Colorado committee hears sharply divided testimony on bill to remove residential gas emissions from clean-heat accounting; sponsors cite affordability, critics

A Colorado House Energy and Environment Committee hearing on House Bill 26-11-29 on Feb. 20 drew sharply divided testimony over whether excluding residential natural-gas use from utilities’ clean-heat accounting would protect household budgets or undercut the state’s greenhouse-gas goals.

Sponsors, led by Representative Barone, framed the measure as an affordability fix that temporarily removes residential natural-gas combustion from utilities’ CO2 accounting so utilities and consumers are not unduly burdened by accelerated decarbonization costs. “We want to eventually get there,” Barone said in his opening remarks. “At this point, we need this sector of CO2 emissions moved so we can help the consumers and the utilities be able to catch up.” Co-sponsor Representative Flannell said the bill is meant to protect families from “substantial price increases” and does not halt decarbonization.

Industry groups and housing providers testified strongly in support. Jackson Pigott, director of public affairs for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, told the committee that the bill “reflects an important and pragmatic policy adjustment by excluding residential customer emissions from clean heat plan accounting,” arguing that helps preserve reliability and affordability. Ken Fogle of Atmos Energy said a natural-gas home can save between $1,100 and $1,500 a year compared with an all-electric home, and Andrew Hamrick of the Colorado Apartment Association said natural gas remains far more cost-effective per BTU for multifamily housing.

Opponents, including Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, and representatives of environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken the clean-heat statute and shift costs or emissions onto other sectors. “We’re opposed because this bill removes important ratepayer protections, requires other ratepayers to subsidize gas system expansion and threatens state pollution reduction goals,” Toor said. Advocacy groups argued removing residential emissions from utility accounting would make achieving statewide targets harder, reduce incentives for residential electrification and risk increased long-term costs and health impacts.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on the numbers and on who would shoulder the remaining reductions if residential emissions were excluded. Sponsors cited figures they said showed residential natural-gas use accounted for roughly 6.4% of the state’s CO2 in the sponsor’s dataset; opponents cited PUC and utility filings indicating residential loads make up a substantially larger share of some utilities’ portfolios (figures cited in testimony ranged from roughly 6% to 68% depending on baseline and utility). Black Hills Energy’s representative reported modeling that meeting the 2030 clean-heat target could require about $2.4 billion in investments for that utility, translating in their model to an increase of roughly $124–$215 per month for some residential customers if the most aggressive pathway were required.

Sponsor amendments L001 (a clerical fix to include municipal gas distribution utilities) and L002 (changes to safe-harbor/cost-cap language and certain exemptions intended to help gas-only municipal utilities) were moved by the sponsor and adopted by the committee without objection.

After closing remarks, the sponsor moved to send the amended bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the roll-call vote failed (the clerk recorded 4 yes and 9 no; the chair announced “fails 4 to 9”). Representative Wilford then moved to postpone the bill indefinitely by reverse roll call; the chair said there was no objection and announced the bill was postponed indefinitely.

The hearing featured a long record of technical and values-based arguments: proponents emphasized near-term household affordability, system reliability and consumer choice; opponents emphasized the integrity of the clean-heat framework, PUC oversight, climate and public-health goals, and risks of cost shifting. The committee took no further action on the bill after the postponement.