The White River Electric Association, a non-profit cooperative, lost several miles of power lines in two fires that burned public and private land just outside of Meeker in August 2025. Power lines are uninsurable, for obvious reasons, and White River has had to take out a $23.6 million loan to rebuild transmission lines and get power to critical gas development projects in the Piceance Basin.

“The loan itself is not a long-term loan. It was issued with the hope that FEMA would help us,” said Alan J. Michalewicz, general manager and CEO of White River Electric Association. “Now, with FEMA being declined, we are exploring the options that are available to us and what it would take to turn this into a long-term loan. It could have up to a 5% rate impact on membership, across the board to all our members.”

Michalewicz said he is grateful for the bipartisan support in Colorado following the fires and lauded the state’s work in the aftermath of the fires. White River rebuilt transmission lines quickly, and full power will be restored next week to oil and gas operators in the area.

We worry that even a 3% rate increase will hurt families, small businesses and oil and gas operations in a time when everyone, including utilities, is facing the pressure of increased fuel prices.

Trump’s denial is the first time in 35 years that the federal government refused to use Federal Emergency Management Act funds to assist a community in Colorado recovering from a natural disaster, but under Trump’s leadership, such denials are now the norm ā€“ that is, if you live in a “blue” state.

According to , Trump’s administration has denied 77% of disaster funding requests when the request comes from a state with a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. When the request comes from a state with a Republican governor and two Republican Senators, Trump’s administration only denied 11% of requests.

Such partisan wielding of federal dollars intended to provide communities and individuals with assistance to rebuild in the wake of natural disasters is unprecedented. Politico went through 45 years of FEMA records and found that no other president, going back as far as Reagan, has denied a majority of requests from any states, let alone singled out states for political retribution using FEMA dollars. While the rate of approval for Republican-state requests has remained mostly unchanged compared to previous administrations, Democratic-state approvals have plummeted.

We are outraged, but far more than anything, we are sad for our neighbors in Rio Blanco, La Plata, Archuletta and Mineral counties.

Sadly, the counties that Trump is denying funds to had a majority of voters support him for president in 2024. In Rio Grande County, 60% of voters cast their ballots for Trump. Now he has denied their request for disaster relief, which will directly result in increased utility costs for the foreseeable future. Did they vote for this? Surely they did not expect Trump to wield federal funds as a cudgel to punish them for the politics of their neighbors.

Colorado’s leaders cannot drop this issue until Trump reverses this bad decision.

Every single member of Colorado’s congressional delegation — Republicans and Democrats — signed off on . Now that Trump rejected the appeal, our elected officials must increase the political pressure.

No one should be talking about this more than U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, who represents all four affected counties in Congressional District 3. Hurd is facing a primary for re-election, and he has until June to prove he can deliver for his constituents. Hurd should be spending time on the campaign trail explaining how he is fighting for these federal funds.

But he can’t do it alone. Colorado’s U.S. senators — John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet — have decrying Trump’s denial of these funds.

“The president is solely responsible for this abdication of responsibility; the consequences of which will continue to be severe and long-lasting,” the statement reads.

But that doesn’t go far enough.

We need our elected officials to be a thorn in Trump’s side, requesting meetings, talking at every public event about the detailed repercussions of this decision and lauding Gov. Jared Polis for his ongoing support of these counties.

The emphasis from our leaders should be on the unprecedented and politically motivated nature of Trump’s decision. Trump is setting a dire precedent. Will future presidents withhold federal disaster aid unless a state’s leaders laud her achievements, bow to her every demand, and kiss the ring?

We want to live in a country that is free from the tyranny of an executive branch with unlimited power and unlimited spite. Now is the time for Colorado leaders to push back on this bad decision and fight for a future where disaster declarations are considered on their merits and qualifications, not on the angry whims of one man.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

It is not clear what the transaction means for the project, but county records indicate that Monument Ridge West LLC transferred property earlier this month to Buc-eeā€™s EPCO LLC for over $10 million.

The records show that the land sold to Buc-eeā€™s EPCO, known as Parcel 1, was created through a boundary adjustment between two unplatted properties owned by Interstate 25 Properties Ltd. and Monument Ridge West LLC. Together, these parcels total about 53.4 acres and are the same site where the Buc-eeā€™s project — which would be the second in Colorado — was originally proposed.

Buc-eeā€™s EPCO LLC was formed Jan. 15 and is linked to the companyā€™s headquarters at 327 FM 2004 in Lake Jackson, Texas, according to the state business entity database. The LLCā€™s filing documents also identify Jeff Nadalo, Buc-eeā€™s general counsel since 2012.

On Monday, Post staff contacted Nadalo and Buc-eeā€™s for clarification on the warranty deed and the companyā€™s potential plans for a gas station and travel center. Buc-eeā€™s media coordinator Crissy Gonzales responded by email with a ā€œno comment.ā€

The acquisition, about 50 miles south of the metro area, follows the state’s approval in March of two well permits for Monument Ridge West for the land near the intersection of Beacon Lite Road and County Line Road, close to I-25. The two wells are capable of each year.Ģż

As of Tuesday morning, no development plans for a Buc-eeā€™s had been submitted to the countyā€™s Electronic Development Application Review Program website.

Natalie Sosa, Interim Executive Director of Communications with El Paso County, confirmed to The Post that the county has not received a land-use application for a Buc-eeā€™s for the land near Palmer Lake.

As public interest remains high around a new Buc-eeā€™s location, El Paso officials have to share information and updates on the potential development, including details on the related boundary line adjustment.

The county said it on the plans of Buc-eeā€™s or the property owner, and emphasized that landowners are not required to reveal future development intentions when seeking a boundary line adjustment or grading permit.

ā€œProperty owners have the right to make decisions about their property as long as they are following the law,ā€ the webpage stated.

Plans for a Buc-eeā€™s development date back to 2024 when an annexation of the land to Palmer Lake was first proposed.

