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.
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
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
2024 · Colorado: 14.92¢/kWh · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 16.48¢/kWh · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Colorado Residential electricity price history
Period
Colorado
Compare
2015
12.12¢/kWh
2016
12.07¢/kWh
2017
12.17¢/kWh
2018
12.15¢/kWh
2019
12.18¢/kWh
2020
12.36¢/kWh
2021
13.07¢/kWh
2022
14.19¢/kWh
2023
14.3¢/kWh
2024
14.92¢/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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
42.86¢/kWh
—
#2
California
31.97¢/kWh
—
#3
Massachusetts
29.35¢/kWh
—
#4
Connecticut
28.75¢/kWh
—
#5
Rhode Island
28.65¢/kWh
—
#6
Alaska
24.82¢/kWh
—
#7
New York
24.43¢/kWh
—
#8
Maine
24.29¢/kWh
—
#9
New Hampshire
23.4¢/kWh
—
#10
Vermont
21.9¢/kWh
—
#11
New Jersey
19.34¢/kWh
—
#12
Michigan
19.3¢/kWh
—
#13
Maryland
17.86¢/kWh
—
#14
Pennsylvania
17.77¢/kWh
—
#15
Wisconsin
17.18¢/kWh
—
#16
Delaware
16.57¢/kWh
—
#17
Ohio
15.99¢/kWh
—
#18
Illinois
15.87¢/kWh
—
#19
Minnesota
15.45¢/kWh
—
#20
Alabama
15.18¢/kWh
—
#21
West Virginia
15.07¢/kWh
—
#22
Nevada
15¢/kWh
—
#23
Texas
14.94¢/kWh
—
#24
Colorado · your comparison
14.92¢/kWh
—
#25
Arizona
14.91¢/kWh
—
#26
Indiana
14.77¢/kWh
—
#27
Oregon
14.7¢/kWh
—
#28
Virginia
14.41¢/kWh
—
#29
South Carolina
14.23¢/kWh
—
#30
New Mexico
14.2¢/kWh
—
#31
Kansas
14.15¢/kWh
—
#32
Florida
14.14¢/kWh
—
#33
North Carolina
14.13¢/kWh
—
#34
Georgia
14.08¢/kWh
—
#35
Iowa
13.4¢/kWh
—
#36
Mississippi
13.39¢/kWh
—
#37
Missouri
12.91¢/kWh
—
#38
South Dakota
12.86¢/kWh
—
#39
Kentucky
12.79¢/kWh
—
#40
Montana
12.66¢/kWh
—
#41
Wyoming
12.47¢/kWh
—
#42
Tennessee
12.42¢/kWh
—
#43
Arkansas
12.32¢/kWh
—
#44
Oklahoma
12.24¢/kWh
—
#45
Utah
12.22¢/kWh
—
#46
Washington
11.9¢/kWh
—
#47
Louisiana
11.73¢/kWh
—
#48
Nebraska
11.53¢/kWh
—
#49
Idaho
11.52¢/kWh
—
#50
North Dakota
11.51¢/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.
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.
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
2024 · Colorado: $100.57 · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $142.26 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Colorado Average monthly residential electricity bill history
Period
Colorado
Compare
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
$212.12
—
#2
Connecticut
$199.66
—
#3
Alabama
$173.5
—
#4
Massachusetts
$167.2
—
#5
Maryland
$165.87
—
#6
Texas
$163.72
—
#7
Rhode Island
$162.4
—
#8
California
$160.86
—
#9
Arizona
$160.24
—
#10
Florida
$156.09
—
#11
Mississippi
$154.83
—
#12
West Virginia
$154.76
—
#13
Georgia
$151.25
—
#14
Delaware
$150.87
—
#15
South Carolina
$149.51
—
#16
Virginia
$148.77
—
#17
Pennsylvania
$145.17
—
#18
New Hampshire
$144.87
—
#19
Alaska
$143.54
—
#20
North Carolina
$143.5
—
#21
Tennessee
$143.32
—
#22
Louisiana
$140.96
—
#23
New York
$139.53
—
#24
Nevada
$139.39
—
#25
Ohio
$135.16
—
#26
Kentucky
$133.81
—
#27
Maine
$133.6
—
#28
Indiana
$133.06
—
#29
Oklahoma
$132.05
—
#30
Oregon
$129.62
—
#31
Missouri
$129.18
—
#32
Arkansas
$129.13
—
#33
New Jersey
$128.13
—
#34
South Dakota
$127.81
—
#35
Vermont
$125.66
—
#36
Kansas
$123.9
—
#37
Michigan
$119.31
—
#38
North Dakota
$118.38
—
#39
Washington
$113.68
—
#40
Iowa
$111.54
—
#41
Wisconsin
$110.87
—
#42
Nebraska
$110.28
—
#43
Minnesota
$110.06
—
#44
Illinois
$109.99
—
#45
Idaho
$108.73
—
#46
Montana
$107.91
—
#47
Wyoming
$107.65
—
#48
Colorado · your comparison
$100.57
—
#49
Utah
$94.57
—
#50
New 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.
