The new framework, which is intended to inform legislation moving through the General Assembly, shifts away from the original risk-based approach toward a disclosure-driven model.

Sophie Baum, a senior associate with Hogan Lovells, said the change represents “a fundamental shift in how Colorado is looking at approaching AI regulations.”

The update follows sustained criticism from industry, technologists and Gov. Jared Polis, who warned the earlier version of the law was overly complex and risked stifling innovation. He convened the AI Policy Working Group after the passing of SB 205.

The original law, titled the Colorado AI Act, is set to take effect June 30, 2026, leaving lawmakers a narrow window to pass replacement legislation before the end of the current session.

From Risk-Based Regulation to Transparency

When it passed in 2024, SB 205 positioned Colorado as a leader in AI regulation. The act targeted “high-risk” AI systems used in consequential decisions, such as hiring, lending, housing and education. It also imposed compliance requirements, including impact assessments, risk management programs and monitoring.

“The Colorado AI Act is more of what I would describe as sort of a European-style risk-based governance model,” Baum said. “It looks at tiers of AI systems and regulates them accordingly.”

The new framework is “less about ‘How do you need to build your systems and monitor and assess them on the front-end?’ and more about disclosing to consumers what is happening,” she said. “When is AI being used and how does it affect them?”

Developer, Deployer Obligations

Focusing on transparency, the revised framework clarifies responsibilities between developers, who build AI systems, and deployers, who use them.

Developers would need to provide documentation detailing intended uses, risks and limitations. Deployers would be responsible for using systems appropriately.

“Where AI technology would be used in connection with consequential decisions (or where it could reasonably be expected to make consequential decisions), AI developers would be required to notify AI deployers of how the AI technology works in connection with those decisions,” explained Clark Hill member Jason Schwent in a written publication.

He continued, “Further disclosures would be required where AI is used to make an adverse decision. So, for example, where an apartment complex uses AI to screen applicants and rejects an application, that apartment complex would be required to provide a description of the consequential decision and the role the AI technology played in the decision within 30 days.”

In addition, the AI deployer would need to create a simple process through which “impacted individuals could learn about the types of personal data that were used in making the decision as well as information on how those impacted individuals can request a human-led review or reconsideration,” he said.

Liability could arise if deployers do not use the technology as described. Baum said, “If, for example, a developer says, ‘This is not an approved use,’ and then a deployer decides to use it anyway, that’s where you would start to see some liability.”

Fewer Explicit Rules, Ongoing Evaluations

The most significant changes from the 2024 legislation may be the removal of several explicit compliance requirements, including a defined duty of care and certain reporting obligations.

Despite that shift, Baum cautioned that companies should not interpret the changes as a reduction in responsibility. “Just because the explicit duty of care has been removed does not necessarily mean that companies can handwave this away,” she said. Companies will still be expected to understand and evaluate their AI-use systems to meet transparency obligations.

The proposal introduces provisions that could affect how companies structure contracts. “There are explicit liability provisions in this proposal, which did not exist in the current Colorado AI Act,” Baum said.

Like the current law, the new draft does not include a private right of action. Enforcement would remain with the state attorney general.

Industry Response and Consumer Rights Concerns

Industry groups have largely welcomed the revised approach, which they view as less burdensome and more clearly defined, said Baum.

However, consumer advocates have expressed reservations, suggesting targeted revisions may be needed as the legislation moves forward.

Because SB 205 has been viewed as a test case for state-level AI regulation, the rapid shift from the 2024 policy underscores the difficulty of regulating a fast-moving technology, particularly in the absence of federal standards.

A formal bill aligned with the working group’s framework is expected soon, with lawmakers expected to make further adjustments.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck announced that Michelle DeVoe has rejoined the firm as a shareholder in its Denver office. She previously worked at Brownstein from 2003 to 2013.

DeVoe’s practice focuses on environmental and natural resources matters, including transactional, litigation, manufacturing and industrial, energy and oil and gas regulatory compliance issues.

“We’re delighted to have Michelle back at Brownstein. She is a trusted advisor with a rare blend of enforcement, compliance and transactional experience,” said Brad Herrema, chair of Brownstein’s Natural Resources Department. “Her ability to navigate high-stakes environmental matters while keeping clients focused on business objectives makes her an outstanding addition to our team and a valuable resource for our clients.”

DeVoe advises clients on real estate and development transactions involving contaminated properties and has worked on voluntary cleanup programs and remediation projects involving former manufactured gas plants, mining facilities and military installations.

Her practice also includes counseling energy companies, developers, ski and resort companies, municipalities, manufacturers and water providers on environmental liability, permitting and risk management matters. She has experience with oil and gas rulemakings and enforcement matters, mining and milling operations under state reclamation laws, and toxic tort and state enforcement actions.

In the courtroom, DeVoe represents clients in matters involving the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as proceedings before state and federal agencies.

DeVoe earned her law degree from Emory University School of Law and her bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Kentucky.

House Bills

HB26-1410 — Long Appropriations Bill

• State budget bill advancing through final stages of the legislative process
• Passed House third reading; advanced to Senate Appropriations

HB26-1302 — CBI InstaCheck Operating Hours

• Adjusts operational capacity and hours for firearm background check processing
• Passed Senate second reading

HB26-1045 — Disabilities Housing Protections

• Strengthens housing access protections for individuals with disabilities
• Passed Senate second reading

HB26-1195 — Psychotherapy AI Restrictions

• Regulates use of AI systems in mental health and psychotherapy contexts
• Advanced out of committee

HB26-1305 — Behavioral Health Facility Licensing

• Aligns state licensing standards for behavioral health inpatient facilities
• Passed Senate second reading with amendments

HB26-1304 — History Colorado Mineral Rights Disposition

• Governs disposition and oversight of state-related mineral rights assets
• Introduced to Senate

HB26-1080 — Mail Ballot Signature Verification

• Updates signature verification standards for mail ballot processing
• Advanced through House second reading