Since then, the prospect of a travel center in the area has drawn mixed reactions from the Tri-Lakes community. While some residents applaud the economic growth it could bring, others continue to express concerns about water usage, increased traffic and the preservation of open land.

This is a developing story and may be updated.Ģż

The 3-2 vote by , in favor of the State Sunlight/Long well pad proposed by Crestone Peak Resources, came after about five hours of testimony and deliberation. The decision ends what had become one of the more contentious battles over energy extraction in Colorado.

Board Chair Jeff Robbins acknowledged that the application from Crestone had evoked a strong reaction from homeowners living nearby. But in the end, the company complied with rigorous state oil and gas regulations enshrined in a law known as Senate Bill 181, which was passed by state lawmakers seven years ago.

“At the end of the day, State Sunlight/Long achieves the balance we were told to look for,” Robbins said.

The two commissioners who voted no were Trisha Oeth and John Messner. The approvals process for the Sunlight/Long well pad encompassed seven hearings before the commission, stretching over several months.

Nearby homeowners rose up in opposition, claiming that the project would pose health hazards to those living nearby — in particular, to school-age children. They also worried about the drilling’s potential environmental impacts on the Aurora Reservoir, which is a water source for the 400,000 residents of Colorado’s third-largest city.

“I cannot believe that the state came down on the side of the industry yet again,” Randy Willard, the president of opposition group , said in an interview minutes after the vote came down Tuesday afternoon. “The group as a whole is severely disappointed.”

The group had pushed back on the proposed project using the 2019 oil and gas reform law as a guide, Willard said.

The 2019 law prioritized public health, safety and the environment when regulators consider oil and gas development — a profound change from the industry-focused approach Colorado had taken for decades.

“We’ve done everything we feel is possible under 181, only to find the industry comes out on top yet again,” Willard said. “I don’t know what else we’re supposed to do.”

In December, the state commission voted 4-1 to put a stay on the project, ordering Crestone to return with a list of alternative sites from which it could drill.

Crestone, a subsidiary of Denver-based SM Energy Company, came back this month with a slimmed-down proposal, knocking down the number of wells at Sunlight/Long from 32 to 24.

The company insisted that after examining 11 other potential sites, most of which were farther away from homes, its preferred site near Aurora’s Southshore neighborhood and the reservoir remained the best place to locate its wells.

Civitas Resources was Crestone’s parent company until late January, .

Jamie Jost, an attorney for Crestone, spoke to the commission during an online hearing Tuesday that, at one point, was attended by nearly 1,000 people. She called the site the “most vetted, most analyzed” location for the pad.

The company said the site would have the least impact on wildlife and waterways across 26,500-acre Lowry Ranch, a stretch of rolling prairie owned by the Colorado State Land Board where Crestone has plans to drill just over 100 wells in total — down from 166 just a couple of years ago.

Dan Harrington, SM Energy’s asset development manager, told the commission that reducing the number of wells at Sunlight/Long would curtail the time needed for drilling and fracking.

“This will reduce operational duration by about 25%,” he testified.

And the scaled-back operation will emit fewer emissions, including of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds and methane, the company in favor of its preferred site.

Mike Foote, a former Democratic state lawmaker who represents the neighbor opposition group as its lawyer, testified that Crestone didn’t conduct an honest comparison of alternative sites.

“It found things wrong with everyone else’s suggested sites instead of coming up with something that worked,” he said.

But Nathan Bennett, SM Energy’s director of permitting and compliance, said Crestone looked at other potential locations with an open mind. The company, however, said the alternate sites had problems, with questions raised about whether Xcel Energy could provide electricity to some of them to power electric drilling equipment.

Other locations, the company said, would have required much longer truck trips and called for running pipe over more ecologically sensitive areas.

Commissioner Mike Cross said Crestone’s proposed site for Sunlight/Long was well outside the state’s required 2,000-foot distance buffer from homes. He said the company’s commitment to use quieter and cleaner electric equipment on site was a positive aspect of the project.

“The best practices that we’ve seen from operators in the state, we’ve seen in this application,” he said. “It does meet our rules.”

But Willard, who has been working to defeat the application for nearly two years, said neighbors were already complaining of noise from other Crestone drilling operations on Lowry Ranch. In a presentation that the opposition group ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, the group claimed that more than 40 noise complaints were filed with the agency last month alone.

That, Willard said, will only increase once drilling starts at Sunlight/Long in the coming months.

The on Tuesday sued the and its in Weld County District Court for taking too long to process the plant’s application, which should have been finalized in October 2023. The division is supposed to finalize air permits within 18 months of receiving an application.

This lawsuit claims the JBS-owned Swift Beef Co.’s Greeley Integrated Rendering Plant was late to file its application for a renewed permit for the meatpacking plant and is not eligible under federal law to continue operating under its old permit.

That would mean the Greeley plant has operated without a Title V permit since Jan. 27, 2021, the lawsuit stated. But the state is allowing the plant to continue to operate and to spill pollutants into the air.

JBS is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Jeremy Nichols, a senior advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation group, said his organization filed the lawsuit to urge the state health department to do its job and to send a message to JBS that it should not be allowed to operate above the law.

“The state knows they’re operating out of compliance,” Nichols said. “They’re just choosing not to do anything about it. That’s a concerning message for air quality regulators to send to polluters.”

Zachary Aedo, an Air Pollution Control Division spokesman, said department officials would not comment on the lawsuit.

In an email, JBS spokeswoman Nikki Richardson said the company was committed to compliance with all air quality regulations. She acknowledge the permit application was late but did not offer an explanation as to why.

“Since then, we have worked collaboratively and in good faith with CDPHE and believe we are meeting all current expectations,” Richardson said. “We remain committed to providing any additional information needed to support their review and determination.”

The center argues that lagging air-permit approvals harm the environment and public health by allowing companies to operate under outdated permits, which potentially allows them to pollute more than an updated permit with tighter controls would authorize.

