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.

City officials have not developed a plan to stop the discharge as they investigate the source of water polluting one of the Front Range’s most important rivers. Arsenic can be toxic to people, animals and aquatic life.

It’s not a huge problem because it’s not a major flow of water into the river, said John Spear, an environmental engineering professor at the .

“But it’s enough of a problem where it’s worth fixing, and it could take a while to fix and figure out who’s going to pay for it,” said Spear, who reviewed a consultant’s analysis of what the city is calling an “illicit discharge” for The Denver Post. “In the meantime, the riparian corridor could suffer because there’s arsenic coming into it.”

Commerce City officials are reluctant to talk about the pipe, citing their ongoing investigation.

“…While we have not yet identified the source of the discharge and total volumes, we have been able to confirm the presence of arsenic, iron and other heavy metals in the discharge,” Travis Huntington, a city spokesman, wrote in an emailed statement. “Commerce City is following all applicable state and federal requirements and will keep relevant stakeholders updated as we identify the source and advance remediation efforts.”

The pipe was discovered in February after a resident reported it through the city’s online portal that allows people to flag potholes, streetlights that are out, and other infrastructure issues, Huntington said. But it is unclear how long the pipe has been spilling hazardous chemicals into the South Platte. No one has determined how much water from the pipe is flowing into the river.

Commerce City officials hired a consulting firm to test the water on March 9.

The consultant’s report, which The Post obtained from the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, shows that arsenic levels in the mud along the riverbank are hundreds of times higher than amounts naturally found in Colorado soil.

The tests, conducted by of Fort Collins, found 528 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of soil in the mud just below the pipe. At the water’s edge, the contaminant level was 73 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of soil, according to the CGRS report.

Arsenic concentrations in Colorado soil typically range from 1 to 20 milligrams per kilogram of soil.

“The concentrations detected at the site substantially exceed these background levels and are not consistent with naturally occurring conditions alone, suggesting a potential localized source associated with the discharge,” the consultant’s report stated.

That means the water is most likely coming from an old mine or industrial site.

The arsenic in the water spilling directly from the pipe had “marginally high” levels, testing at 11.15 and 11.35 micrograms per liter. That level is higher than what is acceptable for public drinking water levels, the report said. In some cases, that level of arsenic can be naturally occurring in groundwater.

Still, the consultants recommended further evaluation to determine the source of the spill.

‘Like a kitchen sponge’

Spear, the School of Mines professor, said the higher concentrations in the soil mean the arsenic has been accumulating for years as water pours from the pipe onto the ground.

“The soil is removing the arsenic from the water and holding onto the arsenic,” he said. “It’s like a kitchen sponge.”

But the sponge can’t hold all the water, so some arsenic is flowing into the river.

Water coming from the pipe also contains elevated levels of manganese that are more than 100 times the amount recommended for tap water, according to the CGRS report.

Readings taken from water at the pipe were 5,408.51 and 5,226.68micrograms per liter. Manganese is typically less than 50 micrograms per liter in water.

Manganese naturally occurs in ground and surface water, but the high levels found in the pipe indicate it is runoff from an industrial site. The mineral is a nutrient important to human health, but it can be toxic if people are exposed to large amounts or over an extended period.

“Such elevated levels are not representative of typical background conditions and may reflect a potential localized source associated with the discharge,” the consultant’s report said. “Given the magnitude of exceedance, additional evaluation is warranted to assess the source and extent of manganese in the discharge.”

The consultant’s testing also found low levels of 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, a man-made chemical used as a fungicide. The fungicide, also known as DBCP, became notorious decades ago when male workers on Latin American banana plantations became sterile after the chemical was absorbed into their skin.

The presence of DBCP led Spear to conclude that the source of the discharge is from an old industrial site.

“The fact that it’s present means you can use it as a tracer for human activity,” Spear said. “Somebody did something at that site and we can see it today. It’s probably not groundwater coming up from the subsurface. It’s probably coming through historic use and what somebody did in the past.”

The pipe flows under property owned by a real estate investor, according to Adams County records, and is used by a tree surgeon. But there is no indication that either of those entities is responsible for the pipe or the substances discharging from it.

Downstream water districts warned

Branden Ingersoll, a spokesman for the state health department’s Hazardous Materials Division, said the data show arsenic concentration in the water is acceptable for surface water but not for tap water.