HB26-1245 — Theft by Contractor

• Strengthens penalties and enforcement against contractor fraud
• Advanced through House second reading

HB26-1130 — Public Restroom Diaper Stations

• Requires diaper changing station access in certain public facilities
• Advanced through House second reading

HB26-1255 — Social Media Duty to Report & Search Warrants

• Establishes requirements for digital reporting and law enforcement warrant access
• Advanced through House second reading

Senate Bills

Colorado AI Act (SB24-205, 2026 Amendments Under Negotiation)

• Establishes consumer protections for “high-risk AI systems” in employment, housing, insurance and other consequential decisions
• Original implementation delayed to June 30 to allow for statutory revision
• Draft negotiations underway

SB26-150 — Modernizing RTD

• Reforms governance and accountability structure for the Regional Transportation District
• Laid over on second reading

SB26-020 — Childcare Provider Licensing & Quality

• Updates licensing and quality standards for childcare providers
• Passed Senate consent calendar; advanced to House

SB26-080 — Cradle to Career Grant Program

• Establishes statewide education pipeline grant funding program
• Passed Senate consent calendar; advanced to House

SB26-137 — Measures to Reduce Administrative Burdens

• Streamlines regulatory and administrative processes across state agencies
• Passed Senate consent calendar; advanced to House

SB26-043 — Record Keeping & Regulation of Sale of Firearm Barrel

• Regulates firearm barrel modifications and compliance standards
• Laid over on third House reading

SB26-077 — Epilepsy-Related Mortality Awareness

• Creates reporting and awareness framework for epilepsy-related deaths
• Passed House third reading

SB26-088 — Capitol Memorial Funding

• Authorizes funding for state capitol memorial preservation and maintenance
• Passed House third reading

SB26-012 — Tribal Compensable Losses

• Establishes civil claims framework for tribal compensable losses
• Advanced through House second reading

SB26-046 — Property Tax Administrative Procedures

• Updates administrative procedures for property tax assessment and processing
• Signed by governor

SB26-090 — Right to Repair / Infrastructure Exceptions

• Modifies applicability of right-to-repair provisions for certain infrastructure systems
• Advanced out of committee

Beginning in 2020 and spanning federal and Boulder County District Court proceedings, Front Range Harvest LLC v. Leago concerned a failed partnership with a California-based developer, who took possession of more than $4 million in hemp plants while denying a legal partnership existed.

After assuming the case on a contingency basis in May 2024, founding partner David Olsky obtained court sanctions against the defendant for the destruction of text message evidence.

The final award, comprising $1.65 million in damages and $1.5 million in fees and costs, affirms oral partnerships carry full legal weight.

 Olsky discussed the path to the verdict with Law Week Colorado:

Law Week Colorado: This case has been described as a strong example of how courts are evaluating informal business relationships and addressing bad-faith conduct. How did those themes play out?
Olsky: The court closely examined what the parties actually did and said at the time of the relationship. The court looked carefully at contemporaneous communications — emails and texts — to determine the parties’ intent, rather than relying on a formal agreement. The court also spent significant time evaluating witness credibility to decide who it believed. Based on that full picture, the court ultimately concluded that one party had engaged in bad-faith conduct.

LWC: What makes this $3.1 million judgment stand out in the landscape of Colorado commercial litigation?
Olsky: What’s unique is the nature of the informal business relationship underlying the judgment. It is often very difficult to prove the contours of an informal business relationship. While large judgments in tort cases are more common, it is rarer to see a judge make this kind of significant assessment based on an informal business agreement.

LWC: How did the court approach the lack of formal agreements between the parties?
Olsky: The court did not treat the absence of a formal agreement as a failure on the part of the parties. Instead, it respected that many legitimate business ventures are conducted without written contracts, particularly where time and cost make formal agreements impractical.

The court evaluated the relationship from the parties’ perspective, assuming they were acting as sophisticated businesspeople, and focused on how the agreement functioned in practice. The court also recognized that, in reality, businesspeople do not always have the capacity to engage in lengthy legal processes to formalize agreements, which can later create disputes when one party attempts to change the terms.

LWC: What does this ruling suggest about the risks of relying on informal or handshake agreements?
Olsky: The ruling reinforces that handshake agreements can still be enforceable if they include consideration and clear key terms. At the same time, it highlights the risks of relying on them.

This case took years to litigate and required a judge willing to dig deeply into the facts. Formal agreements can help avoid that kind of time, cost and uncertainty. Without them, there is also a risk that one party will try to reinterpret the deal in their favor, knowing how difficult it is to prove otherwise. For many businesses, the cost and time required to resolve that kind of dispute make litigation impractical.

LWC: The case involved sanctions tied to destroyed text messages. How did the court handle evidence destruction in this instance?
Olsky: The court handled the issue by first referring it to a special master, who conducted a detailed review and determined that the opposing party had destroyed text messages in bad faith. The district court then independently reviewed the issue and reached the same conclusion.

The opposing party was given an opportunity to explain the destruction and show that it did not impact the case but was unable to do so. As a result, the court found the conduct was in bad faith and that no viable explanation had been provided.

LWC: Are you seeing a broader trend in how courts are approaching spoliation and digital evidence?
Olsky: In general, courts remain cautious when it comes to spoliation and imposing sanctions. There is a recognition that documents can be lost in the ordinary course, and courts are often reluctant to penalize parties too harshly for that.

More broadly, courts tend to allow some leeway where the loss of evidence is inadvertent and not prejudicial. To obtain sanctions, you typically need to show that the destruction was knowing and intentional, which often requires building a detailed factual record through discovery and third-party evidence.

What made this case different was the clear evidence of intentional destruction. Through a third-party, we were able to show not just that messages were missing but that they were deliberately destroyed and key to the case.

LWC: What were the key challenges in proving more than $4 million in assets?
Olsky: The main challenge was reconstructing the agreement and the value at issue without a formal contract. The opposing party had agreed to pay certain amounts but later refused when invoices were presented.