“The state just seems to be, well, whatever, we’ll get to your permit at some point,” Nichols said. “It’s concerning to us that there don’t seem to be consequences for not being timely.”

The Swift plant’s renewal application was due Jan. 27, 2021, but the company did not file it until April 20, 2022. Under the Clean Air Act, which dictates timelines for the Title V air permit renewals, the state health department should have completed it by October 2023. That makes the permit at least two-and-a-half years overdue.

Companies that emit more than 100 tons of any pollutant in one year must apply for Title V permits.ĢżThose permits dictate how much of any pollutant the companies are allowed to release. The permits are written by state agencies and sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

The Greeley meatpacking plant releases particulate matter, which are fine particles that can be inhaled, and in the past has exceeded state limits on how much dried blood it can emit, the lawsuit stated. The plant also emits nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, ammonia and other hazardous pollutants.

All of those pollutants can make people sick if they are exposed to them at high levels or over long periods of time.

Volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide are the key ingredients in ground-level ozone pollution, which combine on hot days to create a smog that fouls the air. Controlling those chemicals is important because the Front Range, including Weld County, violates federal air quality standards for ozone pollution.

“Air pollution from the Greeley Integrated Rendering Plant also harms Plaintiffā€™s membersā€™ interests in using and enjoying the natural environment. Ground-level ozone, which the air pollution emitted by the facility causes, harms human health, and damages plant and animal life and natural ecosystems, thus harming Plaintiffā€™s membersā€™ recreational and aesthetic interests in the areas at issue in this Complaint,” the lawsuit states.

Tuesday’s lawsuit is similar to two others that the Center for Biological Diversity has filed since September against the Department of Public Health and Environment and its Air Pollution Control Division for delayed permit approvals.

The center sued the state over permit delays in September for two oil and gas facilities in Adams County and, in December, over the permit for Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan. Those permits were issued after the lawsuit was filed, Nichols said.

The two oil and gas permits are finalized.ĢżThe Colorado Air Quality Control Commission is hosting an on at 6 p.m., April 28. To register, visit .

Gas prices are once again on the rise a month after the United States and Israel began bombing Iran, resulting in a severe crimp in the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. And fingers are once again pointing at the party occupying the White House, now led by President Donald Trump.

But this time, the blame game has taken on a distinctly more digital and targeted approach as November’s midterm elections come into view.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last week an ad campaign targeting Republican incumbents it believes are vulnerable in 44 congressional districts, including U.S. Reps. Jeff Crank in the Colorado Springs-based 5th District and Gabe Evans in the 8th District north of Denver.

The ultrashort six-second video ad with the words “D.C. Republicans Did That!” It’s being “geo-targeted” to people’s Facebook and Instagram feeds when they come within close range of select gas stations in either district.

“Now, when voters fill up at the pump, theyā€™ll have yet another reminder that D.C. Republicans are squarely to blame for the price of gas, and everything else, being too damn high,ā€ DCCC spokeswoman Courtney Rice said.

It’s no surprise that Democrats are taking advantage of elevated prices at the pump to gain political advantage, said Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University. He co-authored a 2016 study titled which found that a 10-cent increase led to a 0.6-percentage-point drop in support.

The price for regular unleaded fuel in Colorado sat at an average a day before the war started in late February, according to AAA. On Friday, it averaged Ģż— an increase of just over $1 from a month ago.

While November’s election is not a presidential one, Krosnick said there will very likelyĢżbe crossover in terms of dissatisfaction toward the party in charge of Congress.

“Every Republican running for office should be worried about gas prices going up,” he said.

Gas prices play an outsized role in how people gauge the severity of inflation at any given moment, Krosnick said. On nearly every corner of major thoroughfares throughout the country, giant lighted signs display the price of petrol.

“There’s no other consumer good that is as advertised to consumers like gasoline,” Krosnick said. “Not everybody in the family may be filling up the car, but everyone is driving past gas stations every day.”

Though gas prices were appreciably higher under the Biden administration following Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine — reaching a peak of $4.87 per gallon of regular-grade gasoline in Colorado in June of that year, according to — Krosnick said voters care about what’s going on now.

“It’s a present-focused decision,” he said.

A ‘mitigating factor’ in the 8th District?

That was the case for Michael Kondur, a handyman who was filling up his truck last week at a Valero station at West 88th Avenue and Pecos Street in Thornton, in Evans’ congressional district. The price there was a comparatively forgiving $3.69 per gallon for regular.

“It’s the first time I’ve had a full tank in three weeks — and it will be gone in three days,” he said, also using choice words to describe Trump and Republicans in general. “I run my own business with this truck and I don’t have food on my table. Any Republican has got to go.”

Across the street at a Maverik station, where the price for a gallon of gas was nearly 10 cents higher, Carolyn McDowell said she was able to part with only $30 to fill her Chevy Silverado’s tank halfway. Her husband, who works for the delivery service DoorDash, is taking a real hit.

“It’s impacting his ability to make money,” she said.

McDowell said she’s against war in Iran, a stance that is in line with 61% of Americans who also disapprove of the conflict, according to a conducted between March 16 and March 22. The poll also found that 45% of respondents felt the military action was not going well, while 25% felt it was going extremely or very well.

Former Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams, who has run his share of political campaigns, said there is no doubt that gas prices pose a problem for Evans, who’s seeking reelection in Colorado’s most politically competitive district, and Crank, who won comfortably in 2024 but is being targeted by Democrats more aggressively this year.

“The price of gas as it relates to inflation and the cost of living was a big part of Trump beating Harris in 2024,” he said of Trump’s defeat of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. “Democrats will try to make (gas prices) an issue right through November — there’s no doubt about it. The Republicans are in a vulnerable position.”

But there is a “mitigating factor,” Wadhams said, that Evans should be able to use to fight back in the 8th District — which covers a large chunk of Weld County, home to Colorado’s most productive oil and gas field.

