Colorado · individual fact

Colorado energy and electricity

Electricity prices and bills, generation and fuel mix, and gasoline costs.

Residential electricity price14.92¢/kWh2024 · #24 of 50 · highest first
Regular gasoline price$4.174/gal2026-08 · #13 of 48 · highest first
Average monthly residential electricity bill$100.572024 · #48 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.

Residential electricity price 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.

Residential electricity price2024: 14.92¢/kWh11.07¢/kWh14.28¢/kWh17.48¢/kWhColorado, 2015: 12.12¢/kWhColorado, 2016: 12.07¢/kWhColorado, 2017: 12.17¢/kWhColorado, 2018: 12.15¢/kWhColorado, 2019: 12.18¢/kWhColorado, 2020: 12.36¢/kWhColorado, 2021: 13.07¢/kWhColorado, 2022: 14.19¢/kWhColorado, 2023: 14.3¢/kWhColorado, 2024: 14.92¢/kWh201520192024
✦ Major events & context · 51National context · Energy Policy Act expands federal energy programs · 2005-08-08Energy Policy ActNational context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Energy law strengthens fuel economy, biofuels and efficiency · 2007-12-19Fuel / efficiency lawNational context · Global oil and energy prices surge · 2008-07-15Oil-price surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Recovery Act funds grid modernization and clean energy · 2009-02-17Recovery Act energyNational context · EPA signs greenhouse-gas endangerment finding · 2009-12-07GHG findingNational context · Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill · 2010-04-20Deepwater HorizonNational context · Fukushima accident prompts U.S. nuclear safety response · 2011-03-11Fukushima safetyNational context · Global demand and Middle East unrest pressure oil prices · 2011-04-112011 oil pressuresNational context · Hurricane Sandy disrupts electricity and fuel distribution · 2012-10-29Hurricane SandyNational context · Polar vortex strains gas supplies and power systems · 2014-01-07Polar vortexNational context · Oil supply growth and OPEC decision deepen price collapse · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Clean Power Plan announced; implementation later stayed · 2015-08-03Clean Power PlanNational context · Congress lifts longstanding crude-oil export restrictions · 2015-12-18Crude export rulesNational context · First LNG export cargo from the Lower 48 · 2016-02-24Lower 48 LNG exportsNational context · Shale development transforms U.S. oil supply · 2016-03-15Shale expansionNational context · Natural gas overtakes coal in annual electricity generation · 2016-12-31Gas overtakes coalNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · Attacks on Saudi oil facilities interrupt global supply · 2019-09-14Saudi oil attacksNational context · United States becomes an annual net total energy exporter · 2019-12-31Net energy exporterNational context · COVID-19 sharply reduces energy demand · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Expiring WTI oil futures settle below zero · 2020-04-20Negative WTI futuresNational context · Western heat wave leads to California rotating outages · 2020-08-14California outagesNational context · OPEC+ supply cuts help rebalance the pandemic oil market · 2020-09-23OPEC+ supply cutsNational context · Severe winter weather disrupts Texas and regional energy systems · 2021-02-08Winter Storm UriNational context · Cyberattack interrupts Colonial Pipeline fuel deliveries · 2021-05-07Colonial PipelineNational context · Infrastructure law funds grid and energy projects · 2021-11-15Infrastructure energyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Large Strategic Petroleum Reserve release announced · 2022-03-31SPR releaseNational context · Freeport LNG fire shuts a major export terminal · 2022-06-08Freeport LNG outageNational context · Inflation Reduction Act expands energy incentives · 2022-08-16IRA energy incentivesNational context · Winter Storm Elliott disrupts gas and power supplies · 2022-12-21Winter Storm ElliottNational context · Renewables exceed coal in annual electric power sector generation · 2022-12-31Renewables pass coalNational context · Vogtle expansion adds new nuclear generation · 2023-07-31Vogtle nuclear unitsNational context · Red Sea attacks reroute oil and gas shipping · 2024-02-01Red Sea shippingNational context · EPA finalizes new power-plant greenhouse-gas rules · 2024-04-25Power-plant GHG ruleNational context · FERC adopts long-term regional transmission planning rule · 2024-05-13Transmission planningNational context · DOE report documents growing data-center electricity demand · 2024-12-20Data-center demandNational context · President declares energy emergency and directs policy changes · 2025-01-20Energy emergencyNational context · U.S. tariff announcement changes energy trade context · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · EPA proposes repeal of power-sector greenhouse-gas rules · 2025-06-11Power-rule proposalNational context · Tax law accelerates several energy-credit expirations · 2025-07-04Energy tax changesNational context · EPA finalizes endangerment and vehicle GHG standard rescission · 2026-02-12Vehicle GHG repealNational context · EPA announces repeal of 2024 power-plant air-toxics amendments · 2026-02-20Air-toxics amendmentsNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shockNational context · IEA members agree to emergency oil-stock release · 2026-03-11Emergency oil stocksColorado · Colorado approves an income-based utility payment program · 2026-06-02Colorado energy affordabilityNational context · FERC and NERC report improved winter grid preparedness · 2026-09-10Winter grid reviewColorado · DOE selects Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services grid-upgrade application · 2026-09-24Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services · SPARK selectionColorado · DOE selects Colorado Energy Office grid-upgrade application · 2026-09-24Colorado Energy Office · SPARK selection● Colorado Legislature · 122● U.S. Congress · Colorado delegation · 1◆ Governor · 142■ Colorado agencies · 52005-08-012026-09-30