Question 1: If you could choose to master a musical instrument that you don’t already know how to play, which one would it be, and why?
Lake: I wish I could play acoustic guitar well. I love the old Spanish guitar and would really like to be able to re-create that sound and experiment with ways to create new variations on classics.

Q2: What is your favorite clause of the Constitution, and why?
Lake: It’s hard to pick just one, because the 13th, 14th, 15th and 21st Amendments collectively eliminated slavery and guarantee citizenship and the rights to vote to all persons born in the United States irrespective of race or gender. Those have to be in a list of favorites for anyone, I’d think, but if I had to pick just one, it would be the 4th Amendment. If a right is only as good as your ability to exercise it, then the other rights don’t mean as much if you can have your life, liberty or property taken away without due process of law, including the rest of the Constitution and its various Amendments.

Q3: Which celebrity was on the posters you had hanging on your teenage bedroom wall?
Lake: Secretariat, the horse.

Q4: What’s your favorite book, and why?
Lake: Old favorite: “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams was such good writing overlaying dry British humor. Modern favorite: “James” by Percival Everett. It is an incredible telling of Huckleberry Finn from the slave Jim’s perspective. The story is compelling on its own and was as thought-provoking as one might imagine. I won’t spoil it.

Q5: What’s your favorite restaurant, and what’s your favorite thing to order there?
Lake: In Denver, Table 6 is a long-time favorite. Their menu changes seasonally, but it always feels like a cross between fine dining and comfort food, and the atmosphere is really relaxed.

Law Week Colorado invites Colorado lawyers, paralegals, judges, law professors and other legal professionals to share their insights and experiences with the community with our weekly 5Q Questionnaire.

Responses may be edited for clarity and length and will be published in the order received. Your patience is appreciated. If you have questions, email [email protected].

Even routine matters can quickly attract attention from reporters, industry observers, employees or social media audiences, as a complaint may be summarized in a headline within hours, shaping how stakeholders understand the dispute before the legal process has fully begun.

In that moment, the case is no longer confined to pleadings and proceedings but is also evaluated in the court of public opinion, where reputational risk travels alongside legal risk. Attorneys must be prepared to guide leadership through both without compromising legal strategy or ethical obligations.

Why cases attract attention

Not every dispute becomes news, but many share characteristics that increase the likelihood of coverage. Matters involving well-known companies, novel legal theories, significant financial stakes or compelling human stories tend to draw interest. Even routine cases can gain traction if they intersect with broader trends such as data privacy, employment practices or consumer protection. In those instances, the dispute becomes part of a larger narrative that reporters are already covering.

Whether a case attracts attention is not fully within counsel’s control. Preparing for that possibility, however, is.

Start with a dual risk assessment

At the outset of any matter, attorneys are trained to evaluate legal exposure. That same discipline should be applied to reputational risk. Ask early: If this filing were summarized on the front page of a business publication, would we be comfortable with how it reads?

If the answer is no, adjust before the document is finalized. This does not mean softening legal arguments. It means eliminating unnecessary rhetoric, ensuring factual clarity and anticipating how language may be interpreted outside a legal audience.

When a case draws attention, filings often become the primary vehicle for communicating the position. Reporters rely on complaints, motions and briefs to frame coverage, shaping the narrative long before the case is resolved.

In some situations, directing reporters to publicly available filings is more effective than offering off-the-cuff statements. Filings carry credibility and present facts in a controlled format, but anything filed may also be quoted or simplified in ways that amplify certain points. Drafting with that reality in mind is part of modern advocacy.

Prepare for the realities of the media cycle

Many leaders, particularly those who have not faced public scrutiny before, underestimate how quickly narratives can take hold. They may expect that “no comment” will suffice or assume that the legal process will speak for itself. In practice, silence often creates a vacuum that others fill. While restraint is often the right strategy, there is a difference between saying nothing and saying something disciplined and controlled.

Preparing means setting expectations early. Explain that some coverage may be unfavorable, reporters may work on tight timelines, and not every story can be corrected in real time. It also means reinforcing that consistency and credibility matter more than winning any single news cycle. Even well-managed cases may generate difficult headlines, and part of counsel’s role is helping leaders weather that period.

Coordinate legal and communications

One of the most common breakdowns occurs when legal and communications teams operate in silos. Communications professionals may push for rapid response, while attorneys focus on long-term legal outcomes. Misalignments can create risk. At a minimum, counsel should work with internal teams to establish a clear protocol: who handles media inquiries, what can be said and how quickly responses must be approved. Pre-approved holding statements can be invaluable here, allowing organizations to acknowledge an issue without speculating or disclosing sensitive information.

Equally important is internal alignment. Employees, executives and board members are all potential audiences and, in some cases, inadvertent spokespeople. Inconsistent internal messaging can quickly become external confusion.

Protect privilege while enabling collaboration

Bringing communications professionals into litigation strategy raises an important legal consideration: attorney-client privilege. Courts do not automatically treat internal communications staff as part of the privileged relationship, which means their involvement in litigation discussions can risk waiving privilege.

To manage this, attorneys should structure communications support carefully. Engaging outside communications counsel through a law firm, clearly defining the role as part of legal strategy and routing communications through the attorney can help preserve privilege.

Monitor and respond with discipline

Once a case enters the public domain, monitoring becomes critical. This includes traditional and social media, where narratives can evolve quickly. Not every mention requires a response. In fact, overreacting can draw more attention to unfavorable coverage. But where clear inaccuracies arise, a measured correction can protect credibility.

Establishing a process for monitoring and escalation ensures the legal team is not learning about developments after they have already gained traction.

The bottom line

Litigation today often unfolds on two parallel tracks: the courtroom and the public sphere. Colorado attorneys who prepare for this reality are better positioned to protect legal outcomes, long-term relationships, brand value and stakeholder trust. The goal is not to win the media cycle, but to ensure nothing in it undermines the case you are trying to win.

Monica Smith is the founder of Integer, a communications, crisis and public relations agency. She may be reached at [email protected].