As a precaution, Commerce City has notified downstream water districts, including Brighton, Thornton and the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, of the illicit discharge. No one has reported impacts on fish or aquatic life, he said.

“We are recommending that Commerce City conduct additional evaluation of the pipe and the site of the release to assess the potential source, impact on soils and remediation of soils,” Ingersoll said.

The earth between the pipe and the riverbank is covered in a slick-looking, bright orange goop. The soil turned orange because microorganisms are breaking down the iron and other heavy metals in the water, Spear said.

“That’s actually normal,” he said. “It can look really toxic and really gross, but it’s a good thing to see that.”

The South Platte is a source of drinking water for thousands of Front Range residents, and the river also provides water for livestock and crops in northern Colorado and western Nebraska.

The first step to solving the problem is to determine the source of the water discharge, Spear said. Commerce City and the state health department need to figure out a remedy, most likely by treating the water to eliminate the toxic levels of arsenic and manganese.

Those government agencies will also need to figure out who pays for it, and if they connect the discharge to an industrial source, they could seek compensation from that business — if it still exists, he said.

“Commerce City is doing their own due diligence and I respect them for that,” Spear said. “They’re going to need to get to the bottom of this.”

Gusts of smoke from the Plant 2 main flare were visible for miles, leading the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to send an inspector to the site and the company to issue one of its public notifications about refinery activity.

On Wednesday, Suncor filed a malfunction report with the state health department that listed the pollutants that it released in excess of the allowable amounts in its air-pollution permit. The company also said the malfunction was ongoing, and that it continued to release higher levels of carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide, which also created more sulfur dioxide, according to the report.

The company also exceeded the amount of black smoke that it is allowed to spew into the sky, according to the report. The company’s Title V air permit limits visible smoke to six minutes per hour.

Kate Malloy, a spokeswoman for the state Air Pollution Control Division, said strong winds on Tuesday and Wednesday pushed the pollutants higher into the air and lessened the amount that people on the ground near the refinery would breathe.

Suncor informed on Tuesday the state’s Air Pollution Control Division of the problem and reported that the smoke potentially violated the terms of the company’s air-pollution permit, Malloy said.

The company also reported that it may have released too much carbon monoxide from its Plant 2 fluidized catalytic cracking unit, one of the main pieces of equipment used to convert crude oil into gasoline, she said.

Air-quality monitors around the refinery did not record elevated amounts of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide or particulate matter, Malloy said. Other toxics such as benzene, toluene, ethylene oxide and xylene also were below federal health standards.

However, ambient air concentrations at those monitors are different from flare emissions, which are released at higher altitudes than the monitors, which are placed along the borders of the Suncor property.

“We will continue monitoring the situation and air pollution levels in the area,” Malloy said.

Suncor did not respond to an email inquiry from The Denver Post.

The company’s notification, sent via email and phone calls to people who have subscribed to alerts, said increased smoke from the flare may be visible for several days as the plant undergoes maintenance that requires workers to shut down and restart equipment.

The refinery’s Plants 1 and 3 are also down for planned maintenance, Malloy said.

The refinery uses flaring to burn off excess gases to manage pressure within the equipment. When flaring occurs, passersby can see flames coming from smokestacks. However, black smoke is unusual.

“Flaring is a standard safety practice that allows for the controlled burning of process gases to safely manage pressure,” Suncor’s notification said. “We continuously monitor the air around our operations and provide air quality data and information with our neighbors and the public through near real-time community and fenceline monitoring systems.”

On Monday, local leaders in Superior are set to discuss whether the town, along with Boulder County, should try to bring the so-far unsuccessful public nuisance lawsuit they filed against the airport two years ago to the Colorado Supreme Court.

“This is the issue I hear from my residents, day in and day out,” Superior Mayor Mark Lacis said. “People are concerned about the noise and people are concerned about the lead pollution.”

Things haven’t gone the way of the town or county in the legal scrum so far. A Boulder County District Court judge ruled that plane noise and aircraft exhaust were solely the province of the federal government to regulate through the Federal Aviation Administration. Last month, the the lower court’s ruling, while keeping a window of hope open for the plaintiffs.

Noise issues are under the FAA’s jurisdiction, it concluded, but the lead contamination issue needs another look at the district court level.