32 of 32 reviewed Colorado actions match · 30 date markers shown. 51 major events shown separately.

Colorado · 2024: 14.92¢/kWh · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 16.48¢/kWh

For 2024, FactVote combines EIA utility-scale net generation with EIA's estimated small-scale solar generation and groups sources into seven categories. The 2015–2023 historical points retain utility-scale coverage. The residential price is EIA's annual average revenue per kilowatthour and includes generation, transmission, distribution, taxes, and fees reflected in electric bills. Generation is electricity produced inside Colorado, not electricity consumed there; interstate imports and exports are not represented. The 2024 comparison includes EIA's estimated generation from small-scale solar systems under 1 megawatt. Historical points for 2015–2023 retain utility-scale coverage and exclude those estimates, so comparisons across 2023–2024 also reflect this change in coverage. Hydroelectric combines conventional and pumped-storage net generation; the 'other' category is the residual of remaining reported energy sources. The residential price is a statewide nominal average and can mask large differences among utilities, plans, and household usage. 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 Residential electricity price · source units
PeriodColoradoRankU.S. benchmark
202414.92¢/kWh#24 of 5016.48¢/kWh
202314.3¢/kWh#25 of 50Not available
202214.19¢/kWh#20 of 50Not available
202113.07¢/kWh#20 of 50Not available
202012.36¢/kWh#25 of 50Not available
201912.18¢/kWh#27 of 50Not available
201812.15¢/kWh#27 of 50Not available
201712.17¢/kWh#27 of 50Not available
201612.07¢/kWh#23 of 50Not available
201512.12¢/kWh#24 of 50Not available
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

Household energy prices

Unit prices are separate from bills: usage, weather, and household needs also determine spending.

Colorado · 202414.92¢/kWh
Colorado rank#24among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark16.48¢/kWhSame 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.

Residential electricity price

For 2024, FactVote combines EIA utility-scale net generation with EIA's estimated small-scale solar generation and groups sources into seven categories. The 2015–2023 historical points retain utility-scale coverage. The residential price is EIA's annual average revenue per kilowatthour and includes generation, transmission, distribution, taxes, and fees reflected in electric bills.

Generation is electricity produced inside Colorado, not electricity consumed there; interstate imports and exports are not represented. The 2024 comparison includes EIA's estimated generation from small-scale solar systems under 1 megawatt. Historical points for 2015–2023 retain utility-scale coverage and exclude those estimates, so comparisons across 2023–2024 also reflect this change in coverage. Hydroelectric combines conventional and pumped-storage net generation; the 'other' category is the residual of remaining reported energy sources. The residential price is a statewide nominal average and can mask large differences among utilities, plans, and household usage.

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
Residential electricity price history in Colorado11.41¢/kWh14.28¢/kWh17.14¢/kWh20152024
2024 · Colorado: 14.92¢/kWh · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 16.48¢/kWh · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Residential electricity price history
PeriodColoradoCompare
201512.12¢/kWh
201612.07¢/kWh
201712.17¢/kWh
201812.15¢/kWh
201912.18¢/kWh
202012.36¢/kWh
202113.07¢/kWh
202214.19¢/kWh
202314.3¢/kWh
202414.92¢/kWh

