Oil and gas industry targets Colorado's emission rules as Trump urges repeal of state-level energy overreach
Western Colorado oil industry stakeholders are suing the Centennial State, in a bid that they say serves to protect energy security and job interests in the region.
Specifically, the West Slope Oil & Gas Association — a branch of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association umbrella group — recently filed a complaint against the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's newly adopted Midstream Oil and Gas Rule.
The lawsuit was submitted on March 21 but only made public in a press release last week, just days after President Trump issued an executive order that sought to protect 'American energy from state overreach.'
The complaint, filed in Denver County's District Court, cites grave economic damage, infeasible implementation requirements and harm to local communities and the environment.
In filing the suit, the West Slope group explained that it seeks to safeguard the state's 'critical oil and gas industry,' which generated more than $48 billion for Colorado's economy and $15.4 billion in direct labor revenue in 2021 alone.
'Colorado's overly prescriptive and inflexible regulations have unfairly targeted the midstream operators in Western Colorado, where economic realities and logistical challenges differ significantly from the Front Range,' said Cody Davis, commissioner of Mesa County, in a statement.
Davis — whose county is located along the Western Slope, the part of the state west of the Continental Divide — stressed that fossil fuel industry operators 'have consistently proven their commitment to environmental stewardship.'
'Yet the Commission's one-size-fits-all approach has failed to recognize the impractical and devastating effects these new regulations will have on our West Slope communities,' the commissioner added.
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the midstream rule in December, with an effective date of Feb. 15. The first-in-nation rule addresses emissions from midstream oil and gas operations, such as facilities that gather, compress and process natural gas, as well as engines, turbines and heaters.
Under the regulation, midstream facilitates have until 2030 to meet greenhouse gas emissions limits and must maintain these reduced levels each year thereafter, while adhering to additional targets beyond 2030.
The West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association noted that in reality, this means that local operators whose pipelines and facilities transport natural gas to businesses and homes would need to cut emissions by 20.5 percent from 2015 levels by 2030.
'By ignoring local conditions, these mandates have now threatened jobs, jeopardized essential local tax revenue, and risk pushing our operators and their families out of Colorado,' Chelsie Miera, executive director of the association, said in a statement.
'We need to produce more energy in Colorado, not less,' she added.
While the lawsuit was made public just days after Trump's executive order, Miera told The Hill in an email that the federal action 'is separate and different than our challenge here.'
She acknowledged, however, that her group does 'agree that we should be producing more energy in Colorado, not less.'
The Hill has reached out to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
15 minutes ago
Noem says Guard wouldn't be needed in LA if Newsom had done his job
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blamed California Gov. Gavin Newsom for the need to deploy the National Guard to assist in putting down violent clashes between police and immigration protesters in Los Angeles. Newsom has said local authorities don't need the help and accused President Donald Trump of inflaming the situation," calling the move "purposefully inflammatory" and saying it will "only escalate tensions." Noem disagreed with Newsom. "Margaret, if he was doing his, job people wouldn't have gotten hurt the last couple of days," she told CBS' Margaret Brennan on "Face the Nation." "We wouldn't have officers with a shattered wrist from bricks thrown through their vehicles, vehicles being burned, flags burned in the street and Molotov cocktails being thrown." "Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions, the president knows that he makes bad decisions and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," she said. Ahead of his departure for Camp David from New Jersey on Sunday, President Donald Trump was asked by ABC News' Rachel Scott if he is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act. "Depends on whether or not there is an insurrection," Trump replied. Pressed on whether he believes there is an insurrection in California, Trump said, "No, no. But you have violent people, and we are not going to let them get away with it." White House border czar Tom Homan said Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass could face charges if their response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations exceeds the legal boundaries. "I'll say about anybody: You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job," Homan told NBC News. Noem said Trump was making the move to protect the impacted communities and law enforcement. "So these 2,000 National Guard soldiers that are being engaged today are ones that are specifically trained for this type of crowd situation where they will be with the public and be able to provide safety around buildings and to those that are engaged in peaceful protests and also to our law enforcement officers so they can continue their daily work," she said. Reaction from lawmakers broke along party lines. House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News' "This Week" that Trump "did exactly what he needed to do." "These are federal laws and we have to maintain the rule of law. And that is not what is happening. [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or unwillingness to do what is necessary there." "That is real leadership, and he has the authority and the responsibility to do it," the speaker said, defending Trump's decision. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., dismissed Newsom's assertion the deploying the Guard would escalate tensions. "Well, words are cheap, especially when you got video. And so you asked me did it look like it was under control, I'll ask you: Did it look like it was under control? It doesn't. It is absolutely not in control. You saw rioters throwing rocks, throwing fireworks. And being extremely aggressive towards not just federal agents, but even the county and the local PD that was there. So does it look like it's under control? Absolutely not," he told CNN's "State of the Union." Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, who represents part of the area, said Trump's action will make things worse. "I've spoken to the sheriffs on the ground who have said they have things under control. There is no need for the National Guard. They have the manpower that they need," she said. "So this is really just an escalation of the president coming into California. We haven't asked for the help. "This is him escalating it, causing tensions to rise. It's only going to make things worse." Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Trump was "hellbent on inflaming" the situation. "Individual governors look at their states and make decisions, but in this case the president time and time again has shown this willingness to, one, violate the laws, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context, and, two, inflame situations," Klobuchar told "Face the Nation."