“We’re not trying to tell the airport how to operate,” Lacis said. “All we filed in our lawsuit was an allegation that this is a public nuisance. Courts have long had the power to address nuisances.”

The Superior Town Council’s Monday discussion is set to happen behind closed doors in an executive session, since it’s a legal matter.

The nuisance factor at Rocky Mountain airport��has been all too real for Greg Tan, a nearly 20-year resident of Superior’s Rock Creek neighborhood. The community sits under the flight path of a seemingly endless daily parade of planes — many of them flight school training runs — coming from the airport just to the south.

“All of these flights taking off are going right over my house,” Tan said. “If I’m working from home, I have to put on noise-cancelling headphones or a white noise machine.”

Airport spokesperson Sydny Boyd didn’t answer specific questions submitted by The Denver Post for this story. In a statement, Boyd said the 66-year-old airport, which is owned by Jefferson County, “remains focused on initiatives that support safe operations and continued community compatibility.”

Boyd cited the airport’s voluntary noise-abatement program, the introduction of unleaded aviation fuel and its participation in an FAA-guided noise study as measures the facility has taken in recent years to address complaints.

“RMMA will continue working with stakeholders and regulatory partners as these efforts move forward,” she wrote.

In the meantime, Tan has formed an attachment to the wind that often whips through his neighborhood — since it curtails flight activity, which can often go on until 11 p.m.

“I tell you, I used to hate the wind,” he said. “But now I’d rather take the wind than the noise.”

Increasing activity at airport

Tan is convinced that Rocky Mountain airport could do better if it wanted to. For the first 15 years he lived in Rock Creek, he wasn’t bothered by the nearby airport.

“There wasn’t an issue because there wasn’t as much activity as there has been in the last three, four, five years,” he said.

Takeoffs and landings have exploded at the airport over the last decade.�� show airport operations leapt from nearly 150,000 operations in 2016 to nearly double that number in 2023, the most recent year for which the county provides data on its website.

In the airport’s , the county reported that takeoffs and landings at the airport jumped from approximately 282,000 in 2023 to nearly 295,000 in 2024. And with that increase, noise complaints rose from around 5,000 in 2023 to nearly 11,400 the following year.

The lion’s share of the 2024 complaints — around 69% — came from Superior. And according to the noise report, nearly all the complaints centered on prop planes, which are popular aircraft with flight schools.

Tim Sitz, a 25-year resident of Rock Creek, said the frequency of planes flying over his house can sometimes reach as many as two or three in a minute.

“In the summer, we sleep in an internal bedroom to avoid the noise,” he said. “We don’t enjoy our backyard.”

Jefferson County, he surmised, can turn a blind eye to nearby community concerns because the airport is perched in the extreme northeast corner of the county, from where it sends the majority of its air traffic over Broomfield and Boulder counties.

“Superior and Boulder County are impacted, but Jefferson County largely is not,” Sitz said.

In Boulder County and Superior’s 2024 lawsuit, they claimed that flight school “touch-and-go” operations at the airport — during which a plane momentarily lands before taking off again without stopping or leaving the runway — are done under maximum power and at a lower altitude than typical takeoffs.

The result: “maximum lead and noise exposure” for those below, the lawsuit says.

Last June, the FAA led the nation in “potentially significant events, which include both runway incursions and airborne safety incidents.” That prompted a letter five months later sent by to Jefferson County, the FAA and , pleading for changes.

“Under federal and state law, (Jefferson County) has both the authority and the obligation to mitigate noise, pollution, and safety risks,” the letter reads. “Yet the county has repeatedly refused to act — rejecting proposals for curfews, landing fees, and operational limits while dismissing well-documented community health impacts.”

The coalition is made up of Boulder County, Boulder, Broomfield, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Westminster, Erie and Superior.

‘We’re going to make progress’

The March 12 appeals court decision made it clear that state courts have no authority to compel operational changes at airports — that authority rests singularly with the FAA.

But the court said Rocky Mountain airport could make adjustments to mitigate noise and emissions voluntarily under a “proprietor’s exception” in the law.

“We therefore assume, without deciding, that Jefferson County has the authority as the airport proprietor to prohibit touch-and-go operations if it chooses to do so,” the court ruled.

Lacis said the proprietor’s exception calls into question what has long been Jefferson County’s explanation for why it can’t make adjustments: The federal government has tied its hands.