The death of George Floyd at the hands of police officers in Minneapolis sparked demonstrations throughout the United States and around the world protesting against police brutality, particularly police brutality against black people.

In Denver, thousands protested for several consecutive days, from May 28 through June 2, 2020, with demonstrations lasting up to sixteen hours a day. At times and places during these demonstrations, some among the protestors acted violently, assaulted police officers, looted, and destroyed property. “[T]he Denver Police Department faced a Herculean task” in policing the demonstrations. There were also times when some Denver police officers, and some officers from nearby jurisdictions who were aiding the Denver Police Department (“DPD”), indiscriminately and unjustifiably used force against those who were peacefully protesting.

This appeal addresses police use of force against peaceful protestors. After a three-week trial, a jury found that the City and County of Denver was liable for the unconstitutional force officers used against the twelve protestors who brought the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims at issue in this appeal. Denver challenges the jury’s verdict, asserting a number of grounds for relief. We reject Denver’s arguments and uphold the jury’s verdict. We do so based specifically on the jury’s finding that Denver inadequately trained its officers.

Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson

Panel: CARSON, EBEL, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge Ebel.)

Decision: We AFFIRM the jury’s verdict holding Denver liable for its officers violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Read the entire opinion here.

In June 2023, Colorado enacted a law that prohibits the purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of unserialized firearms, firearm frames or receivers, and firearm parts kits. The law also prohibits the manufacture of firearm frames or receivers by most Coloradans. Individual Plaintiffs and two Associations representing Colorado gun owners sued, alleging that this law infringes on their Second Amendment rights. The district court determined that it could review one of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Colorado law, but that the others were not permitted under Article III. For the challenge it reviewed, the district court determined that the Colorado law imposes a presumptively constitutional condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms that does not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

We cannot agree with the district court that the possession prohibition is purely a “condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms.” Although the district court characterized the Colorado statute as “pertain[ing] to prior purchases,” the at-issue provisions regulate unserialized frame and firearm possession—no matter how a person previously acquired the frame or firearm.

Judge Gordon P. Gallagher and Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak

Panel: EID, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge Carson, with Judge Kelly concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Decision: We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Read the entire opinion here.

According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, total filings rose to 591,850 cases, compared with 529,080 cases reported during the year ending March 31, 2025.

Business filings increased 11.4 percent, from 23,309 in March 2025 to 25,960 in the newest report. Non-business filings rose 11.9 percent, from 505,771 in March 2025 to 565,890 in March 2026.

Bankruptcy totals for the previous 12 months are reported four times annually.

For more than a decade, total filings fell steadily, from a high of nearly 1.6 million in September 2010 to a low of 380,634 in June 2022. Total filings have increased each quarter since then, but they remain far lower than historical highs.

To review the data and learn more, visit the US Courts website.

Ms. Linden is the Managing Partner and Co-Founder at the Linden Kominek, PC, dba Linden Law Group, a position she has held since 2005. Her practice primarily consists of civil matters. Previously, she was an Associate Attorney at Vaughan & DeMuro, PC (2004-2005); and Senior Associate at Mulliken, Gleason, Weiner & Whitney, PC (1994-1999). Ms. Linden earned her B.S. from the University of Colorado Boulder in 1989 and her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1993.

Ms. Cano is a Magistrate in the 4th Judicial District, a position she has held since 2025. Her docket consists of domestic and civil matters. Previously, she was Senior Deputy District Attorney (2025), Deputy District Attorney III (2021-2025), Deputy District Attorney II (2018-2021), and Deputy District Attorney I (2015-2018) in the 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Ms. Cano earned her B.S. from Colorado State University Pueblo in 2006 and her J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School in 2014.

Governor Polis also appointed Douglas G. Bechtel to the El Paso County Court in the 4th Judicial District. His appointment fills a vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Steven Katzman. The vacancy is effective May 27, 2026.

Mr. Bechtel is an El Paso County Court Magistrate in the 4th Judicial District, a position he has held since 2024. His docket consists of criminal and civil matters. Previously, he was a Deputy District Attorney in the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office (2005-2024). Mr. Bechtel earned his B.S. from the University of Illinois in 1994 and his J.D. from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 2006.

• Justine Beckstrom, senior counsel, Clark Hill PLC
• David Camp, partner, Senn Fortis LLC
• Scott Clark, member, Clark Hill PLC
• Mimi Larsen, of counsel, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
• Zach Pilchen, senior counsel, Holland & Knight LLP
• Gabe Racz, member, Clark Hill PLC
• Julia Rhine, shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
• John Watson, of counsel, Spencer Fane LLP

The result is a portrait of an expanding legal framework shaping how energy projects are developed, financed and regulated in Colorado.

LWC: What are the most significant legal and regulatory issues facing Colorado’s energy and natural resources sector right now?

Racz: Change, uncertainty and drought. Significant, impactful policy change at both the federal and state levels has been an accelerating trend over the last 10 years, making it more difficult to project the regulatory environment for significant resources projects.

Watson: Colorado’s energy and natural resources sector is currently navigating a dense and evolving web of legal and regulatory challenges, with climate policy at the center. The state continues to tighten air emissions and methane regulations for oil and gas operators, while also implementing new requirements such as greenhouse gas intensity tracking and stricter disclosure obligations.

At the same time, water use has become a major regulatory issue, highlighted by the state’s forthcoming mandate requiring significant recycling of water used in hydraulic fracturing.

Overlaying these developments is a broader structural shift driven by policies aimed at decarbonizing the economy, including the regulation of natural gas utilities through mechanisms like the Clean Heat Plan. These changes are increasing compliance burdens, raising enforcement risks and creating new grounds for administrative and judicial challenges.

Pilchen: Three structural forces are converging to reshape Colorado’s energy and natural resources legal landscape.

The first is a shift in federal regulatory posture. The Trump administration has pursued what it calls the biggest deregulatory agenda in U.S. history. Congress has moved in a similar direction. The net effect is that federal environmental regulation is becoming less certain as a compliance baseline.