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 · 11.51¢/kWhHigher value · 42.86¢/kWhStriped: 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 · 14.92¢/kWh2024 · Rank #24 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
Residential electricity price · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii42.86¢/kWh—
#2California31.97¢/kWh—
#3Massachusetts29.35¢/kWh—
#4Connecticut28.75¢/kWh—
#5Rhode Island28.65¢/kWh—
#6Alaska24.82¢/kWh—
#7New York24.43¢/kWh—
#8Maine24.29¢/kWh—
#9New Hampshire23.4¢/kWh—
#10Vermont21.9¢/kWh—
#11New Jersey19.34¢/kWh—
#12Michigan19.3¢/kWh—
#13Maryland17.86¢/kWh—
#14Pennsylvania17.77¢/kWh—
#15Wisconsin17.18¢/kWh—
#16Delaware16.57¢/kWh—
#17Ohio15.99¢/kWh—
#18Illinois15.87¢/kWh—
#19Minnesota15.45¢/kWh—
#20Alabama15.18¢/kWh—
#21West Virginia15.07¢/kWh—
#22Nevada15¢/kWh—
#23Texas14.94¢/kWh—
#24Colorado · your comparison14.92¢/kWh—
#25Arizona14.91¢/kWh—
#26Indiana14.77¢/kWh—
#27Oregon14.7¢/kWh—
#28Virginia14.41¢/kWh—
#29South Carolina14.23¢/kWh—
#30New Mexico14.2¢/kWh—
#31Kansas14.15¢/kWh—
#32Florida14.14¢/kWh—
#33North Carolina14.13¢/kWh—
#34Georgia14.08¢/kWh—
#35Iowa13.4¢/kWh—
#36Mississippi13.39¢/kWh—
#37Missouri12.91¢/kWh—
#38South Dakota12.86¢/kWh—
#39Kentucky12.79¢/kWh—
#40Montana12.66¢/kWh—
#41Wyoming12.47¢/kWh—
#42Tennessee12.42¢/kWh—
#43Arkansas12.32¢/kWh—
#44Oklahoma12.24¢/kWh—
#45Utah12.22¢/kWh—
#46Washington11.9¢/kWh—
#47Louisiana11.73¢/kWh—
#48Nebraska11.53¢/kWh—
#49Idaho11.52¢/kWh—
#50North Dakota11.51¢/kWh—

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

Regular gasoline price

$4.13/galWeek of August 31, 2026

Estimated average Colorado retail price of regular-grade gasoline across all formulations, including taxes.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Recent weekly prices

Prior week
$4.384/gal
Weekly change
-25.2¢
One year earlier
$3.061/gal
Change from one year earlier
+107.1¢
Method and limitations

U.S. Energy Information Administration weekly retail motor-gasoline survey estimate for Colorado. FactVote displays the published dollars-per-gallon value and calculates changes from August 24, 2026 (prior week), and September 1, 2025 (52 weeks earlier).

  • This is a statewide survey estimate, not the price at every station or in every Colorado community.
  • The series is nominal and not adjusted for inflation or seasonal patterns.
  • Weekly estimates can be revised and can differ from monthly averages.
  • Price changes alone do not establish the effect of any bill, official, or government action.
Colorado · state comparison

What are households paying for electricity?

Compare the bill, electricity used, and price per unit for the same year.

Colorado · 2024$100.57
Colorado rank#48among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$142.26Same 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.

Average monthly residential electricity bill

State residential revenue and sales divided by customer accounts, averaged across the year.

Bills describe average customer accounts rather than a particular household. Dollars are nominal; usage reflects climate and building characteristics as well as efficiency.

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
Average monthly residential electricity bill history in Colorado$68.61$110.24$151.8720102024
2024 · Colorado: $100.57 · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $142.26 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Average monthly residential electricity bill history
PeriodColoradoCompare
2010$78.22
2011$80.12
2012$80.94
2013$84.91
2014$83.73
2015$83.42
2016$83.85
2017$82.47
2018$83.9
2019$83.07
2020$87.88
2021$91.96
2022$98.18
2023$94.65
2024$100.57

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 · $92.88Higher value · $212.12Striped: 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 · $100.572024 · Rank #48 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
Average monthly residential electricity bill · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii$212.12—
#2Connecticut$199.66—
#3Alabama$173.5—
#4Massachusetts$167.2—
#5Maryland$165.87—
#6Texas$163.72—
#7Rhode Island$162.4—
#8California$160.86—
#9Arizona$160.24—
#10Florida$156.09—
#11Mississippi$154.83—
#12West Virginia$154.76—
#13Georgia$151.25—
#14Delaware$150.87—
#15South Carolina$149.51—
#16Virginia$148.77—
#17Pennsylvania$145.17—
#18New Hampshire$144.87—
#19Alaska$143.54—
#20North Carolina$143.5—
#21Tennessee$143.32—
#22Louisiana$140.96—
#23New York$139.53—
#24Nevada$139.39—
#25Ohio$135.16—
#26Kentucky$133.81—
#27Maine$133.6—
#28Indiana$133.06—
#29Oklahoma$132.05—
#30Oregon$129.62—
#31Missouri$129.18—
#32Arkansas$129.13—
#33New Jersey$128.13—
#34South Dakota$127.81—
#35Vermont$125.66—
#36Kansas$123.9—
#37Michigan$119.31—
#38North Dakota$118.38—
#39Washington$113.68—
#40Iowa$111.54—
#41Wisconsin$110.87—
#42Nebraska$110.28—
#43Minnesota$110.06—
#44Illinois$109.99—
#45Idaho$108.73—
#46Montana$107.91—
#47Wyoming$107.65—
#48Colorado · your comparison$100.57—
#49Utah$94.57—
#50New Mexico$92.88—