“The county and the airport have long said, ‘We would love to help you, but our hands are tied by federal law,’ ” he said. “The argument they’ve been making has been dismissed by the appeals court.”

While neither the county nor the airport would answer The Post’s questions about taking voluntary measures to reduce aircraft activity and bring relief to neighbors, lawyers for Jefferson County argued in an October case filing that doing so was no easy feat for the airport.

Rocky Mountain airport, the lawyers argued, is “subject to comprehensive regulation by the FAA through the terms of its grant agreements.” That includes making the airport “available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination.”

“Restrictions on touch-and-go operations are expressly subject to this requirement,” the motion stated.

Regardless of the legal twists and turns, Lacis said the fight was not over. His constituents have suffered too much, he said, and he and other local officials aren’t ready to fold.

“I’m optimistic that we’re going to make progress,” he said. “We wouldn’t be continuing the fight if we didn’t think there was progress to be made.”

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.��Those 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 Plaintiff’s members’ 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 Plaintiff’s members’ 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.��The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission is hosting an on at 6 p.m., April 28. To register, visit .

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 questions��how 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 hasn’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����ap left,” Hill said.

That means bus and train services could be reduced or potentially eliminated for metro Denver residents across RTD’s 2,345-square-mile service area that spans eight counties. The extent of service cuts wasn’t immediately clear.

RTD’s directors bristled with frustration, demanding an explanation — and initially refused to enter into a closed executive session, where they received legal advice about possible job cuts.

RTD general manager and chief executive Debra Johnson declined to comment on possible service reductions.

“That would be premature,” she said.

The prospect of transit reductions hit at a difficult time for RTD as ridership lags and state lawmakers, who created the agency in 1969 to develop, run and maintain a mass transportation system, draft legislation to overhaul the agency’s governance by replacing some of the 15 elected directors with appointees.

Lawmakers for years have been demanding more from RTD as a key part of state efforts to reconfigure Front Range cities by concentrating housing at bus and train hubs — “transit-oriented development” touted as a solution to vehicle air pollution that worsens climate warming, traffic congestion and housing affordability.

RTD chief financial officer Kelly Mackey laid out the overspending in recent years, exceeding $200 million a year, after hearing from credit ratings agencies.

“These are very severe deficits. It is a viability issue,” Mackey said, referring to the ability of the agency to keep operating.

Ratings agency officials have told RTD they must balance the budget by 2027 “to avoid a downgrading,” she said. S&P Global currently with a stable outlook. However, ratings officials wrote that “we could lower the rating if sales tax revenue performance were to materially weaken or if expenses were to remain elevated.”

Johnson has begun exploring a reorganization of agency operations to improve efficiency.

As recently as January, RTD communications staffers were that “credit agencies affirm RTD financial strength with stable outlooks.”

Public transit agencies rely on good credit ratings to lower costs when financing projects, such as replacing buses, fixing tracks and expanding routes, according to the American Public Transportation Association, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group. Financial stability can attract investors and help transit agencies secure loans with lower interest rates, saving taxpayer money.

For several months, RTD officials — who recently approved a record $1.5 billion budget — have known that the revenues the agency receives from sales taxes and fares haven’t been sufficient to cover growing expenses. But the orders to immediately explore cuts, while trying to preserve “core services” wherever possible, piqued fury.

“Why are we just hearing this now? Why wasn’t there a discussion three years ago? … What efforts were taken to increase revenue and correct for that structural deficit over the last five years?” Director Chris Nicholson asked Johnson.

She said she proposed several years ago that directors consider a 1% state property tax increase as a step that other agencies have taken to sustain public transit.

“Why didn’t the agency put through a plan to close the deficit in that time?” Nicholson asked.

“There were various options that were discussed,” Johnson said.

RTD officials a couple of years ago pronounced the agency financially healthy in a report to state lawmakers.

How did the RTD get into this mess?��“There’s no single cause,” Mackey told directors, explaining that spending for several years has exceeded revenue.