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Using the National Guard as Bait
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump is about to launch yet another assault on democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions of civil-military relations, this time in Los Angeles. Under a dubious legal rationale, he is activating 2,000 members of the National Guard to confront protests against actions by ICE, the immigration police who have used thuggish tactics against citizens and foreigners alike in the United States. By militarizing the situation in L.A., Trump is goading Americans more generally to take him on in the streets of their own cities, thus enabling his attacks on their constitutional freedoms. As I've listened to him and his advisers over the past several days, they seem almost eager for public violence that would justify the use of armed force against Americans. The president and the men and women around him are acting with great ambition in this moment, and they are likely hoping to achieve three goals in one dramatic action. First, they will turn America's attention away from Trump's many failures and inane feuds, and reestablish his campaign persona as a strongman who will brush aside the law if that's what it takes to keep order in the streets. Perhaps nothing would please Trump more than to replace weird stories about Elon Musk with video of masked protesters burning cars as lines of helmeted police and soldiers march over them and impose draconian silence in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. Second, as my colleague David Frum warned this morning, Trump is establishing that he is willing to use the military any way he pleases, perhaps as a proof of concept for suppressing free elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump sees the U.S. military as his personal honor guard and his private muscle. Those are his toy soldiers, and he's going to get a show from his honor guard in a birthday parade next weekend. In the meantime, he's going to flex that muscle, and prove that the officers and service members who will do whatever he orders are the real military. The rest are suckers and losers. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, Trump was furious at what he saw as the fecklessness of military leaders determined to thwart his attempts to use deadly force against protesters. He's learned his lesson: This time, he has installed a hapless sycophant at the Pentagon who is itching to execute the boss's orders. Third, Trump may be hoping to radicalize the citizen-soldiers drawn from the community who serve in the National Guard. (Seizing the California Guard is also a convenient way to humiliate California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, with the president's often-used narrative that liberals can't control their own cities.) Trump has the right to 'federalize' Guard forces, which is how they were deployed overseas in America's various conflicts. He has never respected the traditions of American civil-military relations, which regard the domestic deployment of the military as an extreme measure to be avoided whenever possible. Using the Guard could be a devious tactic: He may be hoping to set neighbor against neighbor, so that the people called to duty return to their home and workplace with stories of violence and injuries. In the longer run, Trump may be trying to create a national emergency that will enable him to exercise authoritarian control. (Such an emergency was a rationalization, for example, for the tariffs that he has mostly had to abandon.) He has for years been trying to desensitize the citizens of the United States to un-American ideas and unconstitutional actions. The American system of government was never meant to cope with a rogue president. Yet Trump is not unstoppable. Thwarting his authoritarianism will require restraint on the part of the public, some steely nerves on the part of state and local authorities, and vigilant action from national elected representatives, who should be stepping in to raise the alarm and to demand explanations about the president's misuse of the military. As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities. ICE is on a rampage, but physically assaulting or obstructing its agents—and thus causing a confrontation with the cops who have to protect them, whether those police officers like it or not—will provide precisely the pretext that some of the people in Trump's White House are trying to create. The president and his coterie want people walking around taking selfies in gas clouds, waving Mexican flags, holding up traffic, and burning cars. Judging by reactions on social media and interviews on television, a lot of people seem to think such performances are heroic—which means they're poised to give Trump's enforcers what they're hoping for. Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext. [Conor Friedersdorf: Averting the worst-case scenario in Los Angeles] Instead, the most dramatic public action the residents of Southern California could take right now would be to ensure that Trump's forces arrive on calm streets. Imagine the reactions of the Guard members as they look around and wonder what, exactly, the commander in chief was thinking. Why are they carrying their rifles in the streets of downtown America? What does anyone expect them to do? Put another way: What if the president throws a crackdown and nobody comes? This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate. He is resorting to the grand theater of militarism because he is losing on multiple fronts in the courts—and he knows it. The law, for most people, is dreary to hear about, but one of the most important stories of Trump's second term is that lawyers and judges are so far holding a vital line against the administration, sometimes at great personal risk. Trump is also losing public support, which is another reason he's zeroing in on California. He is resolutely ignorant in many ways, but he has an excellent instinct for picking the right fights. The fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans believe that almost everything about immigration in the United States has long been deeply dysfunctional. (I'm one of them.) If he sends the military into L.A. and Guard members end up clashing in high-definition video with wannabe resistance gladiators in balaclavas, many people who have not been paying attention to his other ghastly antics will support him. (For the record, I am not one of them.) So far, even the Los Angeles Police Department—not exactly a bastion of squishy suburban book-club liberals—has emphasized that the protests have been mostly peaceful. Trump is apparently trying to change that. Sending in the National Guard is meant to provoke, not pacify, and his power will only grow if he succeeds in tempting Americans to intemperate reactions that give him the authoritarian opening he's seeking. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine war latest: US expects Russia's retaliation for Operation Spiderweb to continue soon; Ukraine denies Russian troop presence in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, describes situation as 'tense'
Key developments on June 7-8: US expects Russia's retaliation for Operation Spiderweb to continue soon Ukraine denies Russian troop presence in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast amid offensive, describes situation as 'tense' Trump administration redirects 20,000 anti-drone missiles meant for Ukraine, Zelensky confirms Ukraine downs fighter jet in Russia's Kursk Oblast, Air Force says 'I am against Ukraine's entry into the European Union,' Polish president-elect Nawrocki says The U.S. believes Russia has not yet fully responded to Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb and may soon launch another large-scale, multi-pronged strike following the massive June 6 attack, Reuters reported on June 8, citing unnamed U.S. officials. One official told Reuters that, while the timing remains unclear, a retaliatory strike could be expected in the coming days and is likely to be "asymmetrical." Another U.S. source said Russia would likely employ missiles and drones to hit a combination of targets. The U.S. assessment follows the June 1 attack by Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) on four Russian air bases using drones launched from trucks concealed within Russian territory. Kyiv's operation reportedly damaged 41 aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers — two of Russia's primary platforms for missile attacks against Ukraine. The Kyiv Independent could not independently verify the number of aircraft hit. At least 21 planes were damaged or destroyed, according to open-source intelligence analysts. Join our community Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. Support Us A Western diplomatic source told the outlet that the Kremlin's response could focus on high-value government sites, such as administrative buildings or intelligence facilities. Michael Kofman, a military analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested Moscow may aim medium-range ballistic missiles at headquarters belonging to the SBU, which organized the operation. On June 6, Russia launched one of its most intense aerial barrages of the full-scale war, firing 452 drones and 45 missiles at Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, according to the Air Force. The attack was likely part of Russia's response to Operation Spiderweb. At least four civilians were killed, including emergency service workers, and 80 others were injured in the overnight assault, President Volodymyr Zelensky reported. The June 6 strikes followed a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump on June 4, during which Putin reportedly vowed to retaliate against the Ukrainian drone operation. U.S. officials say Moscow's June 6 barrage may not be the full extent of its response. Russia has carried out near-nightly air assaults in recent weeks, several of which predated Spiderweb, making it difficult to separate a targeted reprisal from Russia's ongoing campaign of attrition. Shortly after the June 6 Russian attack, Trump seemed to justify the aggression against Ukrainian cities that was launched in response to Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb. "They gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on June 6. Read also: Ukrainian drone strikes Russian Tu-22 bomber: SBU releases new footage of Operation Spiderweb Russian forces continue their efforts to break into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Ukraine's Southern Defense Forces reported on June 8, saying that the situation around the 31st Separate Brigade's positions remains "tense." "The enemy has not abandoned its plans to enter Dnipropetrovsk Oblast," the Southern Defense Forces wrote on Telegram. "Our soldiers are bravely and professionally holding their section of the front, thwarting the occupier's plans." The comment follows the Russian Defense Ministry's June 8 claim that its forces had entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Despite the claims, Major Andrii Kovalev, a spokesperson for Ukraine's General Staff denied Russian troop presence in the region. "The information is not true. Fighting is ongoing in Donetsk Oblast. The enemy did not enter Dnipropetrovsk Oblast," Kovalev told Ukrainska Pravda. In a separate statement to CNN, Viktor Trehubov, a spokesperson for for Ukraine's Khortytsia group of forces said that "the Russians are constantly spreading false information that they have entered the Dnipropetrovsk region from the Pokrovsk and Novopavlivka directions, but (in neither place) is this information true.' The 31st Brigade is deployed in the Novopavlivka direction, where Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts converge. Since 2014, Russian aggression has heavily impacted Donetsk Oblast, while Dnipropetrovsk Oblast has remained free from direct incursions. The denials from Ukraine's militaary come amid continuing Russian offensives in eastern and northern Ukraine, along with escalating diplomatic efforts that have yet to yield a ceasefire. President Volodymyr Zelensky's Deputy Chief of Staff Pavlo Palisa said on June 6 that Russia aims to occupy