The second is the federal judiciary. Loper Bright ended Chevron deference in June 2024. Combined with West Virginia v. EPA’s major questions doctrine and other developments in administrative law, federal courts are redrawing the boundaries of agency authority. These doctrinal shifts create new uncertainties for existing federal programs, litigation risk for future actions and overall restrict the room that federal agencies have to regulate.

The third is state acceleration. Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission adopted first-in-the-nation GHG emissions caps for midstream fuel combustion equipment under Regulation Number 7, which are essentially company-specific caps that begin ratcheting down the GHG intensity of midstream companies’ asset portfolios in 2030, plus a credit trading program launching in 2028.

What makes this moment distinctive is the interaction among these forces. As the federal government steps back and courts constrain federal agency discretion, states like Colorado are stepping forward with increasingly sophisticated regulatory programs.

Camp: The most significant legal issue facing Colorado’s energy and natural resources sector right now is HB19-1261, which requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% to 100% by 2050 and 50% by 2030. The most notable challenge is that federal regulations and incentives change significantly with each new administration, which can leave a state like Colorado at a disadvantage to less restrictive states that may have a more attractive business environment during periods of lax federal regulation. This creates pressure to roll back rules or delay compliance, particularly during an economic downturn, which in turn creates problems for businesses because they lack certainty around environmental regulations.

Larsen: One of the most significant issues is the cumulative effect of layered regulatory changes across air, water, land use and climate policy. Recent rulemakings — including the Water Quality Control Division’s adoption of the new Regulation 87 (5 CCR 1002-87) water rules — reflect a broader shift toward more prescriptive standards, expanded permitting requirements and increased compliance monitoring. While many of these rules advance important environmental objectives, they also add complexity, cost and uncertainty for regulated entities.

Another major issue is implementation: Agencies are translating ambitious statutory directives into enforceable regulations at a rapid pace. We saw this with the oil and gas industry and SB19-181. And you see it consistently at the Air Quality Control Commission, which has been in constant rulemakings over the last several years. These efforts raise concerns about permitting timelines, administrative capacity and the risk of uneven application.

Business and industry groups have publicly expressed concern that the cumulative regulatory burden is increasing operating costs and influencing decisions about whether to invest or remain in the state. How regulators manage that tension will have real implications for economic competitiveness.

Clark: PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, are a never-ending source of concern for water resources. The number of distinct chemicals that fall into this category is in the thousands and keeps growing. Currently, only a few are directly regulated with respect to water supplies, and some are subject to regulatory standards that are below levels that can be detected by current methods. We still are in the early stages of understanding these chemicals and their impact on our water supplies, soil, food supply and air.

LWC: How would you describe the current balance in Colorado between advancing clean energy goals and maintaining affordability and reliability for consumers?

Larsen: Colorado has clearly prioritized clean energy and climate policy, and that direction has strong statutory backing. The challenge now is ensuring that implementation maintains reliability and affordability, particularly as the state requires utilities and other regulated entities to make significant capital investments in new technologies, infrastructure and compliance systems.

From a regulatory perspective, affordability concerns are becoming more prominent. Rate impacts, cost recovery and system reliability are recurring issues in Colorado Public Utilities Commission proceedings, especially as utilities seek approval for large, multiyear investment plans tied to clean energy mandates. Business groups have cautioned that higher energy and compliance costs ultimately flow through to consumers and employers, and those concerns are increasingly part of the public conversation.

While data centers are often singled out as a cause of rising electric rates, Colorado regulators have identified multiple drivers of load growth.

Achieving balance will require careful pacing, transparent cost analysis and continued attention to grid reliability as legacy resources retire.

Pilchen: Colorado is in the midst of a recalibration. The state set some of the nation’s most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets, including net zero by 2050. Those targets drove a comprehensive regulatory buildout. But Colorado fell short of its 2025 interim target, and the gap between ambition and implementation is surfacing in concrete ways.

There are a number of signals not of a retreat, but a course adjustment, including pending legislation that would extend compliance deadlines, reduction targets being moderated in rulemakings and significant utility rate increase requests. I would say these are signs of a policy framework starting to mature past big-picture goals and getting into the harder work of implementation, where you have to start considering all these factors like affordability, grid reliability and decarbonization simultaneously.

The big wild card here, of course, is demand growth, particularly the speed at which artificial intelligence and data center energy requirements are building out, adding load pressure at the same time Colorado policymakers are pursuing an energy transition.

Camp: There is always a trade-off between advancing clean energy goals and maintaining affordability and reliability for consumers. One of the reasons Colorado is a leader in this area is that its citizens have a strong appreciation for the outdoors, and the state’s tourism industry relies heavily on limiting climate change. Without snow, the winter sports industry would suffer. Without the water that comes from snowpack, the agricultural sector would struggle, and the cost of living would increase as water becomes scarcer and more expensive.

The challenge is that these are long-term issues with complex cause-and-effect dynamics. While investment in green energy may deliver significant long-term benefits, in the short term, consumers often bear higher costs, which makes these kinds of investments more difficult for politicians to advocate for.

Beckstrom: Colorado’s energy transition will require reconciling regulatory hurdles to mining and the demand for metals and minerals critical for wind, solar, electric vehicles and nuclear energy.

Many of the metals and minerals used in these technologies and their infrastructure occur in Colorado, but the state’s complex and rigid environmental permitting regulations have delayed, and even deterred, development of these resources. Colorado’s shift away from general to individual discharge permits for stormwater discharges for mining and exploration has increased the permitting timeframes by several years. This, along with the inclusion of conditions above and beyond what other states and EPA require, discourages development in Colorado.

In addition, nuclear energy is part of Colorado’s clean energy portfolio, but local efforts to adopt regulations restricting mining in areas of the state could limit access to Colorado’s world-class uranium deposits.