“Gabe has a good argument against Democrats that they want to kill the oil and gas industry,” he said.

Two years ago, Democrats in the state legislature floated a bill that aimed to halt the issuance of new oil and gas permits by the end of 2029, a proposal that raised hackles in the industry. Lawmakers eventually .

In December, Republican state lawmakers attacked the Public Utilities Commission’s approval of a “clean heat” plan requiring Coloradoā€™s larger utilities that supply natural gas to homes and businesses to substantially lower emissions over the next decade. The plan, they asserted, amounts to a mandate that forces families to buy ā€œcostly heat pumps, retrofits and electric appliancesā€ to switch from gas to electricity.

This month, the influential environmental group Conservation Colorado filed ballot measures with the state elections office that would slap stricter penalties on the energy industry for the pollution and contamination that result from its operations.

In a , the group said it filed the measures to filed by the conservative political action committee Advance Colorado that would enshrine in the state constitution the right of producers to sell natural gas in the state and the right of consumers to use the energy source in their homes and businesses.

A spokeswoman for Evans’ campaign who declined to give her name called the Democrats’ stance on gas prices “hypocritical” in a statement.

“For years, they have pushed radical climate policies and overregulation, banning natural gas for residential heating, eliminating jobs for hardworking families, and handcuffing the very oil and gas workers who ensure reliable and affordable resources for Coloradans,” her statement read. “Now they expect us to believe they care about gas prices?ā€

Potentially bleak forecast

Republicans don’t just have gas prices to worry about — diesel prices are even worse.

Where a gallon of diesel fuel came in at $3.52 a month ago, , on Friday it hit $4.94.

Twenty percent to 25% of the operating cost for a long-haul trucker is fuel, said Greg Fulton, the president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, which represents more than 500 trucking companies in the state.

“This has come at a very difficult time for the industry,” he said of the spike in energy prices. “This is a situation where profit margins are very thin already.”

During the last peak in oil prices in 2022, Fulton said, some of that sticker shock was offset by the fact that more freight was on the road because consumers were buying more goods to accommodate new stay-at-home lifestyles set in motion by the coronavirus pandemic.

“They were able to pass along the increases easier,” Fulton said of his industry.

Trump’s widespread tariffs have made things even more constrained for trucking companies when it comes to trying to keep operating expenses down these days, he said.

“Hopefully this is more of a short-term situation,” he said.

While Iran last week , oil transport through the vital waterway was still badly hobbled by the war. Al Salazar, the director of research at oil and gas analysis firm Enverus, said the longer the strait was choked, the longer gas prices would stay high.

If the Strait of Hormuz were to remain largely closed through the end of May, Enverus projected that Brent crude prices would stay around $95 a barrel through this year and edge up to $100 a barrel in 2027. That’s because it would take time to replenish all the tanks and oil-holding facilities that are being tapped now, Salazar said.

“By the time the flow is fixed, your stocks (of oil) have all drawn down and you’re left at alarmingly low levels,” he said.

The ECMC, which regulates oil and gas in Colorado, voted unanimously Wednesday for the agreement signed by state officials and Noble Energy. Crude oil, natural gas and fracking waterĢżgushed out of the well April 6-10 in 2025 near Galeton in Weld County.

The cleanup and monitoring continue at the site 22 miles northeast of Greeley. State officials have said remediation of the area isn’t expected to be complete until spring 2030.

“Before you is a very tough, but fair, administrative order and consent that we believe addresses the violations that occurred during the incident,” ECMC Director Julie Murphy told the commission. “I also acknowledge that work remains to be done in remediating the impacts.”

Noble Energy is responsible for the work. The company said the blowout was caused by the improper assembly and setting of equipment that was designed to prevent the flow of liquids.

The incident resulted from human error, “notwithstanding Noble’s extensive safety and preventive policies and practices,” said Matt Lepore, an attorney representing Noble Energy.

Chevron said it has remained engaged with residents who were affected by the well blowout. Chevron spokeswoman Patty Errico said in an email that the company’s claims line for the incident remains open.

The company said work at Galeton Elementary School included extensive cleaning of the interior, exterior, playground equipment and the removal of gravel and mulch.

The school reopened April 22.

The remediation work has focused on 308 individual parcels within 1.5 miles of the Bishop well site. So far, 25 of the parcels have been cleaned up to state standards, the ECMC said.

As of March 13, the agency said the following samples have been collected: 3,358 surface water samples; 5,525 soil samples; 952 air samples; and 382 groundwater samples.

In addition, 28 wells around the well pad are monitoring the groundwater. Chevron said on its website that it recovered about 616,000 barrels of wastewater, including water from decontamination equipment.

Jeremy Ferrin, ECMC’s manager of enforcement, said the staff set the penalty based on the law governing the agency, the agency’s rules and policies and the duration of the violations. The director has the discretion to use a calculation that could have decreased the amount Noble was ordered to pay, Ferrin said, but Murphy chose not to.

Some of the $1.5 million will pay for contractors to do sampling, review and process reports, provide oversight and review records of wells that were shut before 2008 to determine whether they need further engineering evaluation.

“The goals of that enforcement proceeding were to hold the operator accountable and minimize the likelihood of a similar event recurring, not only for this operator but really any operator,” Ferrin said.

About 100 people listened to the online commission meeting, but no members of the public spoke.

“I hope that’s an indicator that ECMC has done a good job in terms of trying to alleviate the impact of this incident,” said Jeff Robbins, the commission chairman.

Commission member Brett Ackerman acknowledged the work by the ECMC staff and Noble Energy in dealing with the incident.

“There have been a lot of sleepless nights over this issue on the part of many, many people,” Ackerman said, “not just those dealing with it from an administrative perspective, but those living in the vicinity.”

Senate Bill 181 changed the focus from fostering oil and gas development to regulating production in a way that protects public health and safety, the environment and wildlife. But after seven years of hours-long debates on new rules, overhauling regulatory processes and forging new working relationships with local governments, questions remain about whether the game has changed enough.

