2026-03-18: House Committee on Transportation, Housing & Local Government Postpone Indefinitely. No enactment is established by this evidence snapshot.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Colorado’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The bill establishes requirements for landlords, unit owners, and associations governing common interest communities (association) for billing a tenant for utility service. A landlord, a unit owner, or an association may individually bill a tenant using a submeter or bill a tenant through a ratio utility billing system, which is a system that allocates utility service costs among individual tenants based on a unit's square footage, occupancy, or other physical characteristics. Starting on January 1, 2027, all new residential construction must install individual submeters for each individual unit to measure water consumption for each unit. A tenant's utility bill for water utility service must be calculated based on the individual submeter reading. For existing residential properties and other types of utility service other than water service, the landlord, unit owner, or association may use a ratio utility billing system if they meet certain requirements. A landlord, a unit owner, or an association shall disclose to a tenant in the tenant's rental agreement the method by which the tenant's utility bills will be calculated. If a landlord, a unit owner, or an association uses a ratio utility billing system, they must deduct at least 10% of the total utility service bill before allocating individual costs to tenants in order to account for utility service to common areas of a residential premises. If a landlord, a unit owner, or an association is found in violation of the provisions of the bill, the aggrieved tenant may file a civil action in court and, if the tenant prevails, recover actual damages from utility bill overages, additional damages in an amount not to exceed 25% of the utility bill overages, and any attorney fees or court costs. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Andrew Boesenecker

Colorado House of Representatives, District 53 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Andrew Boesenecker
Colorado Legislature · HB26-1430

Transportation Funding Adjustments

Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted

Rep. Andrew Boesenecker · Sponsored / Rep. Emily Sirota · Sponsored / Sen. William Lindstedt · Sponsored / Sen. Judy Amabile · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB26-1430: Transportation Funding Adjustments. Official enacted-bill summary: Contingent upon voter approval at the November 2026 general election of a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to change existing law on transportation funding and to increase the amount of state revenue dedicated to road transportation (proposed initiative), from January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030, the act reduces: The excise tax on gasoline from $0.22 per gallon to $0.14 per gallon; The excise tax on special fuel from $0.205 per gallon to $0.13 per gallon; Certain vehicle registration fees, including late fees; and The road usage fees from $0.06 per gallon to $0.04 per gallon and then, beginning in state fiscal year 2027-28, as necessary to offset the amount of state revenue diverted to transportation uses as the result of the proposed initiative. The act creates the support road transportation fund (fund) contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative. The fund consists of state revenue dedicated to road transportation by the proposed initiative. Money in the fund is used to replace certain transportation-related general fund transfers for payments for the financed purchase of assets or certificate of participation agreements, and to replace certain general fund transfers to the state highway fund. The money remaining in the fund after making these transfers is allocated as follows: 60% is paid to the state highway fund; 23% is paid to counties for certain transportation expenses; and 17% is paid to cities and incorporated towns for certain transportation expenses. The act clarifies that state revenue collected to support road transportation, as defined in the proposed initiative, does not include enterprise fee revenue. The act creates the road enterprise to complete preventive maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction projects to improve the condition of the roadway surface of the state highway system. The road enterprise is authorized to impose fees for oversize and overweight vehicles and longer vehicle combinations. The creation of the road enterprise is not contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative.

2026-06-04: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact measures the statewide Colorado retail price of regular gasoline including taxes. Fuel taxes, fees, supply and retail pricing rules concern components of pump prices; they do not determine the statewide average. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Contingent upon voter approval at the November 2026 general election of a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to change existing law on transportation funding and to increase the amount of state revenue dedicated to road transportation (proposed initiative), from January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030, the act reduces: The excise tax on gasoline from $0.22 per gallon to $0.14 per gallon; The excise tax on special fuel from $0.205 per gallon to $0.13 per gallon; Certain vehicle registration fees, including late fees; and The road usage fees from $0.06 per gallon to $0.04 per gallon and then, beginning in state fiscal year 2027-28, as necessary to offset the amount of state revenue diverted to transportation uses as the result of the proposed initiative. The act creates the support road transportation fund (fund) contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative. The fund consists of state revenue dedicated to road transportation by the proposed initiative. Money in the fund is used to replace certain transportation-related general fund transfers for payments for the financed purchase of assets or certificate of participation agreements, and to replace certain general fund transfers to the state highway fund. The money remaining in the fund after making these transfers is allocated as follows: 60% is paid to the state highway fund; 23% is paid to counties for certain transportation expenses; and 17% is paid to cities and incorporated towns for certain transportation expenses. The act clarifies that state revenue collected to support road transportation, as defined in the proposed initiative, does not include enterprise fee revenue. The act creates the road enterprise to complete preventive maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction projects to improve the condition of the roadway surface of the state highway system. The road enterprise is authorized to impose fees for oversize and overweight vehicles and longer vehicle combinations. The creation of the road enterprise is not contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Brianna Titone

