Ozone, Polis, and the Regulatory Piñata: What’s Really Choking the Front Range

If you drive I-25, you already know this:
Northern Colorado doesn’t have a congestion problem – we have a “why does the state keep making this harder than it has to be?” problem.

As your Weld County Commissioner, part of my job is to be your representative on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and Chair of the North I-25 Coalition. That part of my job is supposed to be simple:

• Help keep people and freight moving
• Finish the job on North I-25
• Make sure federal dollars actually build stuff instead of feeding consultants

Instead, more and more of my time is spent playing regulatory dodgeball with the State of Colorado over something called the Denver Metro/North Front Range Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Let’s translate that into plain English – and yes, it’s in the weeds, but I’ll provide my reference material so you can read it on your own when insomnia strikes.

1. What “nonattainment” actually means (and why you should care)

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA sets national standards for air pollutants – including ground-level ozone. The Denver Metro/North Front Range region (DMNFR) has been out of compliance with those standards for years, so we’re labeled a “nonattainment area.” (CDPHE)

That label isn’t just a scarlet letter on a map. It comes with a ladder of increasingly painful categories:

• Marginal → Moderate → Serious → Severe → Extreme

The worse your numbers, the higher you climb the ladder, and the more Washington and Denver get to micromanage your life – gas formulas, business permits, transportation projects, even what kind of lawn equipment local governments can use.

Right now, the Front Range sits here:

• Severe nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard (75 ppb)
• Serious nonattainment for the 2015 standard (70 ppb)
• Latest three-year average? Around 81 ppb – above both standards. (US EPA)

And guess what? That nonattainment label follows our transportation planning around like a probation officer.

From NFRMPO’s own explanation:

“The NFRMPO must prove it can meet air quality conformity for transportation projects within the region to continue to receive federal funding.” (NFRMPO)

Translated:
If we want to widen I-25, fix dangerous interchanges, or build new capacity, we have to prove – through models – that the project won’t push emissions above the limits in the state’s air plan. If we fail that test, federal money can’t flow, and the project dies on paper before it ever dies in a committee hearing.

That’s how my work on the NFRMPO and North I-25 Coalition – which should be about building a safe and reliable transportation network – keeps turning into an exercise in dodging punishments from Denver.

2. The part no one tells you: most of our ozone isn’t from here

Here’s the part that drives people nuts when they finally see the numbers.

The Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) – the state’s own planning body – says it flat-out:

“More than half of the region’s ozone pollution is background and natural.” (Regional Air Quality Council – RAQC)

“Background and natural” includes:

• Ozone and precursor pollution blown in from other states and countries
• Wildfire smoke
• Biogenic emissions (plants and trees doing what plants and trees do)
• Stuff high in the atmosphere that descends into our “mixing bowl” on hot, stagnant days (news.ucar.edu)

Independent reporting backs this up:

• A Colorado Public Radio report noted that out-of-state sources can account for roughly half to two-thirds of ozone levels on bad days. (Colorado Public Radio)

Now stack that against the actual standard:

• The federal limit is 70 parts per billion under the 2015 rule.
• Background levels in the West regularly sit in the 40–50 ppb range before you count local cars, trucks, or drilling rigs. (news.ucar.edu)

So on a “normal” day, we might be starting at:

50 ppb we can’t control + 25–30 ppb we can = violation

But the Clean Air Act math doesn’t care where the ozone came from. It just sees the number and swings the hammer at whoever happens to live under it.

That’s how you end up with policy that:

• Punishes local employers, drivers, and builders
• Barely moves the needle on the monitor
• And does nothing about wildfire smoke blowing in from three states away or pollution drifting in from overseas

But Polis and the ruling Dems don’t care about that. They just use it as an excuse to regulate harder and tell you how and where you can live, what you can drive, how you heat your home and cook your food, and even how you mow your lawn.

3. What “Severe” really means for your wallet and our road

Once EPA classified the region as Severe under the 2008 standard, a whole new tier of punishment kicked in. (US EPA)

Among other things, Severe status brings:

• Lower “major source” threshold
  • Big industrial facilities become “major sources” at 25 tons per year of VOC/NOx instead of 100 tpy.
  • That means far more businesses fall under the most expensive permitting rules. (US EPA)
• Higher offset requirements
  • New or expanded facilities must “offset” their emissions by cutting more elsewhere — at a 1.3 to 1 ratio for VOC/NOx. (US EPA)
• Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
  • Federal law requires more expensive reformulated gas in Severe areas, beginning one year after reclassification. (US EPA)
  • That’s why, as of summer 2024, stations along the Front Range are required to sell RFG during the ozone season – which, by the way, costs more. (CWPMA)

And remember: transportation conformity applies in every nonattainment area. Every time we update our long-range plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), we have to run the models, prove we’re under the emission budgets, and get sign-off from CDPHE, the Air Quality Control Commission, FHWA, and FTA. If conformity lapses, federal funding effectively freezes for new highway and transit projects. (NFRMPO)

So when I sit in NFRMPO and North I-25 meetings, the conversation isn’t just:

“Where do we need a lane, an interchange, a safety fix?”