Director Lynn Guissinger, who has served on the RTD board since January 2019, offered directors her analysis that, after the pandemic, “we really were trying to bring back ridership.” That led to spending on programs that proved popular, such as Access-on-Demand for riders with disabilities, reduced-fare programs during high-pollution summer months to promote transit as a cleaner alternative to driving, and free fares for people under 20 to increase ridership.

which has operated at 2001 S. Platte River Drive for 44 years, has asked the city to reverse approval of a sewer and drainage permit, the last step needed before starting construction. The printing company, its attorneys and water experts contend city regulations clearly prohibit uses like gas stations in a floodplain.

And Publication Printers says the parcel, which is under an acre, is too small for the kind of stormwater drainage system that QuikTrip plans to install.

“Our biggest concern is pollution to the river,” said Solomon Rael, manager of�� environmental health and safety and facilities for the printing company.

“We don’t know of anywhere in the city of Denver or the state of Colorado where a gas station has been approved that close to the Platte River or river or any body of water,” Rael said.

QuikTrip has started grading the land at the intersection of West Evans Avenue and South Platte River Drive. But Publication Printers will appear before an administrative hearing officer in April to try to overturn the city permit and halt the work.

QuikTrip has opened 26 locations in Colorado since 2022. The Tulsa, Okla., company has more than 1,000 stores in 17 states and a loyal following of fans who like the gas prices and rave about the food. Company spokeswoman Aisha Jefferson said QuikTrip employs about 500 people across Colorado.

Because of the ongoing review of QuikTrip’s permit, Jefferson said she couldn’t respond to Publication Printer’s specific claims about the store planned in southwest Denver.

“QuikTrip has worked closely with the city throughout this project and has completed all required reviews and permitting steps. We trust the city’s established processes and the standards our projects are designed to meet,” Jefferson said in an email.

QuikTrip is “committed to being a responsible and supportive neighbor in the Denver community,” Jefferson added.

Publication Printers believes QuikTrip picked the wrong spot this time.

“The basic issue is that the Denver Municipal Code expressly disallows this type of use on a floodplain parcel,” said Carrie Schaffer, an attorney with Snell &Wilmer, the law firm representing Publication Printers.

Schaffer said the location is about 73 feet from the South Platte River. on a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance rate map. The designation means there’s a 1% chance the area will experience a flood any given year, making it a high risk.

The sewer use and drainage permit issued to QuikTrip is prohibited under a city code that bars the storage or processing of materials that are “flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life in time of flooding,” Snell & Wilmer attorneys said in a Feb. 7 petition to the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The department declined to comment on the petition’s claims.

“The language of this regulation is unambiguous. The regulation does not authorize conditional approval or mitigation-based exceptions,” attorney William Ojile Jr. said in the petition.

He also criticized QuikTrip’s stormwater drainage plan, which he said doesn’t comply with the design and technical criteria in the city’s manual. He said the 0.89-acre parcel is too small for the detention pond planned for the site.

“Because the approval conflicts with mandatory floodplain protections, violates binding technical criteria, and rests on a design that cannot functionally satisfy Denver’s stormwater requirements, the (permit) lacks any valid legal or technical foundation,” Ojile said in the petition.

The city approved QuikTrip’s site development plan in April 2025 and approved the sewer use and drainage permit Jan. 9. The development plan, filed with the Denver Planning Commission in 2022, was flagged because it was in a floodplain.

Schaffer said Publication Printers unsuccessfully appealed the rezoning of QuikTrip’s land. She said only the chairman of the Board of Adjustment, who raised the floodplain issue, voted against the rezoning.

If the city upholds QuikTrip’s permit, Schaffer said Publication Printers could choose to pursue the matter in state district court.

Rael said he has seen two major floods at work during his 18.5 years with Publication Printers. He worries about the fallout if floodwaters were to carry gasoline into the South Platte River.

The South Platte extends 12.5 miles through Denver. which serves the city and many surrounding suburbs, gets roughly 50% of its water from the South Platte River basin.

The 48-year-old Publication Printers has been involved with , a Denver-based nonprofit, which has worked to revitalize and protect the South Platte River and its tributaries. The printing company, which has 400 employees and customers nationwide, has worked on conservation projects in the area, Rael said.

The company doesn’t store any flammable materials or other items prohibited in floodplains, Rael said. “We worry about the people way downstream, even outside of Denver.”

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 ,��addressing 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 can’t have speed limits and no speedometers,” Nichols said. “We need to have the monitoring in place to guarantee compliance.”