Clark: Colorado has done a good job of advancing clean energy as statewide policy and local governments have recognized the economic benefits of clean energy projects in their communities. But these are difficult times. We still are highly dependent on oil and gas. At the same time, we need to severely reduce carbon emissions. Clean sources of energy have become very economical, but switching over facilities, equipment and vehicles to run on electricity instead of oil and gas is expensive. On top of all that, the current federal administration is openly hostile to clean energy and actively attempting to thwart its advancement. It is apt to strike anywhere and at any time, creating great uncertainty for clean energy projects and slowing planned and early-stage projects.

Watson: The balance between advancing clean energy goals and maintaining affordability and reliability is still very much in flux. Colorado has set ambitious statutory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to clean electricity, but the costs of achieving those goals — particularly infrastructure investments, grid upgrades and early retirement of fossil fuel assets — are putting upward pressure on utility rates. Additionally, reliability concerns are becoming more prominent as the resource mix changes and the electric grid becomes more dependent on renewables, storage and transmission that are still being built out. As a result, much of the real balance occurs not in legislation, but in regulatory proceedings, where stakeholders are actively litigating how costs should be allocated and how reliability standards should be maintained.

LWC: What recent legislative or regulatory developments are having the biggest impact on your clients or practice?

Racz: In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA significantly changed the scope of the Clean Water Act. Since that date, the state of Colorado has acted to address the withdrawal of federal programs. The implementation is still in its early days.

Rhine: There is always a bit of lag time between the adoption of rules and seeing how they are implemented. For Colorado oil and gas operators, the 2024 Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission’s Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Enhanced Systems and Practices Rulemaking is just starting to be the applicable framework for permitting decisions. Operators are navigating new concepts such as the Area of Evaluation for cumulative impacts analyses and the content of a Practicability Assessment where certain operations are impracticable. These are big issues that can have dispositive outcomes on permit applications and, while I appreciate that no two permit applications are alike, outcomes seem to have little predictive value, even after adjusting for the permit application specifics.

Watson: At the federal level, in particular, it’s the negative impacts of the regulatory flip-flop. The Obama administration does this (e.g., Clean Power Plan, wetland regulation); the first Trump administration does that (abolished those regulations); the Biden administration brings those programs back; now the second Trump administration puts the brakes on those programs.

Camp: The biggest impact often comes from regulations.

For developers, changing building performance standards affect upfront construction costs. While more efficient buildings and construction methods may reduce operating expenses, those costs are often borne by tenants in commercial settings, meaning developers may not realize significant economic benefit from the higher initial investment.

For building operators, greenhouse gas reporting requirements are in the process of being implemented. This represents an entirely new layer of compliance that building owners have not previously had to manage, and many industry insiders view it as a precursor to future taxation or regulation tied to emissions. This shift is already influencing how owners evaluate the value of their properties.

At Senn Fortis, we have seen some clients walk away from new developments out of concern that strict greenhouse gas limits could push them toward untested or uncertain energy sources.

LWC: Where are you seeing the greatest tension between state policy and federal energy priorities, and how is that playing out legally?

Watson: Tension between state and federal energy priorities is becoming more pronounced, and it’s starting to show up in litigation and regulatory disputes. Colorado’s push toward renewable energy and emissions reductions can conflict with federal priorities that emphasize energy affordability, domestic production or grid reliability. That creates legal friction in areas like Clean Air Act compliance and energy market regulation. For clients, it means navigating two sets of priorities that don’t always align and being prepared to defend their positions in multiple forums, including federal and state courts.

Pilchen: Having spent most of my career at EPA, I’ve seen the federal-state dynamic from inside a federal agency. There’s always a push and pull: EPA sets minimum standards; states are free to exceed them. But vehicles are the exception. The Clean Air Act preempts most states from independently regulating vehicle emissions.

That makes the vehicle space the sharpest point of tension right now. There’s an exception for California if it can meet certain requirements, and then states like Colorado are allowed to adopt California’s standards. Those include, for example, parts of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, which on paper requires a significant portion of new passenger vehicles sold in California to be electric. But Congress used the Congressional Review Act to repeal several California rules, and EPA is rescinding its own vehicle GHG standards as part of the Endangerment Finding repeal.

This matters acutely for Colorado because the Denver Metro and North Front Range region is in nonattainment for ozone, which means levels of ground-level ozone (smog) exceed federal health standards. Vehicles are a significant part of that problem, but outside of that Section 177 process, states have very few legal tools to address vehicle emissions on their own because of that Clean Air Act preemption. So when the federal government pulls back in this impactful environmental area where the federal government has given itself near-exclusive authority, states like Colorado are left trying to wring additional reductions out of the stationary sources they can control. That makes programs like Regulation Number 7 even more consequential.

Camp: Our clients tend to view government support for energy efficiency and green building as a single line item in their budgets. In practice, they understand that some funding comes from the state and some from the federal government, but what ultimately matters is the total value of that combined support.

Even though the state of Colorado has remained relatively consistent in its environmental requirements, shifts at the federal level can have a significant impact. In some cases, changes in federal priorities reduce overall incentives to a point where state-level support alone may not be enough to encourage developers to pursue greener projects.

LWC: How is the growth of renewable energy reshaping legal work in this space?

Camp: There is a thriving bar associated with the growth of renewable energy, such as wind, solar and storage. After decades of promises, the costs of wind and solar are finally approaching those of fossil fuel energy, even without subsidies. This expands the scope of potential projects and allows for greater focus on storage systems, which are evolving quickly. The rise of data centers, which often include a proprietary or dedicated energy provider, is also expanding opportunities for this type of development and storage.

Watson: The growth of renewable energy is driving a different kind of legal work. A lot of it centers on siting, transmission, and interconnection, where delays and disputes with landowners, local governments and regulators are common. On the regulatory side, there’s a significant amount of work before the Public Utilities Commission, particularly around resource planning and how to pay for new infrastructure while addressing existing assets. Transactions are also becoming more complex, with evolving contract structures, including power purchase agreements and financing arrangements tied to renewable projects and storage.