Colorado House of Representatives, District 27 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Brianna Titone
Colorado Legislature · HB21-1322

Gasoline And Special Fuel Tax Restructuring

Jul 6, 2021 · Enacted

Sen. Marc Snyder · Sponsored / Rep. Brianna Titone · Sponsored / Rep. Brittany Pettersen · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB21-1322: Gasoline And Special Fuel Tax Restructuring. Official enacted-bill summary: The act restructures the excise tax on gasoline and special fuel (fuels) by: Modifying the point of taxation; Eliminating the 3 tax deferred transactions; Exempting the tax from the import or removal of fuels by bulk transfer to, from, or within a terminal or refinery in certain circumstances; Permitting the 2% allowance to cover losses for terminals that are outside of the state; Requiring a terminal operator to verify that the person receiving the fuels is a licensee or is exempt from taxation; Specifying when the tax is imposed on an importer, blender, seller of liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas, user, and other distributor; Harmonizing provisions applicable to the exemption for governments; Explicitly identifying certain fuels used in aircrafts as being exempt; Codifying that a distributor has the burden of proving that fuels are exempt; Codifying the exemption for the removal of fuels from a terminal by a licensed exporter exclusively for delivery to another state; Requiring a terminal operator to be licensed, which is the current practice; Consolidating the penalties for acting without a license; Making conforming changes related to the aforementioned changes; Reorganizing and relocating provisions; and Modernizing language. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

2021-07-06: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact measures the statewide Colorado retail price of regular gasoline including taxes. Fuel taxes, fees, supply and retail pricing rules concern components of pump prices; they do not determine the statewide average. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The act restructures the excise tax on gasoline and special fuel (fuels) by: Modifying the point of taxation; Eliminating the 3 tax deferred transactions; Exempting the tax from the import or removal of fuels by bulk transfer to, from, or within a terminal or refinery in certain circumstances; Permitting the 2% allowance to cover losses for terminals that are outside of the state; Requiring a terminal operator to verify that the person receiving the fuels is a licensee or is exempt from taxation; Specifying when the tax is imposed on an importer, blender, seller of liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas, user, and other distributor; Harmonizing provisions applicable to the exemption for governments; Explicitly identifying certain fuels used in aircrafts as being exempt; Codifying that a distributor has the burden of proving that fuels are exempt; Codifying the exemption for the removal of fuels from a terminal by a licensed exporter exclusively for delivery to another state; Requiring a terminal operator to be licensed, which is the current practice; Consolidating the penalties for acting without a license; Making conforming changes related to the aforementioned changes; Reorganizing and relocating provisions; and Modernizing language. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Brittany Pettersen

U.S. House of Representatives, Colorado District 7 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Brittany Pettersen
Colorado Legislature · HB21-1322