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

What generates Colorado electricity?

Compare total generation and each fuel’s share using the same EIA year. A fuel share is not a performance score.

Colorado · 202460.8 TWh
Colorado rank#28among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame 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.

Total electricity generation

For 2024, FactVote combines EIA utility-scale net generation with EIA's estimated small-scale solar generation and groups sources into seven categories. The 2015–2023 historical points retain utility-scale coverage. The residential price is EIA's annual average revenue per kilowatthour and includes generation, transmission, distribution, taxes, and fees reflected in electric bills.

Generation is electricity produced inside Colorado, not electricity consumed there; interstate imports and exports are not represented. The 2024 comparison includes EIA's estimated generation from small-scale solar systems under 1 megawatt. Historical points for 2015–2023 retain utility-scale coverage and exclude those estimates, so comparisons across 2023–2024 also reflect this change in coverage. Hydroelectric combines conventional and pumped-storage net generation; the 'other' category is the residual of remaining reported energy sources. The residential price is a statewide nominal average and can mask large differences among utilities, plans, and household usage.

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
Total electricity generation history in Colorado51.1 TWh56.6 TWh62.1 TWh20152024
2024 · Colorado: 60.8 TWh · Rank #28 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Total electricity generation history
PeriodColoradoCompare
201552.4 TWh
201654.4 TWh
201753.8 TWh
201855.4 TWh
201956.3 TWh
202054.1 TWh
202156.8 TWh
202258 TWh
202357.5 TWh
202460.8 TWh

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 · 2.5 TWhHigher value · 571.5 TWhStriped: 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 · 60.8 TWh2024 · Rank #28 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
Total electricity generation · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas571.5 TWh—
#2Florida270.7 TWh—
#3California245.9 TWh—
#4Pennsylvania242.5 TWh—
#5Illinois186.7 TWh—
#6Ohio143.3 TWh—
#7Alabama142.9 TWh—
#8Georgia140.4 TWh—
#9North Carolina135.9 TWh—
#10New York133.5 TWh—
#11Michigan124.5 TWh—
#12Arizona121.5 TWh—
#13Virginia103.7 TWh—
#14Washington103 TWh—
#15South Carolina101.1 TWh—
#16Louisiana100 TWh—
#17Indiana97.4 TWh—
#18Oklahoma94.3 TWh—
#19Mississippi77.4 TWh—
#20Tennessee76.3 TWh—
#21Iowa70.9 TWh—
#22Missouri67.6 TWh—
#23Kentucky67.1 TWh—
#24Wisconsin65.6 TWh—
#25Oregon65.3 TWh—
#26New Jersey63.6 TWh—
#27Arkansas62.1 TWh—
#28Colorado · your comparison60.8 TWh—
#29Minnesota59 TWh—
#30Kansas57.9 TWh—
#31West Virginia50.7 TWh—
#32Nevada47.6 TWh—
#33Connecticut46.2 TWh—
#34North Dakota42.6 TWh—
#35Wyoming40.7 TWh—
#36New Mexico40.5 TWh—
#37Nebraska37.3 TWh—
#38Maryland36.9 TWh—
#39Utah36.1 TWh—
#40Montana27 TWh—
#41Massachusetts25 TWh—
#42South Dakota20.9 TWh—
#43Idaho20.3 TWh—
#44New Hampshire17.3 TWh—
#45Maine15.7 TWh—
#46Hawaii10.7 TWh—
#47Rhode Island10.1 TWh—
#48Alaska6.7 TWh—
#49Delaware5 TWh—
#50Vermont2.5 TWh—

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

Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation

30.5%2024

Share of Colorado's in-state electricity-industry net generation supplied by natural gas.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

EIA generation totals

Natural-gas generation
17,926,802 MWh
Wind generation
17,602,010 MWh (29.9%)
Coal generation
16,477,718 MWh (28.0%)
Total net generation
58,798,395 MWh
Method and limitations

FactVote divided 17,926,802 MWh of natural-gas generation by 58,798,395 MWh of total net generation in EIA Table 5 and rounded to one decimal. Wind and coal are shown as exact-source comparisons.