Or changed too much, as the oil and gas industry contends. Since the bulk of the new regulations kicked in, the number of permits approved for individual wells has dropped dramatically. said a total of 14,937 well permits were approved from 2015-18, compared to 3,980 approved from 2022-25.

However, Colorado remains among the country’s top producers for oil and gas, according to the

“Our industry has been very adaptive and innovative and working to meet those very high standards,” said Lynn Granger, CEO and president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

“Unfortunately, at the end of the day, as we sit here in 2026, we still don’t have that regulatory certainty and we still have a pretty unstable environment both on the political front and on the regulatory front,” she added.

People who say the the state’s regulatory body for oil and gas, hasn’t done enough to prioritize public health and the environment believe the situation on the ground hasn’t changed considerably.

The landscape looks a lot like it did before SB181 became law, said Randy Willard of Aurora, who heads a community group fighting a plan by Crestone Peak Resources to drill 32 wells within roughly 3,000 feet of hundreds of homes and the The reservoir is the main water supply for Aurora, Colorado’s third-largest city with about 400,000 residents.

The ECMC has approved three other well locations by Crestone in the area.

“We have fundraised over $110,000 over the course of three years. We spent probably three quarters of that on legal fees,” Willard said. “And at the end of the day, from where I sit, everything looks about the same as it did before SB181.”

Mike Foote, an attorney and former legislator who co-sponsored SB181, is representing the community group

The ECMC and told Crestone to consider alternative locations.

Willard said considering the potential risk to the reservoir and the thousands of people in the area, he would feel safer with at least a 1.5-mile buffer from the wells. He believes making the company move the well pad would be a positive step.

“It would give people some hope that we actually can impact the process,” he said.

A role for local governments

The year before lawmakers passed SB181, Colorado voters defeated an initiative that would have required a 2,500-foot buffer, or setback, from new oil and gas development.

Proponents raised health concerns about exposure to pollutants and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which injects water, chemicals and other substances underground to break through rocks to extract the minerals. One of the byproducts of oil and gas activity is benzene, known to cause cancer.

Also voted down in 2018 was a counter ballot proposal that would have allowed people to seek compensation if a government action or regulation devalued their property.

Millions of dollars were spent fighting and promoting the proposals. In 2019, the Colorado General Assembly passed SB181.

Regulators decreed setbacks from wells be at least 2,000 feet. But in a move that remains a sore spot for advocates of strong protections, they also approved exemptions.

Before SB181, the director of the ECMC, then called the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, reviewed and approved drilling applications. There wasn’t a regular public hearing process and even local governments had trouble getting an audience with commissioners, said Jeff Robbins, commission chairman and the agency’s former director.

Afterward, the volunteer commission was replaced with a full-time, professional body with a mix of expertise in such areas as oil and gas, land use and the environment. Cities and counties can write local rules and hearings for community feedback are held under certain circumstances.

A liaison team works with communities disproportionately affected by industrial pollution.

The commission completed writing rules in 2025 for the last of the bills related to SB181. Areas covered requiring oil and gas operators to show they can meet their financial obligations; restrictions on where wells can be drilled; and shutting down abandoned wells.

The ECMC regulates what happens underground while the law allows local governments to address activity on the surface and related transportation, noise, odors and dust. Local rules can be stricter than the state’s rules, but not less strict.

Robbins said SB181 didn’t spell out how the state, cities and counties should work together “in understanding this dual permitting process.” He said that gives the ECMC and local officials the opportunity to build relationships based on the different locales’ goals.

Weld County was a home-rule county before the oil and gas regulations were revamped, which granted a certain amount of autonomy over local matters. and is in the heart of the Denver-Julesburg Basin in northeast Colorado, one of the country’s more significant oil and gas fields.

But pre-SB181, Brett Cavanagh, director of the county’s oil and gas energy department, said local officials really didn’t have a role in overseeing the industry that’s a key part of the local economy.

Now, Weld County has a memorandum of understanding with the state. Cavanagh said the county’s relationship with the ECMC has grown and the commission participates in county meetings on well permit applications.

Holdups on the front end ripple through the system to the midstream companies, ones that gather, process, transport and store the oil and gas.

“We’ve seen a lot of change in ownership in midstream companies, and I think a lot of that is just due to the fact that the cost to do things is a lot here in the basin” due to regulations, Cavanagh said.

based in Texas, said in a statement that the volume of oil it handles in Colorado has dropped more than 26% since 2019 because of lower activity. The regulatory changes have affected how Western operates in the Denver-Julesburg Basin and evaluates future investment in Colorado, the company said.

Robbins, an attorney, has dealt with oil and gas development from the local perspective. He represented La Plata County, which years before SB181 wanted more say over the development the state was greenlighting within its borders. Counties didn’t get routine hearings before the oil and gas commission and Colorado courts ruled that state laws preempted local ordinances.

Robbins served on a task force formed by former Gov. John Hickenlooper to come up with solutions to the growing tensions between energy companies and suburban dwellers increasingly in the path of drilling. Many of the group’s ideas were included in SB181.

During that time, Robbins got to know then-U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, who signed SB181 into law during his first term as governor. When he signed the bill, Polis said the hope was “the oil and gas wars that have enveloped our state are over and the winner is all of us.”

Erin Martinez was at the bill-signing ceremony. Her husband and brother died in a house explosion in Firestone in 2017 when an uncapped, cut flow line attached to a well leaked gas into the home. The law strengthened oversight of flow lines, which carry fluids or gas from the well to other parts of the site.

SB181 promises kept?

Polis said SB181 has worked as he envisioned. “The oil and gas wars was one the reasons I ran” for governor.

While the updated rules address a number of issues, Polis said a prime goal was a more transparent system for approving development and protections for communities. Previously, drilling could be as close as 250 feet to homes.