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
2024 · Colorado: 60.8 TWh · Rank #28 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Colorado Total electricity generation history
Period
Colorado
Compare
2015
52.4 TWh
2016
54.4 TWh
2017
53.8 TWh
2018
55.4 TWh
2019
56.3 TWh
2020
54.1 TWh
2021
56.8 TWh
2022
58 TWh
2023
57.5 TWh
2024
60.8 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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
571.5 TWh
—
#2
Florida
270.7 TWh
—
#3
California
245.9 TWh
—
#4
Pennsylvania
242.5 TWh
—
#5
Illinois
186.7 TWh
—
#6
Ohio
143.3 TWh
—
#7
Alabama
142.9 TWh
—
#8
Georgia
140.4 TWh
—
#9
North Carolina
135.9 TWh
—
#10
New York
133.5 TWh
—
#11
Michigan
124.5 TWh
—
#12
Arizona
121.5 TWh
—
#13
Virginia
103.7 TWh
—
#14
Washington
103 TWh
—
#15
South Carolina
101.1 TWh
—
#16
Louisiana
100 TWh
—
#17
Indiana
97.4 TWh
—
#18
Oklahoma
94.3 TWh
—
#19
Mississippi
77.4 TWh
—
#20
Tennessee
76.3 TWh
—
#21
Iowa
70.9 TWh
—
#22
Missouri
67.6 TWh
—
#23
Kentucky
67.1 TWh
—
#24
Wisconsin
65.6 TWh
—
#25
Oregon
65.3 TWh
—
#26
New Jersey
63.6 TWh
—
#27
Arkansas
62.1 TWh
—
#28
Colorado · your comparison
60.8 TWh
—
#29
Minnesota
59 TWh
—
#30
Kansas
57.9 TWh
—
#31
West Virginia
50.7 TWh
—
#32
Nevada
47.6 TWh
—
#33
Connecticut
46.2 TWh
—
#34
North Dakota
42.6 TWh
—
#35
Wyoming
40.7 TWh
—
#36
New Mexico
40.5 TWh
—
#37
Nebraska
37.3 TWh
—
#38
Maryland
36.9 TWh
—
#39
Utah
36.1 TWh
—
#40
Montana
27 TWh
—
#41
Massachusetts
25 TWh
—
#42
South Dakota
20.9 TWh
—
#43
Idaho
20.3 TWh
—
#44
New Hampshire
17.3 TWh
—
#45
Maine
15.7 TWh
—
#46
Hawaii
10.7 TWh
—
#47
Rhode Island
10.1 TWh
—
#48
Alaska
6.7 TWh
—
#49
Delaware
5 TWh
—
#50
Vermont
2.5 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.
