Much of my work as a Weld County Commissioner gets so deep in the weeds, it becomes almost exhausting trying to explain "what I do." A decent chunk of my work is in the transportation arena. I am a past Chairman and serve on the Planning Council of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). I Chair the North I-25 Coalition, High Plains Boulevard Coalition, GoNoCo34 Transportation Management Organization, etc. etc. I work in transportation a lot. But under Polis, it's less about transportation and more about the environment. I am going to attempt to write some "explainer" articles about this. They're not my usual brand of snarky news and comment. They're in the weeds. Here we go...
If you have lived in Colorado and have paid attention to the Polis/Democrat rule-by-iron-fist era, you start to notice a pattern:
- Traffic? Climate problem.
- Housing? Climate problem.
- Building codes? Climate problem.
- Oil and gas? Always a climate problem.
Under Jared Polis, “climate” isn’t one policy area – it’s the justification for reshaping almost every lever of state government. And it’s always sold under the same label: “science-based” standards.
In 2019, Polis signed HB19-1261, the Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution. It hardwired statewide greenhouse-gas (GHG) reduction goals into law:
- 26% below 2005 levels by 2025
- 50% by 2030
- 90% by 2050
Those numbers show up again and again in the state’s own documentation, including the HB19-1261 implementation report and the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap.
That Roadmap – and its “2.0” follow-up – repeatedly describes these as Colorado’s “science-based climate targets” of 26/50/90 from a 2005 baseline.
The statute and supporters are explicit about why those numbers were chosen. In HB19-1261’s legislative declaration, the state says:
“We must work together to reduce statewide greenhouse gas pollution in order to limit the increase in the global average temperature to one and one-half degrees Celsius…”
You can read that right in the bill text.
Environmental groups like Environmental Defense Fund (and HERE) and Western Resource Advocates then praised HB19-1261 because those targets are Colorado’s way of “doing its part” to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Here’s the catch: those “science-based” standards are climate targets, not health-based standards in the way most people think. They’re built around cutting Colorado’s greenhouse-gas emissions 26%, 50%, and 90% below 2005 levels so we can “do our part” toward the 1.5°C global-warming goal – not around specific, Colorado-tested thresholds for safe air the way EPA’s health-based standards are.
Under the Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have to be set at levels “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” EPA’s own materials and the American Lung Association describe them plainly as health-based limits for pollutants like ozone and PM2.5.
So when Polis world says “science-based standards,” they’re talking about Colorado’s share of a global thermostat, not “what level of ozone or particulates is safe for a kid with asthma in Greeley next summer.” So for this crowd, it’s more about reasons to regulate and tell you how to live than it is about protecting your health. Get my drift, here?
And once those climate targets went into statute, every major sector became a “climate lever.”
Step One: Turn Transportation into a Climate Project
First on the chopping block: transportation.
Polis’s team pushed through the GHG Transportation Planning Standard (2 CCR 601-22). It does something Colorado hadn’t done before:
- Requires CDOT and major metro planning organizations to model the GHG emissions (CO₂e) from their long-range transportation plans.
- Forces them to change the mix of projects – more transit and “multimodal,” fewer classic road-widening projects – until the plan meets prescribed GHG reduction levels.
CDOT’s own GHG fact sheet lays this out.
The rule text says its purpose is to:
“establish Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution reduction planning levels for transportation that will improve air quality, reduce smog, and provide more sustainable options for travelers…”
You can see that language in the preamble of the rule.
But notice what the controlling metric actually is:
- CO₂-equivalent emissions in a model – a climate metric –
- Not the ozone or PM2.5 concentrations that define our true health-based nonattainment status.
Meanwhile, the Denver Metro/North Front Range region is still officially in nonattainment for multiple ozone standards. CDPHE’s nonattainment summary admits the EPA reclassified the region to “severe” nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard after Colorado failed to meet the deadline. EPA’s planning paper for the area shows the same story in federal ink.
So we now have:
- A GHG planning standard that bends transportation decisions around CO₂ models,
- While we still can’t meet EPA’s long-standing, health-based ozone standards along the Front Range – and we will never be able to do so because of what they call “non-native” and “background” ozone. I’ll explain that in a post HERE. So we are constantly failing a test rigged so we can never pass it.
If this were primarily about health, you’d expect ozone and PM to be the headline metrics. Instead, climate modeling gets top billing and local smog is background noise unless it fits the narrative.
Step Two: Make Buildings Climate Compliance Projects
Next, Polis turned existing buildings into a climate policy instrument.
In 2021, he signed HB21-1286: Energy Performance for Buildings. It:
- Covers commercial, multifamily, and public buildings 50,000 square feet and larger.
- Requires owners to benchmark and report annual energy use to the Colorado Energy Office.
- Directs the state to adopt Building Performance Standards (BPS) with sector-wide GHG reduction targets of 7% by 2026 and 20% by 2030 from a 2021 baseline.
Those details are laid out on CDPHE’s Building Performance Standard rule page and in the Colorado Energy Office’s BPS slide deck.
The purpose, in the state’s own words, is to achieve a “measurable sector-wide reduction in GHG emissions” from large buildings.
Miss the deadlines? Owners can face recurring fines and enforcement if they fail to submit benchmarking reports or meet the performance standards, depending on the implementing rules.
Again, this isn’t about whether efficiency upgrades are nice. It’s about what’s driving the bus:
- The targets are sector-wide GHG percentages anchored in the overall 26/50/90 climate law.
- They’re not tied to “here’s the ventilation level that cuts respiratory ER visits” or “here’s the indoor air quality standard that keeps your kids healthier.”
Your building is now a climate spreadsheet cell. If you don’t hit your assigned number, you risk penalties – and those costs get baked into rents, prices, and housing affordability for real people.