Pilchen: The obvious reshaping is in transmission, interconnection and project finance, all of which are generating substantial legal work. But the less obvious and increasingly significant shift is happening in the building sector. Colorado’s climate regulatory philosophy is expanding from energy into real estate.
Many of these large commercial buildings have on-site power generation, like natural gas cogeneration equipment to provide cheaper and more reliable electricity. As a result of new requirements though, buying a commercial building in Colorado increasingly means inheriting energy performance obligations, benchmarking requirements, potential retrofit costs and penalty exposure. Energy compliance is becoming something that must be evaluated, disclosed and allocated in every deal. This is the same regulatory philosophy behind Regulation Number 7 for oil and gas, the idea that compliance obligations travel with the asset, applied to a different sector entirely. That shift is accelerating, and it’s pulling environmental regulatory expertise into transactions that wouldn’t have triggered environmental review five years ago.

LWC: What trends are you seeing in oil and gas development in Colorado, particularly in light of increasing environmental and regulatory scrutiny?

Larsen: Oil and gas development in Colorado is continuing but under significantly more constrained conditions. Increased environmental and regulatory scrutiny — including expanded application of air quality regulations — has led to longer project timelines, higher upfront costs and more extensive planning and mitigation obligations. Development is increasingly concentrated among operators with the scale and capital needed to navigate this environment.

Rhine: Apace with the increasing environmental and regulatory scrutiny has been the oil and gas industry’s parallel increase in thoughtful siting and commitment to as many best management practices and enhanced systems and practices as practicable that reduce environmental impacts and help protect public health, safety, welfare and wildlife. Another positive trend is that operators continue to build their community outreach programs. Operators appreciate that there may be an informational imbalance among stakeholders and are working hard to make information accessible to the public such that any concerns they may have are addressed in an easy to understand, transparent manner.

Pilchen: A major trend I’m seeing is that environmental compliance has become a distinct value layer in Colorado oil and gas transactions. Regulation 7 has created an interesting incentive scheme where companies may seek to offload assets that will carry greenhouse gas (GHG) liability when the compliance period starts but keep the valuable credits from that asset for themselves. It’s adding a layer of regulatory complexity and cost to transactions that doesn’t necessarily show up on the balance sheet but will in a few years when the bill comes due.

Specifically, under Regulation Number 7’s midstream GHG caps, the credits associated with company-specific caps can be traded as part of an asset transaction, and the exchange of credits doesn’t have to be proportionate to the emissions of the equipment being conveyed. That changes the economics fundamentally. I’ve worked on a transaction where the midstream fuel combustion equipment sold for a pittance because one party retained the associated credits. The credits were literally more valuable than the physical assets.
That’s the direction the market is heading, at least for now. With compliance deadlines looming and credit trading launching in 2028, GHG compliance obligations are being allocated in oil and gas deals with the same rigor as real property interests. The regulatory framework is selecting for operators who understand this.

LWC: What energy issues do you think will define the next 3-5 years in Colorado energy law?

Watson: Looking ahead, the biggest issues over the next several years may revolve around grid reliability, electrification and infrastructure. As more of the economy shifts to electricity, the question becomes whether the grid can keep up and who pays for the necessary upgrades. There is also expected to be increased legal activity around carbon management, water use and land use conflicts. Climate litigation is likely to continue expanding as well, which could have significant implications for energy producers.

Pilchen: I expect one force to predominate over the next few years of energy law in the Centennial state: the energy demand from AI and data center infrastructure, which is arriving as fast (or even faster) than the grid can accommodate and creating fundamental tension with decarbonization timelines. It’s a tough needle to thread with simultaneously retiring fossil-fuel generation, meeting aggressive GHG reduction targets and also supplying exponential load growth without something giving. That tension is forcing hard choices around the country and in Colorado, not to mention generating creative engineering and legal work regarding siting, grid modernization and interconnection.

Camp: The next several years in Colorado energy law will likely focus on whether aggressive legislation and regulatory frameworks remain in place. Shifting political priorities and economic downturns often lead to weakened obligations or delays in compliance deadlines. It is easy to legislate requirements that take effect 10 years in the future, but as those deadlines approach and real costs begin to materialize, there is often strong pressure to reconsider or delay those goals.

LWC: What should policymakers, businesses or the public better understand about the legal complexities of Colorado’s energy transition?

Camp: My favorite axiom is that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Requiring greener energy, more efficient buildings and other environmental regulations will inevitably drive up costs. In the long term, those costs may prove to be a bargain compared to the impacts of climate change. However, it is difficult to convince voters to accept short-term sacrifice in exchange for a promised long-term benefit, but good things come to those who wait.

Rhine: One issue is whether the state’s encouragement of geothermal development will, in fact, lead to meaningful geothermal development. I hope so.

A second issue will be how energy development, transport and use is integrated with AI and what security risks that integration poses, along with the related issue of data centers’ high energy demand. Colorado energy law is also likely to be shaped by the issuance of Colorado’s Office of Environmental Justice’s first Environmental Equity and Cumulative Impact Analysis. ECCIAs are designed to be comprehensive reviews of environmental and public health impacts in specified geographic areas, focusing on communities disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change. The state must complete two EECIAs pursuant to 2022 law. The first EECIA will be in the East Colfax neighborhood of Aurora. The second EECIA’s location has yet to be determined. The state will use the ECCIAs to inform local and state agency decision-making, and the results will be made public.

Finally, the concept of a carbon market seems to fall in and out of favor with certain groups. A broader consensus regarding the legitimacy of carbon credits and voluntary carbon markets and if and how the cost of carbon can or should be taken into permitting decisions would be helpful.

Pilchen: Colorado’s GHG reduction targets are visible and well-publicized: 50% by 2030, 90% by 2045, net zero by 2050. What’s far less visible is the massive regulatory infrastructure required to develop those rules, to enforce them, and to achieve them. We’re talking hundreds of pages of regulations, company-specific emissions caps and credit trading systems based on complex formulas, not to mention various financial assurance requirements, community engagement requirements and cumulative impacts analyses. Each program is individually defensible. But layered together, they create a compliance environment of extraordinary complexity — one that Colorado’s 2025 target miss suggests even the state itself has not yet fully reckoned with.