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
2024 · Colorado: 257 min/year · Rank #31 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 662.6 min/year · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Colorado Outage minutes per customer · all events history
Period
Colorado
Compare
2023
100.2 min/year
2024
257 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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
South Carolina
3,155 min/year
—
#2
Maine
1,748.6 min/year
—
#3
Texas
1,614.3 min/year
—
#4
North Carolina
1,518.1 min/year
—
#5
Florida
1,487.6 min/year
—
#6
Georgia
1,208.1 min/year
—
#7
West Virginia
1,165.5 min/year
—
#8
Virginia
962.1 min/year
—
#9
Vermont
895.8 min/year
—
#10
New Hampshire
735.5 min/year
—
#11
Nebraska
697.8 min/year
—
#12
Washington
643.5 min/year
—
#13
Louisiana
630.6 min/year
—
#14
Mississippi
607.3 min/year
—
#15
Oregon
579.3 min/year
—
#16
Kentucky
537.7 min/year
—
#17
Arkansas
527.8 min/year
—
#18
Ohio
511 min/year
—
#19
Michigan
481.7 min/year
—
#20
New York
477.3 min/year
—
#21
Hawaii
382.6 min/year
—
#22
Pennsylvania
353.1 min/year
—
#23
Montana
341.7 min/year
—
#24
Alaska
323.2 min/year
—
#25
Indiana
310 min/year
—
#26
Wisconsin
296.8 min/year
—
#27
Kansas
289.8 min/year
—
#28
Tennessee
289.3 min/year
—
#29
California
285 min/year
—
#30
New Mexico
272.6 min/year
—
#31
Colorado · your comparison
257 min/year
—
#32
Minnesota
222.4 min/year
—
#33
Oklahoma
220.7 min/year
—
#34
Missouri
212.6 min/year
—
#35
Idaho
204.4 min/year
—
#36
Iowa
200.3 min/year
—
#37
Alabama
197.7 min/year
—
#38
New Jersey
173.3 min/year
—
#39
Nevada
158.9 min/year
—
#40
Illinois
158 min/year
—
#41
Connecticut
152.8 min/year
—
#42
Wyoming
137.8 min/year
—
#43
Maryland
118.1 min/year
—
#44
Delaware
117.9 min/year
—
#45
Utah
115.4 min/year
—
#46
Rhode Island
104.3 min/year
—
#47
Massachusetts
103.7 min/year
—
#48
North Dakota
102.7 min/year
—
#49
South Dakota
85.6 min/year
—
#50
Arizona
83.6 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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
1,514 trillion Btu
—
#2
Florida
1,183.3 trillion Btu
—
#3
California
1,147.1 trillion Btu
—
#4
New York
968.3 trillion Btu
—
#5
Pennsylvania
819.3 trillion Btu
—
#6
Illinois
817.1 trillion Btu
—
#7
Ohio
767.4 trillion Btu
—
#8
Georgia
717.1 trillion Btu
—
#9
North Carolina
662.2 trillion Btu
—
#10
Michigan
661.4 trillion Btu
—
#11
New Jersey
550.1 trillion Btu
—
#12
Virginia
526 trillion Btu
—
#13
Tennessee
492 trillion Btu
—
#14
Indiana
475.6 trillion Btu
—
#15
Missouri
459 trillion Btu
—
#16
Arizona
413.7 trillion Btu
—
#17
Massachusetts
379 trillion Btu
—
#18
Wisconsin
375.9 trillion Btu
—
#19
South Carolina
370.7 trillion Btu
—
#20
Maryland
357.2 trillion Btu
—
#21
Minnesota
346.2 trillion Btu
—
#22
Alabama
331.6 trillion Btu
—
#23
Washington
330.2 trillion Btu
—
#24
Kentucky
319 trillion Btu
—
#25
Colorado · your comparison
311.9 trillion Btu
—
#26
Louisiana
282.6 trillion Btu
—
#27
Connecticut
235.3 trillion Btu
—
#28
Oklahoma
231 trillion Btu
—
#29
Arkansas
209.5 trillion Btu
—
#30
Utah
190.7 trillion Btu
—
#31
Mississippi