It’s:

“Can we even model this without blowing our emissions budget and triggering yet another federal problem?”

That’s not planning. That’s hostage negotiation with spreadsheets.

4. How we chose more restrictive designations – twice

Now to the part that really matters for how we got here – and this is where Governor Polis comes in.

2019: Withdrawing relief and inviting a “Serious” bump-up

Back in 2018, Colorado had asked EPA for a one-year extension to avoid being bumped up from Moderate to Serious under the 2008 ozone standard. (US EPA)

In March 2019, Governor Polis sent EPA a letter withdrawing that extension request. EPA’s own rulemaking notes that withdrawal, and quotes the Governor committing to:

“moving aggressively forward and without delay” to cut ozone in the Denver Metro/North Front Range area. (US EPA)

Once that extension was pulled, EPA was legally required to:

• Decide the region had failed to attain
• Reclassify us to Serious
• Start the clock on more stringent requirements, including lower thresholds and more costly controls (US EPA)

Polis didn’t just accept that outcome – his letter helped justify moving faster – all so he and his ideologues could regulate harder.

2024: Voluntary reclassification to “Serious” under the newer standard

Fast-forward to the 2015 ozone standard (70 ppb).

Under that newer rule, the Front Range was classified as Moderate. Knowing we were likely to blow the deadline anyway, the state had a choice:

• Fight for more flexibility, or
• Ask EPA to bump us up to a stricter category sooner

In June 2024, Governor Polis chose the second option and formally asked EPA to reclassify the region from Moderate to Serious “as soon as possible.” (PEER.org)

A coalition of environmental groups later quoted his own justification back to him: he argued that “proactive reclassification” would avoid paperwork and let the state focus on implementing the stricter rules and lower major-source thresholds. (PEER.org)

EPA granted that voluntary request in July 2024. The Denver Metro/North Front Range area is now officially Serious under the 2015 standard, with stricter permitting requirements and new planning burdens to match. (US EPA)

In other words:

Twice now, the Polis administration has chosen the “make it stricter, faster” path when the law offered other options.

And that matters, because once the classification ratchets up, my world – transportation, permits, economic development – gets boxed in tighter.

5. The wish list from the green lobby: “Extreme” and beyond

If you think Severe is the end of it, think again.

In October 2024, a group of environmental organizations (including the Sierra Club and 350 Colorado) sent Governor Polis a letter asking him to go even further and voluntarily request an “Extreme” classification for the Front Range under both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. (PEER.org)

They point out – correctly – that under an Extreme classification:

• The major-source threshold drops again to 10 tons per year
• Offset ratios get even tougher
• The state gains more authority for “traffic and motor vehicle” limits and congestion controls (US EPA)

They even quote Polis’s own words back to him, reminding him he promised to act “aggressively and without delay” and praising his decision to voluntarily request Moderate → Serious under the 2015 standard as a model of how to use Clean Air Act tools to “enable more aggressive action.” (PEER.org)

Put bluntly:

The advocacy class sees these harsher labels as weapons, not emergency brakes.

Meanwhile, folks in Weld County are just trying to get to work, run a business, and not pay more for fuel because of problems they didn’t cause.

6. Where transportation planning gets turned into behavior control

Here’s how this plays out in rooms I actually sit in.

The North I-25 Coalition was formed to fix a very real problem:
I-25 between Fort Collins and Denver has been on track to go from “Northern Colorado’s Main Street” to “Northern Colorado’s parking lot.” Local governments, chambers, and CDOT have worked for years to secure funding and build out the 3+1 lane configuration – three general lanes plus a managed lane – all the way to Denver. (Fix North I-25)

We’ve made big progress:

• Multiple segments widened
• Interchanges modernized
• Segment 5 (Mead to Berthoud) finally moving after years of advocacy and local dollars on the table (Weld)

But every time we add a lane, a ramp, or a major fix, we’re told:

• Run another conformity analysis
• Check it against ever-shrinking budgets
• Satisfy more boxes for ozone – even though the state’s own data admits more than half the ozone is background and natural (Regional Air Quality Council – RAQC)

So instead of focusing on:

“Is this safe? Is it funded? Does it move freight and families reliably?”