  • EIA Table 5 covers electricity-industry net generation and does not include estimated small-scale generation outside that table.
  • In-state generation is not the same as electricity consumed in Colorado because power crosses state lines.
Colorado · state comparison

Affordability, reliability, emissions, and demand

Outage comparisons use the same reporting standard. Major-event outages and ordinary-day outages use different EIA reporting definitions.

Colorado · 2024257 min/year
Colorado rank#31among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark662.6 min/yearSame 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.

Outage minutes per customer · all events

EIA distribution-system reliability for utilities using the IEEE standard. SAIDI is average customer interruption duration; SAIFI is average frequency.

Reported customer coverage is incomplete and differs by state. These figures cover reporting utilities, not every customer. Major-event definitions follow IEEE; a severe-weather year can dominate the all-events value. Coverage percentage is not itself outage performance.

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
Outage minutes per customer · all events history in Colorado15.8 min/year381.4 min/year747 min/year20232024
2024 · Colorado: 257 min/year · Rank #31 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 662.6 min/year · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Colorado Outage minutes per customer · all events history
PeriodColoradoCompare
2023100.2 min/year
2024257 min/year

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 · 83.6 min/yearHigher value · 3,155 min/yearStriped: 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 · 257 min/year2024 · Rank #31 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
Outage minutes per customer · all events · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1South Carolina3,155 min/year—
#2Maine1,748.6 min/year—
#3Texas1,614.3 min/year—
#4North Carolina1,518.1 min/year—
#5Florida1,487.6 min/year—
#6Georgia1,208.1 min/year—
#7West Virginia1,165.5 min/year—
#8Virginia962.1 min/year—
#9Vermont895.8 min/year—
#10New Hampshire735.5 min/year—
#11Nebraska697.8 min/year—
#12Washington643.5 min/year—
#13Louisiana630.6 min/year—
#14Mississippi607.3 min/year—
#15Oregon579.3 min/year—
#16Kentucky537.7 min/year—
#17Arkansas527.8 min/year—
#18Ohio511 min/year—
#19Michigan481.7 min/year—
#20New York477.3 min/year—
#21Hawaii382.6 min/year—
#22Pennsylvania353.1 min/year—
#23Montana341.7 min/year—
#24Alaska323.2 min/year—
#25Indiana310 min/year—
#26Wisconsin296.8 min/year—
#27Kansas289.8 min/year—
#28Tennessee289.3 min/year—
#29California285 min/year—
#30New Mexico272.6 min/year—
#31Colorado · your comparison257 min/year—
#32Minnesota222.4 min/year—
#33Oklahoma220.7 min/year—
#34Missouri212.6 min/year—
#35Idaho204.4 min/year—
#36Iowa200.3 min/year—
#37Alabama197.7 min/year—
#38New Jersey173.3 min/year—
#39Nevada158.9 min/year—
#40Illinois158 min/year—
#41Connecticut152.8 min/year—
#42Wyoming137.8 min/year—
#43Maryland118.1 min/year—
#44Delaware117.9 min/year—
#45Utah115.4 min/year—
#46Rhode Island104.3 min/year—
#47Massachusetts103.7 min/year—
#48North Dakota102.7 min/year—
#49South Dakota85.6 min/year—
#50Arizona83.6 min/year—

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

Who uses energy?

Total energy consumption includes more than electricity. EIA assigns electricity-related losses to consuming end-use sectors.

Colorado · 2024311.9 trillion Btu
Colorado rank#25among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark18,424 trillion BtuSame 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.

Residential energy consumption

Annual energy consumption by end-use sector, in trillion British thermal units (Btu).

2024 SEDS estimates. Industrial and total figures exclude noncombustible renewable energy inputs used to produce biofuels. Includes allocated electric-system energy losses. Size, climate, industry mix, and activity affect absolute rankings.