“(SB181) gave homeowners relief that they wouldn’t wake up one day to find 250 feet from their homes an industrial operation that would last months or years,” Polis said.

KC Becker, the former speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, was one of the prime sponsors of SB181. She called the legislation “transformational,” particularly because it changed the regulatory agency’s mission.

“For too long, the industry and the state had said that by law they had to put oil and gas interests ahead of the concerns of local communities,” said Becker, now CEO of the Colorado Solar and Storage Association.

Despite the changes, Heidi Leathwood questionsĢżhow much the paradigm for oil and gas regulation has shifted in the state. The climate policy analyst with , which advocates for using 100% renewable energy sources, said changing the goal from fostering oil and gas development to regulating it with an emphasis on protecting people and the environment was huge.

“I feel like it’s kind of like trying to turn a tanker around. It takes a long time and I do not think we’re there yet,” Leathwood said.

The ECMC has approved most of the new permits submitted, Leathwood said. In cases where projects have been held up, she said the communities typically have more money and resources to rally support and hire lawyers. She also believes that so far, the requirement to factor in the cumulative impacts of more drilling hasn’t been fulfilled.

The 2019 law and regulations made important moves toward addressing the effects of oil and gas development on wildlife, water and such biological resources as rare plants and invertebrates, said Joro Walker, senior attorney at Western Resource Advocates. High-priority wildlife habitats mapped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife are now considered when development is proposed, she said.

“That’s incredibly important because before SB181, compliance with CPW’s recommendations were voluntary and there were no substantive requirements in the rules to protect these habitats,” Walker said.

However, Walker said a working group focused on the potential impacts on streams and other waters has yet to be convened.

“At the end of the day, I’d say (SB)181 came out as an important evolutionary bill, but not a revolutionary one,” co-sponsor Foote said in email. “Some folks would’ve preferred it to be revolutionary. But revolutionary doesn’t usually get through the legislative process.”

Mike Freeman, an attorney with Earthjustice, said the ECMC’s requirement that new wells be at least 2,000 feet from homes, schools and child care centers was at the time the toughest setback rule in the country. Then the ECMC included four exceptions, including allowing alternative measures deemed substantially equivalent to a 2,000-foot setback.

“If the legislature really wants to ensure that drilling stays away from people’s homes, they have to adopt strict setbacks that are written into the statute,” Freeman said.

Robbins said the number of oil and gas locations approved within 2,000 feet of residences has dropped. shows that from 2015-18, a total of 719 oil and gas locations were approved within 2,000 feet of residences.

The number dropped by 88% to just 87 locations 2022-2025. One location can have multiple wells.

Referring to the decline in permits approved, ECMC Director Julie Murphy said there were lulls as everyone adjusted course. Also, as the industry innovated, single wells could reach farther requiring fewer wells.

While advocates for more constraints on drilling point to the low number of permits the ECMC has denied, Robbins thinks that’s the wrong way to view the situation.

“We have much greater detailed and protective standards, all of which compels operators to apply for permits that meet our standards and thus, are approvable,” he said. “The number of instances in which the commission felt that it was necessary to deny is much less.”

Robbins acknowledges the industry’s complaints about how long it takes to approve permits. Approving an oil and gas development plan from submission of an application to a hearing took an average of 257 days in 2024 and 297 days in 2025.

“It’s going to take longer when you are making filings that are 10 times more in-depth than they were pre-SB181,” Robbins said.

More regulatory uncertainty ahead?

The time it takes to process permits is one thing. For the oil and gas industry, the uncertainty around change and the potential for even more change is another issue.

Granger of the said industry members have participated in more than 50 rulemakings since 2020 — not all were associated with SB181. Some were before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission.

Lawmakers, industry representatives and environmentalists struck a kind of truce in 2024 when a bill to phase out new well permits and industry-backed initiatives prohibiting mandates for carbon-free energy sources threatened to reignite the oil and gas wars.

But people unhappy with implementation of the regulations have said updates, such as stricter setbacks, might be in order.

“On the legislative side, we see ideas proposed each year that would be pretty fundamental to the industry. There’s always the possibility that things change,” said Carly West, executive director of the American Petroleum Institute Colorado.

Industry representatives say Colorado’s regulations, considered among the strictest in the nation, have dampened interest in investing in the state and increased the cost of business. Granger said demand for energy is expected to keep rising and she would like to see Colorado production increase to help meet the need.

a Colorado research organization focused on the economy, said despite proven reserves, Colorado fell behind the national pace of oil and gas production in 2021 when new rules took effect. If production had not declined after 2020, the report said the state would have produced 16.6 million more barrels of oil and marginally more natural gas worth a combined $1.3 billion.

Denver-based operates nearly 600 wells in Colorado, all in the Denver-Julesburg Basin with its core activity in Weld County. Getting the full set of approvals for new wells takes longer since SB181 took effect, often 12 to 18 months, depending on the local government, said Katie Gillen, vice president of environmental, health, safety and regulatory affairs for Bison.

“In Weld County, where the local program is mature and predictable, we have been able to continue operating and investing. Where that predictability does not exist, the same rules can create significantly more uncertainty and delay,” Gillen said in an email.

Still, In 2024, Colorado was No. 4 in oil production and No. 8 in natural gas, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported.

Gov. Polis said he hasnā€™t heard from major oil and gas operators in Colorado that state regulations have prompted them to pull back production. He said the price of oil is the major driver behind decisions on drilling and investments.

Murphy said Colorado’s oil production in 2014 was about 95 million barrels. The total in 2018 was roughly 169 million barrels and ranged from about 160 million barrels to 172 million from 2022 to 2025.

Natural gas production has stayed stable, according to the ECMC. In 2018, the total was 1.85 million cubic feet and about 1.87 million cubic feet in 2024.

The operators in the Denver-Julesburg Basin have largely figured out how to work in Colorado’s regulatory environment, said Ryan Hill, principal analyst at , an energy analytics and data company.