Step Three: Put Oil & Gas Under Climate Siege
You can’t have a climate crusade without going after energy.
Also in 2019, Polis signed SB19-181, the major oil and gas law overhaul. It:
- Rewrote the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s mission from “fostering” development to “regulating” it “in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources.”
CPR’s explainer makes the shift clear: “Colorado has a brand new set of oil and gas rules with a focus on regulating the industry”.
On its face, that sounds like basic prudence. In practice, it fits right into the 26/50/90 climate framework.
Colorado’s GHG Roadmap and associated modeling documents treat oil and gas as one of the key sectors that must deliver deep emissions cuts to meet HB19-1261’s goals – i.e., flog one of the state’s top job creators.
Supporters celebrate “nation-leading” rules on oil and gas climate pollution as a model other states should copy.
Missing from most of that climate-victory talk: the economic risk and cost.
The Common Sense Institute warned that if SB19-181 and follow-on rulemakings significantly constrained new development, Colorado could see tens of thousands fewer jobs and billions in lost state and local tax revenue over the coming decade. Today, the state legislature faces a budget in 2026 that is $1 billion short – and the Gov blames Trump and HR1. Hmmmm.
You don’t have to accept their exact number to see the principle:
- When you design oil and gas policy around meeting statewide GHG cuts first,
- “Affordable energy,” “local tax base,” and “reliable supply” get pushed to the back seat – if they’re in the car at all.
Again: climate math first, everything else later.
Step Four: Put AQCC and RAQC in Charge of Enforcement
If HB19-1261 is the climate constitution, then the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) and Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) are the enforcement ecosystem.
The Climate Action Plan gives AQCC explicit authority to adopt rules “to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas emission reductions” in HB19-1261. That’s on top of its traditional Clean Air Act role.
At the same time:
- The RAQC is formally designated as the Governor’s lead air-quality planning agency for the Denver Metro/North Front Range region. Its own “About” page says it works “to improve air quality and protect Colorado’s health, environment, and economy through planning, policy development, and program implementation”.
- RAQC documents describe its role in developing ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and evaluating “control strategies” for the region.
In theory, that sounds like classic Clean Air Act work.
In practice, two things are true at once:
- The Front Range remains one of the worst ozone regions in the country. The American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2025 ranks the Denver–Aurora–Greeley area among the most polluted metros for ozone and calls out Denver as sixth-worst in a press release.
- AQCC and RAQC are now also heavily focused on GHG-driven planning and rules in transportation, buildings, and industry to meet the 26/50/90 climate goals, not just on NAAQS compliance. References here, here, and here. In my mind, that’s classic bureaucratic mission creep.
So you’ve got an enforcement apparatus that:
- Still hasn’t delivered compliance with actual health-based ozone standards (because, as you will learn in a future post, it can’t),
- But is busily piling on new climate-driven constraints on roads, buildings, and energy – with real costs to families and businesses. Regulate harder, right?!
That’s why AQCC/RAQC increasingly feel, to a lot of locals, less like neutral referees and more like the Governor’s climate enforcement squad.
“Science-Based” vs. Health-Based: Two Very Different Beasts
Let’s put the contrast in one place.
EPA health-based standards (NAAQS):
- Set pollutant-by-pollutant (ozone, PM2.5, NO₂, etc.).
- Must be “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” References here, here, and here.
- Based on toxicology and epidemiology – “how many heart attacks, asthma attacks, and deaths at this concentration?”
Polis’s “science-based” climate standards:
- Statewide and sector-wide GHG reduction percentages (26/50/90 in law, plus 7%/20% for buildings). References here, here, and here.
- Justified in statute and advocacy as Colorado’s share of keeping global warming below 1.5°C.
- Filtered through Roadmap modeling exercises that spit out required cuts in transportation, electricity, buildings, oil & gas, and industry.
One is about what’s safe to breathe here, now.
The other is about Colorado’s contribution to a global climate outcome decades away.
They both use science. But they are not the same kind of standard, and pretending they are is how you turn “climate” into a catch-all scare word to justify regulating how and where you live, what you drive, how you heat your homes, and cook your food.
Who Pays for the Climate State?
Every one of these climate-first moves has a bill attached:
- Transportation: The GHG standard changes which projects get funded, which corridors get relief, and which communities wait longer in traffic – all to meet modeled CO₂ targets.
- Buildings: Owners of large buildings must now plan and pay for upgrades that hit 7% and 20% GHG reductions, or risk penalties – costs that flow directly into commercial rents and housing prices (yet the Dems screech about “affordability?” Gimme a break…).
- Oil & Gas: SB19-181 and follow-on climate rules increase regulatory risk and compliance costs in one of the state’s core industries, with ripple effects on county budgets, jobs, and energy prices.
You can believe climate change is real – and still object when a governor uses it as a blank check to micromanage highways, buildings, and energy without being straight about the tradeoffs.
Right now, the pattern looks like this:
Global climate goals first.
Local health, affordability, and common sense… maybe later.
The Bottom Line
Do Coloradans care about clean air and the environment? Of course we do. We live here on purpose.
But under Jared Polis, “climate” has become:
- A universal hammer for new bureaucracy and new rules,
- A way to centralize power in state boards and commissions,
- And a political shield – “science-based!” – that blurs the line between health protection and global climate virtue-signaling.
We still haven’t met actual health-based ozone standards on the Front Range.
Yet we’re told that unless we keep layering climate mandates into transportation, building codes, and energy, we’re “denying science.”
No. Some of us just know the difference between:
- Standards that protect people’s health right here in Colorado, and
- Climate targets designed to please activists and donors in Boulder and beyond.
If we want a Colorado that’s livable and affordable, we need to stop treating climate as a magic word that overrides every other value – and start insisting that health, cost, and local control get a real seat at the table again.
