In a state where winter isn’t optional, you’d think reliable heat wouldn’t be either. Yet, Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission seems increasingly comfortable with discarding the very energy source that keeps the majority of households in the state warm: natural gas. Residents are not thinking about long-term regulatory frameworks when they go to turn up the heat in January. They are asking much simpler questions: Will their homes stay warm, and can they afford it?

This is what makes Colorados current energy trajectory so puzzling and, increasingly, troubling. Natural gas continues to be the backbone of the states energy sphere even as lawmakers at the Capitol seem determined to ignore that fact. A recent report published by the Advance Colorado Institute, “ Gas: Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy for Colorado,” underscores a point that should be central to the energy policy discussion: natural gas is not a marginal resource in Colorado. It is foundational.

The scale of reliance alone should give policymakers and regulators pause. Approximately 70% of Colorado households depend upon natural gas for heating. Other daily tasks such as cooking rely on natural gas to achieve. That level of use reflects more than simply habit. It reflects affordability, efficiency, and reliability. Natural gas remains one of the most cost-effective energy sources for consumers, often delivering substantial savings over electric alternatives. Colorado ranked as the third most expensive state to live in last year, so while many families are already facing higher costs for housing, groceries, and utilities, these are imperative savings.

Despite this reality, state policies are increasingly restricting the role of natural gas. Regulatory actions and long-term electrification goals are contributing to a gradual yet deliberate shift away from gas. While electric, wind and solar options are expanding, most consumers are not meaningfully choosing between them and natural gas; instead, policy decisions and state regulations are increasingly determining that choice on their behalf. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is playing a central role in shaping this transition. Decisions being made today will influence how energy is produced, delivered and priced for decades to come.

The concern is not whether Colorado should pursue cleaner energy. Rather, the concern is whether current policies are grounded in a realistic understanding of how the states energy sphere actually functions.

One of the more overlooked aspects of the conversation that the Advance Colorado report addresses is that natural gas has already contributed significantly to emissions reductions. Methane emissions from Colorado’s oil and gas sector dropped by nearly 70% between 2010 and 2017, even as production increased. Natural gas also releases less carbon dioxide than coal, diesel fuel, heating oil, gasoline, and propane. It has accomplished this progress toward cleaner energy without compromising reliability or affordability.

The report also highlights an important, and often counterintuitive, finding. In certain cases, homes that rely on natural gas can produce fewer overall emissions than fully electric homes, per Atmos Energy. This outcome depends on how electricity is generated and delivered. While renewable energy sources continue to expand, a significant portion of electricity still comes from a mix that includes natural gas. The emissions profile of electricity is more complex than is often depicted, with the natural gas consumption for electricity generation actually increasing over the years.

This is what many lawmakers in Colorado fail to fully understand: natural gas is not an energy source that is easily eliminated. It is the grid’s most dependable form of backup power. When renewable sources fall short, natural gas is what fills the gap, quickly, consistently, and comprehensively. Forcing utility companies to phase out natural gas endangers the grid’s reliability. This risk is not just theoretical; it has already played out right at home.

Colorado — and many other states across the nation – faced this reality during the winter storms in January 2026. When abnormal freezing temperatures drove energy demand to its peak, the limits of intermittent energy sources became clear. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind and solar provided only 10% of power during these storms, while natural gas provided 42% of power around the nation.

Colorados experience was even more telling. Roughly 66% of the states electricity generated during the January storms came from natural gas, while wind and solar combined contributed just 12%. At the very moment when reliability mattered the most, the state ended up leaning heavily on natural gas to keep the lights on and homes heated.

Another important aspect of natural gas the Advance Colorado report details is its affordability, an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent for Colorado families. The state was recently ranked among the most expensive places to live in the country, placing additional strain on household budgets already stretched by rising housing, food, and utility costs. The policies phasing out natural gas do not exist in a vacuum; rather, its consequences are felt most directly in monthly bills where even “” increases can have a meaningful impact.

These concerns are real and should be taken seriously. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos determined that nearly three-quarters of Americans are worried about their energy bills. In a state like Colorado — where temperatures fluctuate practically by the day and heating is a necessity — affordability concerns are especially pronounced.

Natural gas plays a significant role in easing that burden. On average, natural gas saves families roughly $1,100 per year compared to alternative energy sources. Over time, those savings add up to thousands of dollars that families can allocate toward other essentials such as groceries and childcare. The report highlights that the states with the highest energy prices for homeowners across the United States generally “ limit, or prohibit the use of natural gas.”

The costs of transitioning away from natural gas and toward complete electrification typically fall on consumers. Even though natural gas still powers much of utilities’ electricity generation, homeowners must pay tens of thousands to transition to an “all-electric” home — a price many Colorado families cannot afford. The policies put forth by state lawmakers and the Public Utilities Commission, to restrict and even eliminate access to natural gas, risk compounding an ever-increasing affordability crisis.

While Advance Colorados report details a number of bills signed into law that further regulate the use of natural gas and promote renewable energy sources, there are two bills in particular that are most notable: HB19-1261 and SB21-264. HB19-1261 was the first piece of legislation that set statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets, requiring the state to reduce emissions 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2050. SB21-264 required utility companies to file “ Heat Plans” with the Public Utilities Commission and required utilities to cut emissions by 4% in 2025 and 22% by 2030. These bills were the catalysts for a large number of later restrictions to come, and set the table for the Commission to make its stringent decision in December of 2025.

On Dec. 1, 2025, the Public Utilities Commission finalized a statewide “ Heat Plan” that would require utility companies such as Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy — the primary providers of electricity and natural gas in Colorado — to cut carbon emissions from their systems by 41% by 2035. This mandate significantly accelerates the timeline established by the legislature with SB21-264 by nearly doubling the pace of the required emissions reductions, compressing what was an already-ambitious transition into a far more aggressive timeframe for both utilities and the consumers who ultimately bear the costs.

That is not all the commission’s decision did. It went much further than what is currently codified in statute by ruling that utility companies must account for a 100% greenhouse

gas reduction by 2050. In simple terms, that is a total eradication of natural gas over the next 25 years. The government has required hundreds of thousands of homeowners and landlords in Colorado to transition from gas heating to electric heat pumps, which costs between $15,000 and $24,000, as well as installing electric cooking appliances within that time period – costing homeowners thousands more. Xcel Energy has determined that this would pile billions of dollars in costs onto consumers, even after rebates.

Between countless mandates from the legislature and far-reaching decisions made by the Public Utilities Commission, at some point, Colorados energy debate must come back down to earth. Our lawmakers may be eager to move faster and further, but the reality remains unchanged: natural gas is still what keeps the grid reliable, the environment cleaner, and energy bills affordable. If the state continues to ignore this fact, Coloradans will be the ones left paying for it.

Elizabeth Caven is the policy analyst and outreach director at Advance Colorado. Read Advance’s full report on natural gas: https://www.advancecolorado.org/institute/natural-gas-clean-affordable-reliable-energy-for-colorado/