Companies in Colorado are drilling horizontally up to 3 and 4 miles to reach the oil and gas while trying to avoid populated areas, Hill said. The typical length is about 2 miles.

The Colorado basin stands out compared to others across the country in terms of the size and quality of the resource being so close to a significant population center, he said.

“They’re doing whatever it takes to access the resource while still working within SB181 and the requirements of the state,” Hill said.

But working within the parameters of SB181 regulations does cost more, Hill added. He said the majority of the acres in the more populated parts of the basin are held by three large companies with more resources than smaller operators: Chevron, SM Energy, which recently merged with Civitas, and Occidental Petroleum.

While consolidation of companies occurs in most older oil and gas fields such as the Denver-Julesburg, Hill believes that Colorado’s regulations have played a part.

A review by Enverus showed there were 19 to 20 independent companies working in the basin in 2019 that drilled at least 10 wells per year. In 2025, there were six, Hill said. He believes the regulatory environment has affected the outlook of private equity or public companies thinking about buying assets in the basin.

Oil and gas basins across the country experienced “a pretty material drop in activity” during the height of the pandemic but most have rebounded, Hill said. Production in the Denver-Julesburg Basin has continued “to creep up,” he added.

“I think that’s a function of the resources. We do view it in that top-tier status of truly what¶¶Ņõap left,” Hill said.

The partial rejection of the Title V air permits, which regulate how much pollution the drilling facilities can release into the air, is an unexpected move from the Trump administration, which has acted favorably toward fossil fuel companies.

Jeremy Nichols, a senior advocate for the , which filed the petitions asking the EPA to reconsider the permits, said it was shameful that the was issuing permits “so bad that even the Trump administration has to object.”

“While EPA objections to permits aren’t unusual, they are unusual under arguably the most anti-environment administration that is blatantly subservient to the oil and gas industry,” Nichols said.

He added, “The bar for Colorado should be much higher than what the Trump administration is willing to go along with.”

The partial rejections were issued March 9 by EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who agreed with the environmental group that the six air permits were insufficient. The Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group with a mission to protect a diverse ecosystem, last year, arguing that the state failed to require air monitoring to detect volatile organic compound emissions at the wells’ venting sites.

“All Title V permits must include testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are sufficient to assure compliance with all applicable requirements and permit terms. The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Starkey Gulch Permit does not include monitoring requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the VOC emission limits on maintenance and blowdown activities,” said ,Ģżaddressing a specific drilling facility owned by Bargath LLC.

The Center for Biological Diversity also asked for more monitoring at the wells’ flares — or smokestacks — but the EPA supported the state’s plan for monitoring those locations. Under the permit, the flare emissions will be tested once every five years.

Five of the facilities are operated by Bargath, a subsidiary of natural gas giant Williams, and the sixth is operated by Grand River Gathering, a subsidiary of Houston-based Summit Midstream. All are in Garfield County.

Tom Droege, a Williams spokesman, said the company was reviewing the EPA decision and “looks forward to working with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to address any concerns identified in the order.”

Leah Schleifer, a state health department spokeswoman, said the air quality division was reviewing the EPA order and would not comment on it.

, or VOCs, are chemical compounds released through oil and gas extraction, and they can cause breathing problems as well as cancer. They also combine with nitrogen oxides to form ground-level ozone pollution, which traps heat in the atmosphere, leading to climate change.

The Title V air permit, which is written by state regulators and approved by the EPA, did not require sufficient monitoring for those compounds at the six wells’ compressor station venting systems, the EPA’s orders said.

At the compressor stations, the natural gas produced from wells is processed so that water and other contaminants are removed. The gas is then pressurized and pushed through a pipeline to other facilities downstream.

That decontamination process releases fumes into the air and is a big source of VOC emissions, Nichols said.

The Title V air permits specify the level of VOCs that can be released, but without monitoring, it is impossible to know whether the companies are in compliance, and impossible for state and federal regulators to enforce the rules, he said.

“We canā€™t have speed limits and no speedometers,” Nichols said. “We need to have the monitoring in place to guarantee compliance.ā€

The EPA agreed with Nichols’ assertion.

“The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Permit does not include monitoring requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the VOC emission limit on maintenance and blowdown activities,” the for Grand River Gathering’s East Mamm Creek compressor station stated.

Under the Clean Air Act, the state has 90 days to respond to the EPA’s rejections. The companies can continue extracting oil under their old permits until the EPA order is addressed.

That move was approved Tuesday morning.

But that doesn’t mean opponents of the mega travel center, proposed about 50 miles south of the metro area in an unincorporated area along Interstate 25, are resting easy.

They have turned their attention to El Paso County with a persistent letter-writing campaign. They have pushed back against the chain — famous for its clean bathrooms, Texas-style barbecue and red-capped beaver mascot — over concerns about water usage, traffic congestion, pressure on infrastructure and more.

Their comments have since been filed and made available to the public under the countyā€™s Electronic Development Application Review Program website.

ā€œThis project threatens to impose significant challenges on our community, including increased traffic congestion, insufficient infrastructure, strain on natural resources, and disruption to the area’s character,ā€ wrote Monument resident Madeline Klaman to officials.

ā€œWhile I support responsible and thoughtful development, a Buc-ee’s megastore is not aligned with the needs, values, or long-term interests of our community.ā€

North Woodmoor resident Becky Saydak said she was dismayed to find out the proposal is being considered by El Paso County.

ā€œMonument and Palmer Lake have already rejected this proposal. I know that the governor and our senators have weighed in on the matter by writing to the head of Buc-eeā€™s to state that they welcome the business in Colorado but asked them not to build on that particular location,ā€ Saydak said.

ā€œI personally feel that there may be other locations in El Paso County (such as south of Colorado Springs) that would be better suited to a development of that size in non-residential and protected wildlife areas.ā€

Buc-eeā€™s had proposed to develop nearly 25 acres, including a 74,000-square-foot retail convenience store, 120 fuel pumps, 12 electric vehicle charging stations and 780 parking spaces, according to a fiscal impact analysis report prepared last year by Economic & Planning Systems Inc.

