Coloradans are paying more to keep the lights on, heat their homes, and fill their gas tanks. The two candidates in the state’s most competitive congressional race, the 8th District, say they know how to bring those Colorado energy bills down. What remains less clear is how much relief either candidate’s plan would deliver — or how quickly families would see it.
Republican Rep. Gabe Evans, who is seeking a second term, is making the case for expanded domestic energy production, fewer regulatory barriers and protections against shifting the cost of new electricity infrastructure onto existing utility customers. His Democratic challenger, former state Rep. Manny Rutinel, argues that rolling back clean-energy tax incentives will drive costs higher and that restoring them would help bring bills down.
Both candidates are making arguments about energy affordability. The available data offers a more complicated picture.
Electricity prices reflect the cost of generating and delivering power and of maintaining the grid. Natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal demand and wholesale market conditions. Gasoline prices are tied to crude oil markets and can shift with geopolitical events. A policy that affects one of those costs may do little to change the others.
How much more are Coloradans paying for electricity?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that Colorado’s average residential electricity price reached 17 cents per kilowatt-hour in July 2026, up from 15.99 cents a year earlier. That represents an increase of about 6.3%.
Those figures are statewide averages, not the rates paid by every customer. Actual bills depend on how much electricity a household uses and which utility serves it.
Natural gas prices have also climbed. EIA data show that the average price of natural gas delivered to Colorado residential customers rose from $17.22 per thousand cubic feet in July 2025 to $17.56 in July 2026 — an increase of about 2%.
That’s a per-unit price, not a monthly bill. Consumption, seasonal demand and other charges all affect what customers ultimately pay.
Drivers are paying more, too. EIA weekly data put Colorado’s average regular gasoline price at about $4.18 per gallon for the week of Oct. 12, up from $4.02 the previous week.
Evans points to domestic production and ratepayer protections
Evans argues that increasing domestic energy production and reducing regulatory barriers can help lower prices. One of his more concrete proposals focuses on a different problem: who pays when electricity demand grows.
The Ratepayer Protection Act, which Evans sponsored with Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Florida), would require state utility regulators to consider policies ensuring that large electricity users, including data centers, cover the full cost of the grid upgrades needed to serve them. The goal is to prevent utilities from passing those expenses on to other customers.
The House passed the bill 417-3 on Sept. 16. It stalled in the Senate on Sept. 30, when a procedural vote failed 57-43, short of the 60 needed to advance.
The bill targets a concern with support in both parties: that households could end up paying for infrastructure built for commercial customers. But a House vote is not a reduction in anyone’s utility bill. Even if the bill became law, state regulators would have up to two years to act on it. Evans’ campaign did not provide an estimate of how much a typical household in the 8th District would save if the measure became law.
His broader argument for expanding domestic energy production raises a similar question. More production does not automatically mean lower prices for consumers. The effect depends on the type of energy being produced, where it is delivered, infrastructure constraints and prevailing market conditions.
Evans’ support for President Donald Trump’s and Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut several clean-energy tax incentives, is another point of disagreement between the candidates.
Rutinel argues that eliminating the incentives makes energy more expensive by discouraging wind, solar and other clean-energy development.
What is Manny Rutinel proposing about Colorado energy bills?
Rutinel has outlined three priorities for lowering energy costs: restoring clean-energy tax credits, ending the war with Iran and preventing data centers from shifting their infrastructure costs onto households.
In written responses to Courier Colorado, Rutinel said he supports “bringing back clean energy tax credits that help lower costs for families.” He also called for an end to what he described as the “unplanned forever war in Iran that is driving up gas prices.”
Rutinel’s campaign argued that Evans’ vote to eliminate clean-energy tax credits puts energy projects and jobs in Colorado’s 8th District at risk while increasing household costs.
There is an economic argument behind preserving clean-energy incentives. Wind and solar facilities don’t require ongoing fuel purchases to generate electricity, which can reduce a utility’s exposure to swings in fossil-fuel prices. But the effect on household bills depends on the cost of building new projects, when they come online, the infrastructure they require and how utilities reflect those expenses through their rates.
Those questions become more pressing as data centers and other large electricity users increase demand.
“We need to make sure that we have good safeguards in place, so that we are not destroying our environment or jacking up costs on working families in the process of developing data centers,” Rutinel said in his written response. “That means making sure that we protect our public lands, our water, and that the development of data centers doesn’t increase energy prices for ratepayers. And we definitely need to make sure that communities are the ones driving these decisions and that data centers aren’t being forced onto a community.”
A report published Oct. 1 by Energy Innovation, an energy and climate policy think tank, offers one estimate of what recent federal policy changes could mean for Colorado households over the next 15 years.
Using its Energy Policy Simulator, the organization projected that federal policy decisions made since January 2025, including the rollback of clean-energy incentives and restrictions affecting energy development, would add $13 billion to Colorado household energy costs through 2040.
The report estimated that the changes would add an average of $480 per household in 2035 and $460 in 2040. It also projected that gasoline prices in Colorado would be 17% higher in 2035 and 31% higher in 2040.
Those figures are projections based on the organization’s modeling, not observed increases in household bills. They offer one estimate of the potential long-term consequences of federal policy changes, rather than a measurement of what families are paying today.
Rutinel’s campaign also said that gasoline prices had risen more than 40% since the conflict with Iran began, citing NBC News reporting.
The cost debate is bigger than one policy
The candidates’ proposals address different parts of the energy market.
Utilities must maintain existing infrastructure and invest in new capacity. In Colorado, wildfire risks, aging equipment and transmission needs can add expenses even when the cost of generating electricity remains stable or falls.
In August, state regulators approved an Xcel Energy rate increase that adds about $5 a month to the average residential bill.
Evans’ Ratepayer Protection Act and Rutinel’s support for shielding households from data-center costs address that same problem, even as the candidates disagree over clean-energy incentives and broader energy policy.
The more consequential question for voters is whether either candidate can show that a proposed policy will produce measurable savings—and explain who will benefit, by how much, and when.
Evans’ campaign did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