all Ukrainian territory east of the Dnipro River and advance toward Odesa and Mykolaiv in a broader plan to sever Ukraine's access to the Black Sea, amid a renewed summer offensive. On May 21, Ukrainian officials rejected similar claims that Russian troops had reached Dnipropetrovsk Oblast's administrative boundary. Serhii Lysak, head of the regional military administration, called the reports "fake," citing doctored photos allegedly showing Russian soldiers in the area. The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState analyzed one such image and determined it had been taken in Troitske, a village in Donetsk Oblast. As a precaution, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast began mandatory evacuations of children and families from four front-line villages in late April — Kolona Mezhova, Novopidhorodne, Raipole, and Sukhareva Balka — located just 5 to 15 kilometers from Russian positions. Despite the lack of verified ground incursions, Dnipropetrovsk has endured frequent Russian missile, drone, and aerial attacks since the full-scale invasion began. The ongoing Russian advance occurs as peace efforts remain stalled, and U.S.-brokered negotiations have failed to achieve a ceasefire. Read also: Exchange of fallen soldiers' bodies expected next week, official says Zelensky confirmed that Trump's administration diverted 20,000 anti-drone missiles originally intended for Ukraine to American forces in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC News published on June 8. Zelensky said Ukraine had counted on the missiles to help counter relentless Russian drone attacks, which include swarms of Iranian-designed Shahed-type drones. On June 1, Russia launched a record 472 drones in a single night. "We have big problems with Shaheds… we will find all the tools to destroy them," Zelensky said. "We counted on this project — 20,000 missiles. Anti-Shahed missiles. It was not expensive, but it's a special technology." Zelensky said the plan had been agreed upon with then-U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and was launched under President Joe Biden's administration. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 4 that the Trump administration had redirected the munitions, which include special fuzes used in advanced rocket systems to intercept drones, toward U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East. The Pentagon reportedly informed Congress in a classified message that the reallocation of the fuzes for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System was deemed an "urgent issue" by current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. A Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) source told the Kyiv Independent on June 4 that Russia is preparing to launch more than 500 long-range drones per night in future attacks, as Moscow rapidly scales up drone production and constructs new launch sites. The Trump administration has halted the approval of new military aid packages to Ukraine since the start of his second term in January. Read also: Elon Musk's father to attend pro-Kremlin event in Russia hosted by far-right ideologue Ukraine shot down a Russian Su-35 fighter jet in Russia's Kursk Oblast on the morning of June 7, the Air Force reported. Although no details of the operation were disclosed, the downing brings the total number of Russian aircraft destroyed since the start of the full-scale invasion to 414, according to Ukraine's General Staff. Ukraine launched a cross-border incursion into Kursk Oblast in August 2024, marking the first large-scale invasion of Russian territory by foreign forces since World War II. Reinforced by North Korean troops, Russia launched a push to recapture the region in early March, with Ukraine being forced to pull back from much of the initially taken territory, including the town of Sudzha. The downing of the Su-35 fighter jet also adds to the losses Ukraine has inflicted on the Russian Air Force over the past week during Operation Spiderweb. Read also: Ukrainian drone attacks force airport shutdowns near Moscow, mayor says "At the moment, I am against Ukraine's entry into the European Union," Polish President-elect Karol Nawrocki told Hungarian outlet Mandiner in an interview released on June 7. "On the one hand, we must support Ukraine in its conflict with the Russian Federation, but Ukraine must understand that other countries, including Poland, Hungary, and other European countries, also have their own interests," he said. Nawrocki won the second round of the Polish presidential election on June 1 with 50.89% of the vote. He has previously voiced opposition to Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO, despite supporting Ukraine's sovereignty. "Poland has such an interest, for example, in the exhumation of the Volyn (massacre) victims," Nawrocki said. Polish and Ukrainian researchers began exhuming victims of the World War II era massacres on April 24 in Western Ukraine. It was the first such exhumation since 2017, when Ukraine imposed a moratorium in response to the destruction of Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) memorials in Poland. "During the campaign, I did not agree, and as president, I will not agree, to unfair competition with Ukraine for Polish agriculture or the logistics sector," Nawrocki said. EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports resumed on June 6, amid opposition to Ukrainian exports and its EU accession from eastern European members, including Hungary and Poland. "I see Ukraine as a country that, although it is very bravely defending itself against the Russian Federation, must also respect the interests of other countries that otherwise support Ukraine," he said. In contrast to other Eurosceptic leaders in Europe, including Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Nawrocki does not express pro-Russian views, but has repeatedly accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of taking advantage of allies. Read also: Wondering where to start with Dostoevsky? Try his Ukrainian contemporaries instead We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