Buc-eeā€™s was hoping to break ground in late summer 2025 with anticipated completion in late 2026, the report stated.ĢżThe first Colorado Buc-ee’s opened in Johnstown in March of 2024.

However, as of Wednesday, no formal development plans for a Buc-eeā€™s have been submitted to El Paso County.

ā€œWe understand there is significant public interest in recent reports about a potential Buc-eeā€™s location in El Paso County,ā€ said Scott Anderson, communications and public relations manager for the El Paso County Department of Communications in an email to The Post.

ā€œAt this time, El Paso County has not received a development application or proposal for a Buc-eeā€™s project. ā€

El Paso County records show Interstate 25 Properties Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, authorized Vertex Consulting Services LLC, in January to submit an application requesting approval for a boundary line adjustment between two unplatted parcels of land, totaling approximately 53.4 acres.

The parcels are located along Beacon Lite Road and County Line Road, near I-25. Monument Ridge West LLC, owns the County Line Road parcel, which had been planned as the location for Coloradoā€™s second Buc-eeā€™s travel center.

Anderson said a boundary line adjustment changes the property line between two adjacent parcels. He added that the action does not allow construction or commercial activity, nor does it grant any zoning change or permit any land use beyond the existing regulations.

However, Anderson also said that a project such as constructing a Buc-eeā€™s would require a transparent public process.

ā€œWhile we have not yet received a development application, assuming a Buc-eeā€™s model similar to that in other jurisdictions, a public hearing is required to determine the use classification (i.e. whether the application meets the Land Development Codeā€™s existing definitions). Additional hearings may be required depending on the form of the application. However, at this point, the county has not received an application for site construction,ā€ Anderson said.

The debate over Buc-eeā€™s has stretched for more than a year, sparking controversy and upheaval in the Tri-Lakes area.

Opposition to the development contributed to the resignation of Palmer Lakeā€™s former mayor and sparked lawsuits, petitions, letters, a recall election and complaints to the Colorado attorney general, drawing attention from local residents, officials, community organizations and one of the nationā€™s wealthiest landowners.

In September, Gov. Jared Polis and U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper even , CEO of Buc-ee’s, urging him to reconsider the proposed Palmer Lake location.

On March 3, the Monument Town Council and Mayor Mitch LaKind submitted a letter to the El Paso County Planning and Community Development Department formally objecting to the administrative approval of the BLA.

ā€œThis project involves a complex history of land manipulation that should require a public hearing and a higher level of scrutiny than an administrative review allows,ā€ the letter stated.

ā€œAs the elected representatives of the neighboring jurisdiction, we believe this project, as currently proposed, circumvents the spirit of the El Paso County Land Development Code and ignores the significant regional impacts on our community.ā€

The councilā€™s objection is based on potential impairment of water rights and well permits, inconsistency in “Legal Lot” status, improper project segmentation and topographical change and technical discrepancies in public safety data.

Representatives from Interstate 25 Properties and Vertex Consulting Services did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.

Workers at the HF Sinclair terminal in Henderson on Jan. 8 failed to close a valve, which allowed diesel fuel to mix with regular unleaded gasoline, regulators with announced Friday. The mistake led to the contamination of more than 1.6 million gallons of gasoline, of which 365,694 gallons were sold to 49 gas stations across the Front Range.

More than 1,000 people reported problems with their vehicles because of the contaminated fuel, Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Deputy Executive Director Cher Haavind said at a news conference Friday.

The state Division of Oil and Public Safety fined Sinclair $365,694 for the incident — $1 per gallon of contaminated gasoline. The company also implemented a system requiring two people to verify proper valve opening and closing and to use a checklist.

While state statute only allows for fines of $500 per violation per day, regulators didn’t feel a $500 or $1,000 fine adequately addressed the violation, Zach Hope, Division of Oil and Public Safety spokesperson, said Friday. The division worked with the Colorado Attorney General’s office to levy a more fitting fine, he said.

“We are also going to work with them to make sure we have ongoing fuel quality monitoring with them,” Hope said.

The improper mixing of fuel began at approximately 2 p.m. Jan. 7 but was not discovered by Sinclair employees until approximately 6 a.m. Jan. 8 when gas station operators notified the distributor of irregularities, . In the interim, more than 360,000 gallons of fuel had already been sold to gas stations, including some operated by King Soopers, Costco and Murphy Express.

Sinclair began notifying the fuel distributors of the incident on the morning of Jan. 8, but did not notify the Division of Oil and Public Safety.

Officials with the division began receiving complaints from consumers that same morning. Drivers reported stalling, sputtering and newly illuminated check engine lights shortly after refueling their vehicles. By 11 a.m., state regulators confirmed the sale of contaminated fuel at one Costco in Sheridan, but throughout the day realized the issue was much broader.

“It wasn’t a great Friday morning,” Hope said of the day of the incident.

Investigators eventually traced the contaminated fuel to the Henderson site.

State regulators contacted Sinclair on the morning of Jan. 9. The company had already begun to recover the contaminated gasoline and state investigators requested a list of the gas stations impacted.ĢżSinclair did not provide the list until Jan. 13.

Gas station owners responded quickly once they discovered contaminated fuel and helped prevent broader consumer impacts, the report states.

The Division of Oil and Public Safety is working with 1,090 people who purchased the contaminated fuel to help them recover the cost of car repairs. The state believes all impacted people have already initiated the claims process, but encouraged anyone else who purchased the fuel to file a complaint by calling 303-866-4967 or filling out and emailing it to cdle_oil_inspection@state.co.us.

Fuel contamination is very rare, Haavind said. The Sinclair incident is only the second in 20 years in the state.

Sinclair did not immediately respond to about the fine, Hope said. The company has 10 days to request a meeting about the violation and fine.