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 · 29.5 trillion BtuHigher value · 1,514 trillion BtuStriped: 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 · 311.9 trillion Btu2024 · Rank #25 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
Residential energy consumption · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas1,514 trillion Btu—
#2Florida1,183.3 trillion Btu—
#3California1,147.1 trillion Btu—
#4New York968.3 trillion Btu—
#5Pennsylvania819.3 trillion Btu—
#6Illinois817.1 trillion Btu—
#7Ohio767.4 trillion Btu—
#8Georgia717.1 trillion Btu—
#9North Carolina662.2 trillion Btu—
#10Michigan661.4 trillion Btu—
#11New Jersey550.1 trillion Btu—
#12Virginia526 trillion Btu—
#13Tennessee492 trillion Btu—
#14Indiana475.6 trillion Btu—
#15Missouri459 trillion Btu—
#16Arizona413.7 trillion Btu—
#17Massachusetts379 trillion Btu—
#18Wisconsin375.9 trillion Btu—
#19South Carolina370.7 trillion Btu—
#20Maryland357.2 trillion Btu—
#21Minnesota346.2 trillion Btu—
#22Alabama331.6 trillion Btu—
#23Washington330.2 trillion Btu—
#24Kentucky319 trillion Btu—
#25Colorado · your comparison311.9 trillion Btu—
#26Louisiana282.6 trillion Btu—
#27Connecticut235.3 trillion Btu—
#28Oklahoma231 trillion Btu—
#29Arkansas209.5 trillion Btu—
#30Utah190.7 trillion Btu—
#31Mississippi179.7 trillion Btu—
#32Oregon173.1 trillion Btu—
#33Kansas166.4 trillion Btu—
#34Iowa162 trillion Btu—
#35Nevada153.3 trillion Btu—
#36West Virginia141 trillion Btu—
#37Nebraska128.9 trillion Btu—
#38Idaho111.2 trillion Btu—
#39New Mexico98.1 trillion Btu—
#40New Hampshire91.8 trillion Btu—
#41Maine80.5 trillion Btu—
#42Montana73.9 trillion Btu—
#43Delaware62.6 trillion Btu—
#44North Dakota61.3 trillion Btu—
#45Rhode Island61 trillion Btu—
#46Alaska49.1 trillion Btu—
#47Wyoming45.5 trillion Btu—
#48South Dakota44.2 trillion Btu—
#49Vermont32.7 trillion Btu—
#50Hawaii29.5 trillion Btu—

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

Energy-related carbon emissions

Combustion emissions describe fossil energy use. Production, consumption, emissions, and international trade have different accounting boundaries.

Colorado · 202479.57 Mt CO₂
Colorado rank#22among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark4,780.66 Mt CO₂Same 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.

Total energy-related CO₂ emissions

Thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide from energy consumption.

2024 SEDS estimates. Energy-related CO₂ excludes non-energy greenhouse gases and is not a complete climate footprint. Production emissions are assigned to electric power, rather than reallocating electricity emissions to consumers.

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 · 5.36 Mt CO₂Higher value · 679.93 Mt CO₂Striped: 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 · 79.57 Mt CO₂2024 · Rank #22 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
Total energy-related CO₂ emissions · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas679.93 Mt CO₂—
#2California315.98 Mt CO₂—
#3Florida230.85 Mt CO₂—
#4Pennsylvania201.57 Mt CO₂—
#5Louisiana186.89 Mt CO₂—
#6Ohio186.34 Mt CO₂—
#7Illinois163.98 Mt CO₂—
#8New York163.69 Mt CO₂—
#9Indiana152.3 Mt CO₂—
#10Michigan143.11 Mt CO₂—
#11Georgia127.83 Mt CO₂—
#12North Carolina119.07 Mt CO₂—
#13Kentucky106.87 Mt CO₂—
#14Alabama104.32 Mt CO₂—
#15Virginia99.24 Mt CO₂—
#16Missouri98.03 Mt CO₂—
#17Tennessee90.46 Mt CO₂—
#18Oklahoma88.56 Mt CO₂—
#19New Jersey87.84 Mt CO₂—
#20Wisconsin85.12 Mt CO₂—
#21Arizona82.2 Mt CO₂—
#22Colorado · your comparison79.57 Mt CO₂—
#23Minnesota77.89 Mt CO₂—
#24Washington73.81 Mt CO₂—
#25West Virginia72.28 Mt CO₂—
#26South Carolina70.81 Mt CO₂—
#27Iowa65.23 Mt CO₂—
#28Mississippi64.75 Mt CO₂—
#29Arkansas58.42 Mt CO₂—
#30Massachusetts58.07 Mt CO₂—
#31North Dakota55.15 Mt CO₂—
#32Kansas55.09 Mt CO₂—
#33Utah55.03 Mt CO₂—
#34Wyoming50 Mt CO₂—
#35Maryland48.77 Mt CO₂—
#36Alaska44.01 Mt CO₂—
#37Nebraska43.54 Mt CO₂—
#38New Mexico41.63 Mt CO₂—
#39Nevada39.28 Mt CO₂—
#40Oregon38.94 Mt CO₂—
#41Connecticut37.09 Mt CO₂—
#42Montana27.16 Mt CO₂—
#43Idaho21.11 Mt CO₂—
#44Hawaii17.96 Mt CO₂—
#45Maine15.99 Mt CO₂—
#46South Dakota15.11 Mt CO₂—
#47New Hampshire13.6 Mt CO₂—
#48Delaware11.52 Mt CO₂—
#49Rhode Island11.05 Mt CO₂—
#50Vermont5.36 Mt CO₂—