179.7 trillion Btu
—
#32
Oregon
173.1 trillion Btu
—
#33
Kansas
166.4 trillion Btu
—
#34
Iowa
162 trillion Btu
—
#35
Nevada
153.3 trillion Btu
—
#36
West Virginia
141 trillion Btu
—
#37
Nebraska
128.9 trillion Btu
—
#38
Idaho
111.2 trillion Btu
—
#39
New Mexico
98.1 trillion Btu
—
#40
New Hampshire
91.8 trillion Btu
—
#41
Maine
80.5 trillion Btu
—
#42
Montana
73.9 trillion Btu
—
#43
Delaware
62.6 trillion Btu
—
#44
North Dakota
61.3 trillion Btu
—
#45
Rhode Island
61 trillion Btu
—
#46
Alaska
49.1 trillion Btu
—
#47
Wyoming
45.5 trillion Btu
—
#48
South Dakota
44.2 trillion Btu
—
#49
Vermont
32.7 trillion Btu
—
#50
Hawaii
29.5 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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
679.93 Mt CO₂
—
#2
California
315.98 Mt CO₂
—
#3
Florida
230.85 Mt CO₂
—
#4
Pennsylvania
201.57 Mt CO₂
—
#5
Louisiana
186.89 Mt CO₂
—
#6
Ohio
186.34 Mt CO₂
—
#7
Illinois
163.98 Mt CO₂
—
#8
New York
163.69 Mt CO₂
—
#9
Indiana
152.3 Mt CO₂
—
#10
Michigan
143.11 Mt CO₂
—
#11
Georgia
127.83 Mt CO₂
—
#12
North Carolina
119.07 Mt CO₂
—
#13
Kentucky
106.87 Mt CO₂
—
#14
Alabama
104.32 Mt CO₂
—
#15
Virginia
99.24 Mt CO₂
—
#16
Missouri
98.03 Mt CO₂
—
#17
Tennessee
90.46 Mt CO₂
—
#18
Oklahoma
88.56 Mt CO₂
—
#19
New Jersey
87.84 Mt CO₂
—
#20
Wisconsin
85.12 Mt CO₂
—
#21
Arizona
82.2 Mt CO₂
—
#22
Colorado · your comparison
79.57 Mt CO₂
—
#23
Minnesota
77.89 Mt CO₂
—
#24
Washington
73.81 Mt CO₂
—
#25
West Virginia
72.28 Mt CO₂
—
#26
South Carolina
70.81 Mt CO₂
—
#27
Iowa
65.23 Mt CO₂
—
#28
Mississippi
64.75 Mt CO₂
—
#29
Arkansas
58.42 Mt CO₂
—
#30
Massachusetts
58.07 Mt CO₂
—
#31
North Dakota
55.15 Mt CO₂
—
#32
Kansas
55.09 Mt CO₂
—
#33
Utah
55.03 Mt CO₂
—
#34
Wyoming
50 Mt CO₂
—
#35
Maryland
48.77 Mt CO₂
—
#36
Alaska
44.01 Mt CO₂
—
#37
Nebraska
43.54 Mt CO₂
—
#38
New Mexico
41.63 Mt CO₂
—
#39
Nevada
39.28 Mt CO₂
—
#40
Oregon
38.94 Mt CO₂
—
#41
Connecticut
37.09 Mt CO₂
—
#42
Montana
27.16 Mt CO₂
—
#43
Idaho
21.11 Mt CO₂
—
#44
Hawaii
17.96 Mt CO₂
—
#45
Maine
15.99 Mt CO₂
—
#46
South Dakota
15.11 Mt CO₂
—
#47
New Hampshire
13.6 Mt CO₂
—
#48
Delaware
11.52 Mt CO₂
—
#49
Rhode Island
11.05 Mt CO₂
—
#50
Vermont
5.36 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.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
32 of 32 reviewed Colorado actions · newest first
Jul 16, 2026 · AG 2026-07-16 · Attorney General Phil Weiser intervenes to protect onshore wind energy projects · Reported actionColorado agencies · AG 2026-07-16
Attorney General Phil Weiser intervenes to protect onshore wind energy projects
Jul 16, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Phil Weiser · Moved to intervene
FactVote reviewed summary
Moved to intervene against a federal freeze on reviews of land-based wind projects, seeking to resume the approval process for generating facilities.
Reported in the official release dated 2026-07-16. The release date may follow a filing or court order. Litigation, guidance and proposed settlements do not themselves enact legislation or establish final liability.
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.