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it would hear the companies’ arguments that such lawsuits should be heard in federal court, not state court. The companies — Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil — have argued that the case should be heard in federal court and are challenging a May decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the 2018 case filed by the City of Boulder and Boulder County to continue in state court.

“The oil companies have tried every avenue to delay our climate accountability case or move it to an out-of-state court system,” Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann said in a news release Monday morning. “As everyone continues to face rising costs that put budgets under pressure, we must hold oil companies accountable for the significant harm they’ve caused our communities. We move forward with renewed energy and purpose for the next step toward justice.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Boulder case could have implications for dozens of similar lawsuits alleging that oil and gas companies knowingly lied to the public about how their production of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

Governments around the country have sought damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it����ap necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires and severe storms worsened by climate change, along with rising sea levels.

State courts’ responses have been mixed. Some decided the cases should be heard in federal court, while Colorado and others allowed lawsuits to proceed in state court. While five of the seven Colorado Supreme Court justices said the case could stay in state court, the two dissenting justices called on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

“As our filings make clear, climate policy shouldn’t be set through fragmented state‑court actions, and we look forward to making that case before the Court,” ExxonMobil spokesman Curtis Smith said in an emailed statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Boulder case will resolve the conflicting court decisions, said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the . The project is an effort by the National Association of Manufacturers to rebuff lawsuits in state courts that target industry.

The association is not a party to the Boulder case but to hear it.

“The Supreme Court����ap decision to review Boulder’s climate lawsuit is a decisive step toward resolving conflicting rulings nationwide and reaffirming that climate policy belongs with elected policymakers — not the courts,” Goldberg said in a statement. “Courts across the country have responded to these cases in divergent ways, with many dismissing them for lack of legal and practical foundation.

“Supreme Court review will bring much-needed clarity and uniformity to this issue and help ensure that fundamental policy decisions about energy and climate are made by the appropriate branches of government.”

Arguments on the case are expected in the fall.

In the Boulder case, ExxonMobil and Suncor argued emissions were a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out. The federal government has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not state governments, the companies previously argued.

Suncor did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

President Donald Trump’s administration weighed in to support the companies and urged the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision, saying it would mean “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”

Boulder officials want Suncor and ExxonMobil to pay for the impacts of climate change, including millions for recovery from extreme weather.

Boulder’s climate initiatives director, Jonathan Koehn, from Boulder city and county officials that the case “is, fundamentally, about fairness.”

“Boulder is already experiencing the effects of a rapidly warming climate, and the financial burden of adaptation should not fall solely on local taxpayers,” Koehn said. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will not hamstring our right under Colorado law to seek the resources needed to build a safer, more resilient future.”

The City of Boulder has prioritized climate adaptability in its long-term planning, with the effects of climate change directly influencing approaches to pertinent city issues such as transportation and wildfire hardening.

City and county officials said Boulder — and the rest of Colorado — was already shouldering costs from rising temperatures “that would otherwise fall on local taxpayers.”

“The lawsuit aims to ensure that the corporations that caused the harm pay their fair share, rather than shifting the burden to Colorado communities,” officials said in the release.

Tiff Boyd, the executive director for the Boulder County organization Classrooms for Climate Action, echoed Koehn’s belief that the average person has been bearing too much of the brunt of climate change. The 2021 Marshall fire’s impact��is indicative of that — not just from the blaze but also from its aftermath of rebuilding and preparing for a future fire.

“The financial burden of all this adaptation is falling solely on local taxpayers,” said Boyd, who pointed toward an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is human-caused, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels.

Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, an associate law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder who specializes in administrative and environmental law, said the Supreme Court hasn’t shown interest in cases similar to the Boulder lawsuit in the past.

That, he said, raises curiosity and nerves about why the justices wanted to hear the case.

“You could read into that that maybe this Supreme Court doesn’t think it has the authority to hear these types of lawsuits, and so that would block people from bringing them in the future,” Skinner-Thompson said.

Monday’s decision to take up the case comes on the heels of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent revocation of a finding that climate change posed a threat to public health, which provided the legal underpinning for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

How the Supreme Court handles challenges to that decision may offer a window into the justices’ views on the Boulder case, he said.

“I think that����ap going to be a big issue in terms of how that impacts what the Supreme Court thinks about these types of climate nuisance cases, going forward,” Skinner-Thompson said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.