Colorado has cut more greenhouse gasses than previously thought, and a flurry of 2024 land use legislation could push the state closer to future targets, but environmental groups are wary of “accounting gimmicks.” And state officials acknowledge many new tough emissions policies are still needed to meet the goals.
The state’s newly revised inventory of greenhouse gas emissions says past consultants underestimated historical oil and gas related emissions, including those in the 2005 baseline year. The 2021 inventory said Colorado’s economy as a whole had emitted 140.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005, while this recalculation puts the more accurate figure for 2005 at 153.1 million tons.
That means Colorado policy changes and renewable energy progress have cut about 11% from emissions so far, and with recent policy changes and rules the state is on track to achieve nearly all its GHG reduction targets for 2025 and 2030, according to Colorado Energy Office Director Will Toor.
Revised future projections based on 2024 legislation show Colorado could benefit greatly from such land use changes as fewer required parking spaces at new apartments, denser housing near transit stations, and requiring cities to allow accessory dwelling units in more places, Toor said.
Still, even if those 2024 legislative changes prove successful and guide local development that takes emissions into account, Colorado again begins to fall steeply off its greenhouse gas targets by 2035. And without a new round of rules limiting transportation and agriculture emissions — two of the remaining sectors ripe for change — Colorado will be emitting 51 million tons of GHG in 2050 when the official state target is net-zero emissions.
Past work, Toor said, “has certainly set us on a much better trajectory for the long term, and provides sort of the foundational work that will be needed for the long term, but there is no doubt that far, far more will need to be done.
“We see that current policies would get to about a two-thirds reduction by 2050,” Toor said. “This is the work of a lifetime, not the work of a year or two.”
Independent environmental groups read through the state inventory revisions and projections with a grudging frustration, saying the gains from areas like power generation are real but that Colorado keeps missing opportunities.
“Without a doubt we’re making progress in reducing greenhouse gasses, but it would be more encouraging to see clearer signs that emissions are falling, as opposed to more accounting gimmicks and yet-to-be enacted policies and aspirations,” said Jeremy Nichols, senior advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.
“I continue to have concerns that the oil and gas emissions inventory is grossly underestimated,” Nichols said. His group has filed action against multiple Colorado oil and gas drilling permits, saying the permits should not be approved when there is no proof of drillers’ claims they are eliminating 95% of emissions through new flaring equipment and other controls.
The Center for Biological Diversity also sent the Environmental Protection Agency a notice of intent to sue over another Weld County well site permit and its flaring claims, and filed a state court lawsuit to block permits for an Adams County well site. Flaring is meant to burn off most of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions from methane and volatile organic compounds occurring at oil and gas production sites.
The nonprofit hopes to force a court or a federal ruling on whether promises to install flaring equipment are enough, or if instead the actual emissions should be monitored in real time to measure against the 95% reduction standard.
Colorado officials briefed some nonprofit environmental groups, including CoPIRG, on the inventory and projection changes in early November.
Showing improvement is important, CoPIRG’s Danny Katz said, “but I think we all know when there are projections, those are simply that — projections and expectations. And we still have work to do to meet them. I definitely walk away going, OK, it’s going to take a lot of work to meet those expectations and projections, and let’s not take anything for granted.”
While the targets are still possible to meet, Katz said, “we absolutely do need to take additional actions in a couple of sectors in particular, like transportation and buildings.”
Will land-use laws help?
Environmental groups want the Air Quality Control Commission to take on so-called indirect source pollution in the coming year in order to reduce emissions from transportation. That means targeting all the traffic attracted by shipping warehouses, for example, or stadiums and concert venues.
State officials also cite potential gains outlined in a new study of land use laws passed by the 2024 legislature, which could cut into projected emissions from new housing and commercial development on the Front Range if local governments take full advantage.
Colorado’s Front Range metropolitan counties and a handful of rural resort counties will continue to attract 95% of population growth, the study says. If leaders help concentrate that growth, by promoting building near transit stops, allowing cuts to required parking, and clearing the way for accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, in backyards and over garages, emissions from new construction could drop 30%.
Under that best-case scenario, transportation emissions attributed to the new growth could be cut by 15%, says the study, commissioned by the Colorado Energy Office, Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Department of Local Affairs.
The study compared a “business as usual” scenario, handling housing and transportation growth under past land use laws, versus an option A leaning hard on just some of the new laws, and an option B if all the new tools are employed, plus some not-yet approved.
Using all the land use tools together could even cut back on growth in dangerous and expensive wildland-urban interface areas, the study said, by making new, denser housing in urban and suburban transit centers more attractive for construction.
The key 2024 laws cited as potential emissions-killers in the study include:
- Prohibiting local governments from requiring traditionally high levels of off-street parking for new multiunit housing developments; this could free up space for denser housing and push development to happen where local transit options are strong.
- Requiring cities over a certain size to allow ADUs, which increases density along transit corridors and provides more affordable housing options.
- Creating new “transit-oriented communities” near rail or bus lines where developers can benefit from increased allowed density and state grants to pay for new infrastructure, as a carrot.
Further steps state leaders should consider to reduce emissions from new development include allowing dense residential housing in commercially zoned corridors, eliminating some parking requirements altogether, and assessing a new fee on development proposed for “greenfields,” or previously undeveloped land.