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 electricity, fuels, energy costs and emissions 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.

16 statements from 10 candidates

2026 Colorado Governor / Lt. Governor — General Election

3 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

Greg Lopez

3 statements

Unaffiliated · Governor / Lt. Governor · CO

Energy & electricity

As Governor, I will direct funding to clearing out the dead trees in our forest by employing individuals that need jobs. Healthy forests are essential in addressing climate change as they act as carbon sinks. The biggest mistake that Colorado made pertaining to protecting our environment was to comb…

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

As Governor, I will direct funding to clearing out the dead trees in our forest by employing individuals that need jobs. Healthy forests are essential in addressing climate change as they act as carbon sinks. The biggest mistake that Colorado made pertaining to protecting our environment was to combine the Game and Fish and State parks department into one agency.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Greg Lopez — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 2 more statements from Greg Lopez
Energy & electricity

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 ↗
Energy & electricity

It must protect our water resources, strengthen our electric grid, and provide real benefits to the communities that host them. Colorado can embrace innovation without sacrificing affordability, reliability, or local control.

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

It must protect our water resources, strengthen our electric grid, and provide real benefits to the communities that host them. Colorado can embrace innovation without sacrificing affordability, reliability, or local control.

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

Energy & electricity

As Governor, I will support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that expands renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal while maintaining the vital role of oil, gas, hydroelectric power, and emerging technologies such as modular nuclear and advanced storage systems. Under C.R.S. § 24-38.5-10…

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

As Governor, I will support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that expands renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal while maintaining the vital role of oil, gas, hydroelectric power, and emerging technologies such as modular nuclear and advanced storage systems. Under C.R.S. § 24-38.5-101, my administration will coordinate with utilities, producers, and technology innovators to ensure energy reliability and affordability.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Victor Marx — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Colorado State Treasurer — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Jeff Bridges

1 statement

Democratic · State Treasurer · CO

Energy & electricity

• Housing that working people can actually afford • Infrastructure that creates good-paying jobs and a strong economy • Clean energy that lowers your bills and fights global warming

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Investing in Our Future

Candidate campaign source

• Housing that working people can actually afford • Infrastructure that creates good-paying jobs and a strong economy • Clean energy that lowers your bills and fights global warming

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

Jeff Bridges campaign source 1 ↗

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

2 candidates with matching statements · 3 statements

Joe Neguse

1 statement

Democratic · U.S. House District 2 · CO

Energy & electricity

Joe firmly believes climate change is an existential threat, and one that must be addressed with bold action. As the only lawmaker from the Rocky Mountain region to be appointed by the Speaker of the House to serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, he has been recognized nationally for …

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

Joe firmly believes climate change is an existential threat, and one that must be addressed with bold action. As the only lawmaker from the Rocky Mountain region to be appointed by the Speaker of the House to serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, he has been recognized nationally for his work to protect our environment, including his successful effort to launch the 21st Century Civilian Climate Corps. The very first bill he introduced was a proposal to expand solar energy (the Solar Edge Act), and he’s written and sponsored multiple bills to significantly increase investments in renewable energy and drastically reduce our carbon emissions. He has also successfully secured millions of dollars to support the incredible Federal research labs across the 2nd District, and passed legislation through the House to invest in regenerative agriculture and natural climate solutions on our lands. Joe believes in building a brighter future for the next generation, by safeguarding our planet, tackling climate change and investing in a clean energy economy.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Joe Neguse — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · CO

Energy & electricity

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 ↗
View 1 more statement from Kelley Anne Dennison
Energy & electricity

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 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific electricity, fuels, energy costs and emissions 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.