Gasoline And Special Fuel Tax Restructuring

Jul 6, 2021 · Enacted

Sen. Marc Snyder · Sponsored / Rep. Brianna Titone · Sponsored / Rep. Brittany Pettersen · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB21-1322: Gasoline And Special Fuel Tax Restructuring. Official enacted-bill summary: The act restructures the excise tax on gasoline and special fuel (fuels) by: Modifying the point of taxation; Eliminating the 3 tax deferred transactions; Exempting the tax from the import or removal of fuels by bulk transfer to, from, or within a terminal or refinery in certain circumstances; Permitting the 2% allowance to cover losses for terminals that are outside of the state; Requiring a terminal operator to verify that the person receiving the fuels is a licensee or is exempt from taxation; Specifying when the tax is imposed on an importer, blender, seller of liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas, user, and other distributor; Harmonizing provisions applicable to the exemption for governments; Explicitly identifying certain fuels used in aircrafts as being exempt; Codifying that a distributor has the burden of proving that fuels are exempt; Codifying the exemption for the removal of fuels from a terminal by a licensed exporter exclusively for delivery to another state; Requiring a terminal operator to be licensed, which is the current practice; Consolidating the penalties for acting without a license; Making conforming changes related to the aforementioned changes; Reorganizing and relocating provisions; and Modernizing language. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

2021-07-06: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact measures the statewide Colorado retail price of regular gasoline including taxes. Fuel taxes, fees, supply and retail pricing rules concern components of pump prices; they do not determine the statewide average. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The act restructures the excise tax on gasoline and special fuel (fuels) by: Modifying the point of taxation; Eliminating the 3 tax deferred transactions; Exempting the tax from the import or removal of fuels by bulk transfer to, from, or within a terminal or refinery in certain circumstances; Permitting the 2% allowance to cover losses for terminals that are outside of the state; Requiring a terminal operator to verify that the person receiving the fuels is a licensee or is exempt from taxation; Specifying when the tax is imposed on an importer, blender, seller of liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas, user, and other distributor; Harmonizing provisions applicable to the exemption for governments; Explicitly identifying certain fuels used in aircrafts as being exempt; Codifying that a distributor has the burden of proving that fuels are exempt; Codifying the exemption for the removal of fuels from a terminal by a licensed exporter exclusively for delivery to another state; Requiring a terminal operator to be licensed, which is the current practice; Consolidating the penalties for acting without a license; Making conforming changes related to the aforementioned changes; Reorganizing and relocating provisions; and Modernizing language. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Elizabeth Velasco

Colorado House of Representatives, District 57 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Elizabeth Velasco
Colorado Legislature · HB23-1115

Repeal Prohibition Local Residential Rent Control

Apr 25, 2023 · Did not pass

Rep. Javier Mabrey · Sponsored / Rep. Elizabeth Velasco · Sponsored / Sen. Robert Rodriguez · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB23-1115: Repeal Prohibition Local Residential Rent Control. Official proposal summary: The bill repeals statutory provisions prohibiting counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance or resolution that would control rent on private residential property or a private residential housing unit (rent control) and sets the following guidelines for the enactment of rent control: Rent control must be uniformly applied among all renters that are similarly situated; Rent control must be uniformly applied among all private residential properties and private residential housing units that are similarly situated; except that: For 15 years from the date on which the first certificate of occupancy was issued, no rent control may be applied; Rent control may be applied to a mobile home or mobile home park regardless of the date the mobile home or mobile home park was built or the date a certificate of occupancy was issued; and No rent control may be applied to housing units provided by nonprofit organizations and regulated by fair market rents published by the United States department of housing and urban development or any other similar federal or state program; and Rent control that limits the amount of an annual rent increase must not impose a limit less than the percentage increase in the consumer price index plus three percentage points plus reasonable increases reflective of the actual costs of substantial renovations. Regardless of the first two of these guidelines, the bill permits a local government to have or adopt an ordinance or regulation that is expressly intended and designed to increase the supply of affordable housing. The bill also makes a conforming amendment. (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.)

2023-04-25: Senate Committee on Local Government & Housing Postpone Indefinitely. No enactment is established by this evidence snapshot.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Colorado’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The bill repeals statutory provisions prohibiting counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance or resolution that would control rent on private residential property or a private residential housing unit (rent control) and sets the following guidelines for the enactment of rent control: Rent control must be uniformly applied among all renters that are similarly situated; Rent control must be uniformly applied among all private residential properties and private residential housing units that are similarly situated; except that: For 15 years from the date on which the first certificate of occupancy was issued, no rent control may be applied; Rent control may be applied to a mobile home or mobile home park regardless of the date the mobile home or mobile home park was built or the date a certificate of occupancy was issued; and No rent control may be applied to housing units provided by nonprofit organizations and regulated by fair market rents published by the United States department of housing and urban development or any other similar federal or state program; and Rent control that limits the amount of an annual rent increase must not impose a limit less than the percentage increase in the consumer price index plus three percentage points plus reasonable increases reflective of the actual costs of substantial renovations. Regardless of the first two of these guidelines, the bill permits a local government to have or adopt an ordinance or regulation that is expressly intended and designed to increase the supply of affordable housing. The bill also makes a conforming amendment. (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.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Emily Sirota