We’re stuck arguing about:

“Does this lane in 2035 increase modeled VOC emissions by a fraction of a ton beyond what the latest SIP says we’re allowed?”

That’s how the nonattainment designation becomes a regulatory hammer, not a scalpel.

And when you hear state policymakers imply:

• “Maybe people shouldn’t live there”
• “Maybe you should just ride a bus or buy a $60,000 EV”

…you start to see the pattern. This isn’t just about air quality. It’s about telling you where to live, how to travel, and what kind of economy you’re allowed to have.

7. Fixing the math: what Congressman Gabe Evans is trying to do

Here’s the good news: some folks in Congress have figured out that you can’t fix a broken system with more punishment.

The House Energy & Commerce Committee recently rolled out a package of bills to reform Clean Air Act permitting – specifically to deal with these nonattainment traps. (House Committee on Energy and Commerce)

Two ideas matter a lot for the Front Range:

The FENCES Act – stop counting foreign pollution against us

The Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability (FENCES) Act would make it clear that foreign emissions don’t count against a state when EPA decides if you’re in nonattainment or when it calculates offset and permitting obligations. (Competitive Enterprise Institute)

In other words:

• If pollution from outside the U.S. is what tips your monitor over the line,
• You shouldn’t lose economic development and mobility options because of it.

That’s not a free pass. It’s basic fairness.

The FIRE Act – stop treating wildfires like tailpipes

Congressman Gabe Evans (CO-08) is leading the Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events (FIRE) Act. (House Committee on Energy and Commerce)

His bill would:

• Clarify how EPA treats data distorted by wildfires, prescribed burns, and other “exceptional events”
• Require better coordination when states try to exclude those days from the record
• Make sure our regulatory status isn’t permanently dictated by one terrible smoke season

Right now, Colorado can use tools like:

• Section 179B of the Clean Air Act, which lets a state show it would have met the standard “but for” emissions from outside the United States, and avoid being bumped up to harsher categories. (Legal Information Institute)

But those demonstrations are complex, expensive, and frankly stacked against states that aren’t on the coast with armies of modelers on retainer.

What Gabe Evans and his colleagues are doing is saying:

“Let’s modernize this so we’re actually measuring what Colorado can control – not punishing Coloradans for smoke from three states away or pollution from overseas.”

That’s not anti-environment. That’s pro-honesty.

8. So where do we go from here?

As a Weld County Commissioner, NFRMPO representative, and Chair of the North I-25 Coalition, here’s where I land:

1. Clean air matters.
   Asthma is real. Bad ozone days hurt kids, seniors, and working people. Nobody I serve wants smoggy air.
2. Reality matters too.
   When your own planning council says more than half of the ozone is “background and natural,” and other studies say out-of-state sources can be half to two-thirds of the problem, pretending we can regulate our way to perfection with lawnmower bans and boutique gasoline is make-believe. (Regional Air Quality Council – RAQC)
3. Colorado should stop volunteering for extra punishment.
   • Withdrawing extensions that could have delayed harsher classifications. Voluntarily asking EPA to bump us from Moderate to Serious “as soon as possible,” Flirting with calls to jump straight to Extreme
   …are political choices, not acts of God. And they have real consequences for people trying to build homes, run rigs, or widen I-25. (US EPA)
4. We should use the tools that exist to fix the math.
   That means:
   • Supporting reforms like the FENCES Act and FIRE Act
   • Pushing EPA to fairly account for international and out-of-state pollution
   • Using Clean Air Act provisions like Section 179B, instead of treating nonattainment as a permanent excuse to ratchet up regulation.
5. Transportation planning should be about mobility first, not social engineering.
   The North I-25 Coalition was built to fix a corridor that is vital for commerce, safety, and daily life. We should not be forced to choose between:
   • Safe, reliable roads, and a regulatory system that pretends Weld County can control global background ozone
   We can invest in cleaner technology, reasonable controls, and smarter growth without turning every lane-widening into an ideological tug-of-war.

Colorado deserves honest numbers, honest rules, and honest leadership – not a regulatory piñata full of your taxpayer dollars and your freedom of movement.

I’m going to keep doing what I was elected to do:

• Fight for realistic, science-based air policy
• Protect Weld County’s energy and economic backbone
• And make sure the next time you’re stuck on I-25, it’s because of construction that’s fixing the problem – not because someone in Denver used “nonattainment” as an excuse to say no.