Department of Defense and Secretary Pete Hegseth for unlawfully freezing routine reviews of land-based wind energy projects across the country. Federal law requires the DOD to review proposed wind projects for potential national security concerns and work with developers to address any issues. In August 2025, the DOD stopped moving projects through this process, blocking wind energy development nationwide. Attorney General Weiser and the coalition are asking the court to set aside the DOD’s unlawful freeze and order the department to resume the review process required by federal law. “Wind energy is a critical part of Colorado’s clean energy future. The defense secretary and the DOD are carrying out the president’s war on wind and have disregarded their statutory responsibility to work with project developers to advance these projects in a safe manner that protects our national security interests. The success of wind power in Colorado demonstrates that these interests can be successfully balanced. DOD’s freeze is simply another attempt to unlawfully interfere with the deployment of renewable energy,” said Attorney General Weiser. Under federal law, land-based wind project developers must submit any proposed projects with wind turbines over 200 feet tall—which includes all utility-scale wind developments—to the Federal Aviation Administration for review. The FAA then refers these projects to the DOD to assess whether they could affect military operations, radar systems, flight paths, or national security. For more than a decade, the DOD engaged in a predictable review process and worked with developers to mitigate potential concerns. Mitigation measures often included changes to turbine placement or height, radar upgrades, or agreements to pause generation under certain circumstances. In August 2025, DOD abruptly stopped following this process. Officials ceased countersigning mitigation agreements, stopped sending completed agreements to developers for signature, and delayed or halted communications with developers about mitigation.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · HB26-1226 · Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units · EnactedColorado Legislature · HB26-1226
Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units
Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Jenny Willford · Sponsored / Rep. Meg Froelich · Sponsored / Sen. Mike Weissman · Sponsored / Sen. Lisa Cutter · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Prime sponsorship of HB26-1226: Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units. Official enacted-bill summary: The act requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment (division), no later than July 2029, to propose a final rule (rule) establishing certain limits on the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (emission limits) from an electric generating unit (unit) that is owned or operated by an electric utility; is located in the state; and emitted 200 tons or more of nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide, or both in calendar year 2024 (covered unit). The rule must require compliance with the emission limits as soon as practicable after December 31, 2034, and must not cover units that, before December 31, 2029, have ceased operations; burn natural gas, fuel oil, or both only; or have certain systems installed. A unit that operates after December 31, 2034, must install certain pollution controls and comply with the emission limits on or before December 31, 2034. An owner or operator of a unit is required to provide quarterly emission reports showing compliance with the rule to the division. On August 1, 2029, the air quality control commission in the department of public health and environment (AQCC) must submit to the general assembly a list of any units that are subject to a federal order. If there are any units subject to a federal order, the AQCC must also submit to the general assembly recommendations on whether to amend the requirements for units subject to federal order. An investor-owned utility or wholesale electric cooperative that is the owner or operator of a unit is required, beginning 150 days after the issuance of a federal order requiring the unit to remain operating after the unit was scheduled to retire (order) and continuing every 90 days until the order is no longer in effect, to file a report with the public utilities commission (commission) that contains certain information about the costs to operate the unit and the amount of electricity generated by the unit. The commission must make these reports publicly available. An investor-owned utility is also permitted to submit an application for a financing order to recover the costs of complying with an order.
2026-06-04: 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 act requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment (division), no later than July 2029, to propose a final rule (rule) establishing certain limits on the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (emission limits) from an electric generating unit (unit) that is owned or operated by an electric utility; is located in the state; and emitted 200 tons or more of nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide, or both in calendar year 2024 (covered unit). The rule must require compliance with the emission limits as soon as practicable after December 31, 2034, and must not cover units that, before December 31, 2029, have ceased operations; burn natural gas, fuel oil, or both only; or have certain systems installed. A unit that operates after December 31, 2034, must install certain pollution controls and comply with the emission limits on or before December 31, 2034. An owner or operator of a unit is required to provide quarterly emission reports showing compliance with the rule to the division. On August 1, 2029, the air quality control commission in the department of public health and environment (AQCC) must submit to the general assembly a list of any units that are subject to a federal order. If there are any units subject to a federal order, the AQCC must also submit to the general assembly recommendations on whether to amend the requirements for units subject to federal order. An investor-owned utility or wholesale electric cooperative that is the owner or operator of a unit is required, beginning 150 days after the issuance of a federal order requiring the unit to remain operating after the unit was scheduled to retire (order) and continuing every 90 days until the order is no longer in effect, to file a report with the public utilities commission (commission) that contains certain information about the costs to operate the unit and the amount of electricity generated by the unit. The commission must make these reports publicly available. An investor-owned utility is also permitted to submit an application for a financing order to recover the costs of complying with an order.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · HB26-1226 · Signed HB26-1226: Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units · SignedGovernor · HB26-1226
Signed HB26-1226: Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units
Jun 4, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Jared Polis · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Signed HB26-1226: Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units. The act requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment (division), no later than July 2029, to propose a final rule (rule) establishing certain limits on the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (emission limits) from an electric generating unit (unit) that is owned or operated by an electric utility; is located in the state; and emitted 200 tons or more of nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide, or both in calendar year 2024 (covered unit). The rule must require compliance with the emission limits as soon as practicable after December 31, 2034, and must not cover units that, before December 31, 2029, have ceased operations; burn natural gas, fuel oil, or both only; or have certain systems installed. A unit that operates after December 31, 2034, must install certain pollution controls and comply with the emission limits on or before December 31, 2034. An owner or operator of a unit is required to provide quarterly emission reports showing compliance with the rule to the division. On August 1, 2029, the air quality control commission in the department of public health and environment (AQCC) must submit to the general assembly a list of any units that are subject to a federal order. If there are any units subject to a federal order, the AQCC must also submit to the general assembly recommendations on whether to amend the requirements for units subject to federal order. An investor-owned utility or wholesale electric cooperative that is the owner or operator of a unit is required, beginning 150 days after the issuance of a federal order requiring the unit to remain operating after the unit was scheduled to retire (order) and continuing every 90 days until the order is no longer in effect, to file a report with the public utilities commission (commission) that contains certain information about the costs to operate the unit and the amount of electricity generated by the unit. The commission must make these reports publicly available. An investor-owned utility is also permitted to submit an application for a financing order to recover the costs of complying with an order.