29 matching sponsorships or proposals · 22 Colorado incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Alex Valdez

Colorado House of Representatives, District 5 · D–CO

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Alex Valdez
Colorado Legislature · HB26-1337

Facilitating Nuclear Energy Development

May 14, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Alex Valdez · Sponsored / Rep. Ty Winter · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB26-1337: Facilitating Nuclear Energy Development. Official proposal summary: The bill requires the Colorado energy office (office) to serve as the state's permitting coordinator for nuclear energy projects. The office is required to: Coordinate with developers of nuclear energy projects (developers), stakeholders, and state and local permitting agencies throughout the permitting process and assist developers in navigating local, state, and federal regulations; Build administrative and coordination capacity to prepare for federal funding opportunities; and On or before December 1, 2027, recommend to the public utilities commission (commission) factors for the commission to consider when approving the acquisition of a nuclear energy project or other clean firm resources and cost-recovery mechanisms for the development of nuclear energy projects. The bill requires an investor-owned electric utility with more than 500,000 customers to: On or before August 1, 2027, solicit requests for information from communities and local governments interested in hosting a nuclear energy project and from potential development partners; and Identify, in collaboration with other public utilities, local governments, and developers, potential sites for a nuclear energy project. The bill states that an investor-owned electric utility may submit to the commission, and the commission is required to approve, an application to expend and recover up to $20 million to finance studies regarding potential sites, facility designs, and other activities related to the development of nuclear energy projects in the state. The bill requires the commission to issue an approval or denial of a petition from an investor-owned electric utility regarding a cost-recovery mechanism for a nuclear energy project no later than 6 months after receiving the petition. The bill establishes a statewide goal of identifying at least one nuclear energy project site by 2035 and beginning construction of at least one nuclear energy project by 2040. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

2026-05-14: House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed. No enactment is established by this evidence snapshot.

Why this record is included

Natural-gas share is gas-fired electricity-industry net generation divided by total in-state generation covered by EIA Table 5. The denominator excludes estimated small-scale generation outside that table. Gas-fired plants or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The bill requires the Colorado energy office (office) to serve as the state's permitting coordinator for nuclear energy projects. The office is required to: Coordinate with developers of nuclear energy projects (developers), stakeholders, and state and local permitting agencies throughout the permitting process and assist developers in navigating local, state, and federal regulations; Build administrative and coordination capacity to prepare for federal funding opportunities; and On or before December 1, 2027, recommend to the public utilities commission (commission) factors for the commission to consider when approving the acquisition of a nuclear energy project or other clean firm resources and cost-recovery mechanisms for the development of nuclear energy projects. The bill requires an investor-owned electric utility with more than 500,000 customers to: On or before August 1, 2027, solicit requests for information from communities and local governments interested in hosting a nuclear energy project and from potential development partners; and Identify, in collaboration with other public utilities, local governments, and developers, potential sites for a nuclear energy project. The bill states that an investor-owned electric utility may submit to the commission, and the commission is required to approve, an application to expend and recover up to $20 million to finance studies regarding potential sites, facility designs, and other activities related to the development of nuclear energy projects in the state. The bill requires the commission to issue an approval or denial of a petition from an investor-owned electric utility regarding a cost-recovery mechanism for a nuclear energy project no later than 6 months after receiving the petition. The bill establishes a statewide goal of identifying at least one nuclear energy project site by 2035 and beginning construction of at least one nuclear energy project by 2040. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Colorado Legislature · HB25-1040

Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource

Mar 31, 2025 · Enacted

Rep. Alex Valdez · Sponsored / Rep. Ty Winter · Sponsored / Sen. Dylan Roberts · Sponsored / Sen. Larry Liston · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Prime sponsorship of HB25-1040: Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource. Official enacted-bill summary: The statutory definition of "clean energy" determines which energy projects are eligible for clean energy project financing at the county and city and county level. The statutory definition of "clean energy resource" determines which energy resources may be used by a qualifying retail utility to meet the 2050 clean energy target. The act updates the 2 statutory definitions to include nuclear energy; except that, for property valuations made for tax purposes, the act exempts from the definition of "clean energy resource" nuclear energy. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

2025-03-31: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability.

Why this record is included

Natural-gas share is gas-fired electricity-industry net generation divided by total in-state generation covered by EIA Table 5. The denominator excludes estimated small-scale generation outside that table. Gas-fired plants or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Colorado evidence context: Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The statutory definition of "clean energy" determines which energy projects are eligible for clean energy project financing at the county and city and county level. The statutory definition of "clean energy resource" determines which energy resources may be used by a qualifying retail utility to meet the 2050 clean energy target. The act updates the 2 statutory definitions to include nuclear energy; except that, for property valuations made for tax purposes, the act exempts from the definition of "clean energy resource" nuclear energy. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Review official supporting evidence ↗

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. 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.