Watson: One thing policymakers and the public should better understand is that the energy transition isn’t just a policy exercise; it’s a legal and regulatory process that plays out over time. Achieving policy goals requires navigating a multilayered system of statutes, regulations, permitting processes and judicial review, each of which can introduce delays and uncertainty. Trade-offs are inevitable. Efforts to reduce emissions can increase costs or create reliability challenges, and resolving those tensions often falls to regulators and courts rather than legislators.

Moreover, misalignment between state and federal priorities adds another layer of uncertainty for businesses making long-term investment decisions. In this environment, legal strategy is not just a support function but a central component of how the energy transition is being implemented and contested.

The United States District Court is required by law to establish a panel of citizens to consider the reappointment of the magistrate judge to a new four-year term.

The basic authority of a United States magistrate judge is specified in 28 U.S.C. Section 636. In criminal cases, the duties of the part-time Magistrate Judge in Durango are specified in the Western Slope protocol. They include: (1) issuance of search warrants; (2) conducting preliminary proceedings; (3) presiding over the trial and disposition of misdemeanor cases; and (4) upon reference, hearing and making recommendations on pretrial motions and, upon consent of the parties, conducting change of plea hearings and giving appropriate advisements in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P.11 in felony cases. In civil cases, the duties of a part-time magistrate judge include: (1) conducting various pretrial matters and evidentiary proceedings on delegation from a district judge, and (2) under certain specified conditions, trial and disposition of civil cases upon the consent of the parties.

Written comments from members of the bar and the public are invited as to whether the incumbent magistrate judge should be recommended by the panel for reappointment by the court.

Comments may be submitted anonymously via this survey link.

The comment period deadline has been extended from 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 2026 to 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2026.

Click here to learn more about each Law Stars award, and here to submit your nomination.

All nominees will be evaluated against the award criteria, and finalists for a Law Stars award will undergo an additional vetting process to confirm their qualifications and suitability for recognition by the University and the Sturm College of Law.

RULE CHANGE 2026(11)
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rules 1 and 16.2
Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, April 23, 2026, effective immediately.

RULE CHANGE 2026(10)
COLORADO RULES OF PROBATE PROCEDURE
Rules 1 and 12
Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, April 23, 2026, effective immediately.

RULE CHANGE 2026(09)
COLORADO RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE
Rules 1, 3.8, 4.1, and 6
Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, April 23, 2026, effective immediately.

RULE CHANGE 2026(08)
COLORADO RULES OF ICWA PROCEDURE
Chapter 28.3
Applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Colorado Indian Child Welfare Act
Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, April 23, 2026, effective immediately.

The lawyers come to the firm from WilmerHale and represent public and private companies and private equity clients in corporate and securities matters, including domestic and cross-border mergers, acquisition and debt financings, capital markets transactions, SEC advisory and corporate governance matters.

“We are excited to add a team of four nationally recognized transactional partners to our corporate practice. Keith, Chalyse, Dave and Alex have worked on some of the most complex and consequential transactions for clients in the Rocky Mountain Region and beyond, including numerous headline-grabbing deals in the hospitality, retail, technology, aerospace and energy sectors. They will strengthen our corporate platform in Denver, New York, Washington D.C. and elsewhere,” said Vinson & Elkins Chair Keith Fullenweider.

Vinson & Elkins will relocate its Denver office on May 21 to 200 Columbine in Cherry Creek.

“Bergsten brought more than three decades of utility industry experience to our board and was a consistent advocate for reliability, thoughtful planning and collaboration with the owner communities throughout his tenure,” says Jason Frisbie, general manager and CEO for Platte River.

Bergsten will be succeeded by Travis Machalek, town administrator for Estes Park.

At the meeting, the board also accepted Platte River’s 2025 annual report, which highlights a year of continued progress grounded in partnership and collaboration with the utility’s four owner communities as it advances the energy transition.

Guided by the theme “moving forward together,” the report reflects a shared commitment to delivering reliable, affordable energy while navigating a changing energy landscape. It emphasizes operational excellence and collaboration as essential to long-term success.

“Moving forward together means working side by side with our owner communities to ensure we are making smart, balanced decisions,” said Frisbie. “In 2025, we continued building the foundation for a more flexible and resilient system while maintaining the reliability our communities expect. Our progress is the result of strong partnerships, shared goals and the dedication of our employees and board.”

Major milestones from the 2025 Annual Report include:

• Black Hollow Sun Phase 1 entered commercial operation, delivering 350,000 megawatt‑hours of solar energy annually to northern Colorado.
• Finalizing an agreement for Weld Energy Storage, the utility’s first utility-scale battery project, providing 100 megawatts of four-hour storage.
• Energizing the Severance Substation to enable interconnection for new renewable resources.
• Securing a 1041 permit from Larimer County for highly efficient aeroderivative turbines.
• Completing the Rawhide Unit 1 major outage safely and efficiently, supporting long-term reliability.
• Continuing collaboration with owner communities, including extending the organic contract and power supply agreements through 2075.

Together, these accomplishments reflect a balanced approach to the transition, one that prioritizes reliability today while collaboration to prepare the system for the future.

“On behalf of Platte River’s Board of Directors, we are proud of the progress made in 2025,” said Gary Hall, Platte River Board Chair and mayor of Estes Park. “This report underscores the importance of partnership with our owner communities as we continue moving forward together through the energy transition.”

The 2025 Annual Report is available on Platte River’s website at prpa.org/financial-information.

# # #

Platte River Power Authority

Platte River Power Authority is a not-for-profit, community-owned public power generation and transmission utility that provides safe, reliable, environmentally responsible and financially sustainable energy and services to Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland, Colorado, for delivery to their distribution utility customers. In addition to providing a public health and safety service to the owner communities, Platte River is working toward a 100% noncarbon energy future through a Resource Diversification Policy approved by its board of directors in 2018. For more information, visit prpa.org.