Throughout the summer months on the Front Range, it can be difficult for Coloradans to breathe. While it’s possible to adjust to the Mile High City’s elevation, the ozone levels residents and visitors of the Front Range encounter have a slew of negative consequences. According to the American Lung Association, “Long-term ozone exposure is associated with increased respiratory illnesses, metabolic disorders, nervous system issues, reproductive issues… cancer and also increased cardiovascular mortality.”
For residents along the Front Range, ozone exposure is largely seasonal, but the exposure is high. In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency reclassified the Denver metro and the north Front Range as a “severe” nonattainment area, meaning the area isn’t in compliance with federal standards on ozone pollution.
Two Colorado Senate bills, passed in the Senate Transportation & Energy Committee on March 20, would create new emission standards within the Denver metro and north Front Range nonattainment area and increase fines and penalties for companies in violation of those standards.
Senate Bill 24-165, titled Air Quality Improvements, covers the creation of the new emission standards. The Air Quality Control Commission in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is tasked with creating the new rules, and the bill gives the organization a deadline of Dec. 31, 2025, for the adoption of said rules.
The rules the AQCC must adopt include controlling emissions from facilities, buildings, structures, installations or real property and emission reduction targets for indirect sources.
For oil and gas operations specifically, the bill institutes a pause on preproduction operations, which was amended from the original language, from June 1 to Aug. 31, beginning in 2025. The bill also requires oil and gas operators to submit an annual emission inventory report and an annual report estimating emissions of nitrogen oxides.
The sister bill, SB24-166, titled Air Quality Enforcement, creates the enforcement mechanism for companies and organizations found in violation of the rules. The bill outlines civil penalties for violations and creates the categories of “repeat violator” and “high-priority repeat violator” for persistent infringers, with an increase in civil penalties for these two categories.
Currently, companies found afoul of air quality regulations are subject to a maximum civil penalty of $300. If SB24-166 becomes law, the maximum penalty will be raised to the amount set by Colorado’s state air quality laws, which could mean fines of nearly $50,000 a day.
The bills drew a significant crowd for their committee hearings, with over 200 individuals, representing themselves, governments, unions, businesses or trade organizations testifying to the committee.
Oil and Gas Industry Warns of Economic Impact
Colorado is the fifth-largest crude oil-producing and eighth-largest natural gas-producing state in the country, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to a 2023 report from the Colorado Fiscal Institute, oil and gas make up 3.3% of Colorado’s GDP and 0.7% of the state’s total employment.
For those representatives and individuals in opposition, the economic impact to the industry and its workers was front and center.
Rich Werner, representing the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, said the bill failed to take into account the indirect losses the state would suffer when it came to funding existing programs.
“Some of these programs include backfill for the education system in Weld County,” said Werner. “Oil and gas severance taxes make up 100% of the funding of school districts, with the exception of two, that accounts for $51.4 million.”
Werner urged the committee to either amend the bill or vote in opposition.
Anneliese Steel, senior director of public affairs at Colorado Concern, said the organization opposed the bill, with particular opposition to the section that limited production between the original bill time frame of May to September and the authority given to the AQCC to regulate emissions from indirect sources.
“Once again, the legislature is providing incredibly broad regulatory authority to an unelected board,” said Steel.
Annie Stefanec, EVRAZ’s director of communications and government affairs, told the committee the company’s commitment to its environmental footprint was serious, and it had invested nearly $1 billion in Pueblo, along with supporting over 500 Colorado businesses over three years. But she claimed SB24-166 would be harmful to the southern Colorado community.
“We are looking down the barrel at policies that seek to cause injuries to business people, families and communities in southern Colorado,” said Stefanec. “SB-166 would not only take away our ability to continue investing in our people and emission reduction technology, it would put our community out of business.”
Julian Aguilar, vice president of the Local 68 chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, told the committee his organization opposed the bill.
“We feel like this bill creates too many risks for our employers with air permits and jeopardizes their employment stability, allowing even minor paperwork violations to reclassify their business as a repeat offender,” said Aguilar.
Protecting the Health of Front Range Residents a Focus for Supporters
For the witnesses who supported the bills in committee, the physical health of their communities was the focus.
Jen Clanahan, co-director of the Mountain Mamas organization, told the committee “Colorado’s children deserve clean air to breathe.”
“When children are very young, pollution can damage their still developing lungs, causing health problems that will last the rest of their lives,” said Clanahan.
Cindy Copeland, Boulder County’s air and climate policy advisor, testified in support of SB24-165 for the Boulder County Commissioners.
“Colorado desperately needs this bill to help respond to our ozone crisis,” said Copeland. “More than half of Colorado’s population lives in the ozone nonattainment area, and the unhealthy ozone situation has not improved measurably in years.”
One of the witnesses in support, Ramesh Bhatt, chair of the Colorado Sierra Club’s conservation committee, pointed to the repeat violator statutes in SB24-166 as an important aspect.
“Clearly, under the current system, fines are not a great deterrent to these massive companies, these are companies that earn tens of billions of dollars in profits,” said Bhatt. “Senate Bill 166 addresses these enforcement shortcomings by identifying serious repeat violators … and requiring them to be fined at a higher rate than CDPHE’s current practice.”
Jean Lim, a Broomfield city council member, told the committee Broomfield supports the bill. She noted Broomfield operates an oil and gas quality monitoring program, and its data demonstrated concerning air quality impacted the health and safety of the city’s residents.
“Broomfield has consistently called for stronger regulation and enforcement, and this legislation is a huge step in the right direction to hold repeat violators accountable for their actions,” said Lim. “Increasing the maximum fines local governments can impose for violations of local air quality regulations is also an important provision of this bill.”
Following over 10 hours of testimony, both bills were passed through the Senate Transportation & Energy Committee with a series of amendments. The pair of bills currently await a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.