2026-06-04: Governor Signed. This records legislative disposition, not current enforceability. This records the governor’s dated action; signing is separate from implementation.
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 act requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment (division), no later than July 2029, to propose a final rule (rule) establishing certain limits on the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (emission limits) from an electric generating unit (unit) that is owned or operated by an electric utility; is located in the state; and emitted 200 tons or more of nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide, or both in calendar year 2024 (covered unit). The rule must require compliance with the emission limits as soon as practicable after December 31, 2034, and must not cover units that, before December 31, 2029, have ceased operations; burn natural gas, fuel oil, or both only; or have certain systems installed. A unit that operates after December 31, 2034, must install certain pollution controls and comply with the emission limits on or before December 31, 2034. An owner or operator of a unit is required to provide quarterly emission reports showing compliance with the rule to the division. On August 1, 2029, the air quality control commission in the department of public health and environment (AQCC) must submit to the general assembly a list of any units that are subject to a federal order. If there are any units subject to a federal order, the AQCC must also submit to the general assembly recommendations on whether to amend the requirements for units subject to federal order. An investor-owned utility or wholesale electric cooperative that is the owner or operator of a unit is required, beginning 150 days after the issuance of a federal order requiring the unit to remain operating after the unit was scheduled to retire (order) and continuing every 90 days until the order is no longer in effect, to file a report with the public utilities commission (commission) that contains certain information about the costs to operate the unit and the amount of electricity generated by the unit. The commission must make these reports publicly available. An investor-owned utility is also permitted to submit an application for a financing order to recover the costs of complying with an order.
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.
Signed HB26-1430: Transportation Funding Adjustments
Jun 4, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Jared Polis · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Signed HB26-1430: Transportation Funding Adjustments. 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. This records the governor’s dated action; signing is separate from implementation.
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.
SB 26-002 requires investor-owned utilities to establish a percentage-of-income payment plan for eligible residential customers, with bill credits, arrearage credits and a charge on customer bills to fund the program. The law establishes program requirements and utility-commission rulemaking. It does not show that credits have been delivered or that statewide energy prices have fallen.
Signed on 2026-06-02. Governor approval June 2, 2026; the signed-act version was posted June 3. The act has a separate effective-date provision subject to referendum. The law establishes program requirements and utility-commission rulemaking. It does not show that credits have been delivered or that statewide energy prices have fallen.
Why this record is included
SB 26-002 requires investor-owned utilities to establish a percentage-of-income payment plan for eligible residential customers, with bill credits, arrearage credits and a charge on customer bills to fund the program. The law establishes program requirements and utility-commission rulemaking. It does not show that credits have been delivered or that statewide energy prices have fallen. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Colorado evidence context: energy · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The act requires an investor-owned utility (utility) to establish a percentage-of-income payment plan program (PIPP program) to assist income-qualified residential utility customers with utility costs.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Colorado officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
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
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
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Alex ValdezColorado 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.)
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.)
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.)
Colorado House of Representatives, District 53 · D–CO
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Andrew BoeseneckerColorado 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.
Colorado House of Representatives, District 27 · D–CO
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Brianna TitoneColorado 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.)
U.S. House of Representatives, Colorado District 7 · D–CO
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Brittany PettersenColorado 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.)
Colorado House of Representatives, District 9 · D–CO
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Emily SirotaColorado 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.
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.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Colorado snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Colorado, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.