Colorado House of Representatives, District 9 · D–CO

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Emily Sirota
Colorado Legislature · HB26-1430

Transportation Funding Adjustments

Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted

Rep. Andrew Boesenecker · Sponsored / Rep. Emily Sirota · Sponsored / Sen. William Lindstedt · Sponsored / Sen. Judy Amabile · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB26-1430: Transportation Funding Adjustments. Official enacted-bill summary: Contingent upon voter approval at the November 2026 general election of a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to change existing law on transportation funding and to increase the amount of state revenue dedicated to road transportation (proposed initiative), from January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030, the act reduces: The excise tax on gasoline from $0.22 per gallon to $0.14 per gallon; The excise tax on special fuel from $0.205 per gallon to $0.13 per gallon; Certain vehicle registration fees, including late fees; and The road usage fees from $0.06 per gallon to $0.04 per gallon and then, beginning in state fiscal year 2027-28, as necessary to offset the amount of state revenue diverted to transportation uses as the result of the proposed initiative. The act creates the support road transportation fund (fund) contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative. The fund consists of state revenue dedicated to road transportation by the proposed initiative. Money in the fund is used to replace certain transportation-related general fund transfers for payments for the financed purchase of assets or certificate of participation agreements, and to replace certain general fund transfers to the state highway fund. The money remaining in the fund after making these transfers is allocated as follows: 60% is paid to the state highway fund; 23% is paid to counties for certain transportation expenses; and 17% is paid to cities and incorporated towns for certain transportation expenses. The act clarifies that state revenue collected to support road transportation, as defined in the proposed initiative, does not include enterprise fee revenue. The act creates the road enterprise to complete preventive maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction projects to improve the condition of the roadway surface of the state highway system. The road enterprise is authorized to impose fees for oversize and overweight vehicles and longer vehicle combinations. The creation of the road enterprise is not contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative.

2026-06-04: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact measures the statewide Colorado retail price of regular gasoline including taxes. Fuel taxes, fees, supply and retail pricing rules concern components of pump prices; they do not determine the statewide average. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Contingent upon voter approval at the November 2026 general election of a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to change existing law on transportation funding and to increase the amount of state revenue dedicated to road transportation (proposed initiative), from January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030, the act reduces: The excise tax on gasoline from $0.22 per gallon to $0.14 per gallon; The excise tax on special fuel from $0.205 per gallon to $0.13 per gallon; Certain vehicle registration fees, including late fees; and The road usage fees from $0.06 per gallon to $0.04 per gallon and then, beginning in state fiscal year 2027-28, as necessary to offset the amount of state revenue diverted to transportation uses as the result of the proposed initiative. The act creates the support road transportation fund (fund) contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative. The fund consists of state revenue dedicated to road transportation by the proposed initiative. Money in the fund is used to replace certain transportation-related general fund transfers for payments for the financed purchase of assets or certificate of participation agreements, and to replace certain general fund transfers to the state highway fund. The money remaining in the fund after making these transfers is allocated as follows: 60% is paid to the state highway fund; 23% is paid to counties for certain transportation expenses; and 17% is paid to cities and incorporated towns for certain transportation expenses. The act clarifies that state revenue collected to support road transportation, as defined in the proposed initiative, does not include enterprise fee revenue. The act creates the road enterprise to complete preventive maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction projects to improve the condition of the roadway surface of the state highway system. The road enterprise is authorized to impose fees for oversize and overweight vehicles and longer vehicle combinations. The creation of the road enterprise is not contingent upon voter approval of the proposed initiative.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Colorado officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Colorado statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.