Colorado Compliance Index: The City–State Reporting Gap

September 2026 edition · Public records observed September 9, 2026, Mountain Time · Methodology v1.0

A Colorado building can have an accepted city benchmarking report and still show an unresolved state reporting status. That is the most useful finding in the first EnergyzedWorld Colorado Compliance Index.

We compared the current state list with Denver’s current public map. Among 1,489 records matched conservatively by both numeric building ID and normalized address, 804 were marked “in compliance” by Denver but “Pending revisions: Error” by Colorado.

This is a reason to open both records. It is not proof that 804 owners missed a deadline: the state’s annual reporting deadline is later than Denver’s, and public statuses do not explain every underlying issue.

The index publishes our original calculations from government and program-linked public records. It asks three practical questions: How much reporting is accepted? What is still unresolved? What should an owner do next?

Index data and downloads · Jurisdiction guide · Check your building

Start with Colorado’s 50,000-square-foot program

Building Performance Colorado applies to covered commercial, multifamily and public buildings of 50,000 square feet and larger, subject to the program’s definitions and exemptions. Annual reporting and building performance targets are separate obligations. Colorado Energy Office

Beginning with the 2026 reporting cycle, the previous year’s benchmarking data is due November 1. The signed HB25-1269 makes that change explicit; an older page or search result showing June 1 should not be used as the current state deadline. Signed act, page 3

For the 2026 reporting period, covering 2025 energy data, our complete public-list export contains:

State source status	Records	What it tells an owner
In Compliance	2,573	The public state record shows acceptance.
Pending revisions: Error	7,718	Review the state record and resolve the issue shown there.
Approved for waiver	12	A waiver is recorded; it is not an accepted annual report.
Non-covered	2	The source flags the record outside coverage.
No published or joined status	85	This export cannot establish a current status.
Total list records	10,390	The public list’s universe, including records needing data cleanup.

The state report-acceptance index is 24.8%: 2,573 accepted records divided by 10,376 listed records after removing the 12 waivers and two non-covered records. Unknowns remain in the denominator. The accepted share of the entire unadjusted list also rounds to 24.8%.

The large revision category is the story. It does not tell us how many owners never filed. The export contains no records explicitly labeled “Submission not received,” but that does not establish that everyone submitted. We therefore leave the state’s filed/not-filed totals unavailable instead of converting 7,718 revision records into a non-filer count. BEAM covered-building list

01 / September 2026 baseline

Report acceptance, by program.

Same calculation. Different reporting calendars.

ColoradoDue Nov 1

24.8%

2,573 accepted / 10,376 listed after exclusions

DenverJune reporting cycle

88.2%

2,680 accepted / 3,037 listed after exclusions

BoulderJune reporting cycle

95.1%

450 accepted / 473 listed after exclusions

Fort CollinsJune reporting cycle

98.0%

1,266 accepted / 1,292 listed after exclusions

The original insight: a city acceptance is only one record

02 / The original finding

804

Matched records.
Different statuses.

Same numeric building ID.
Same normalized address.

Denver / 2026 reportingIn complianceCity public map

↓ Same matched record ↓

Colorado / 2026 reportingPending revisions: ErrorState BEAM list

The comparison began with 1,900 shared numeric IDs in Denver-labeled state records and the city map. We retained 1,489 whose addresses also matched after punctuation, case and common street abbreviations were normalized. We excluded 411 address mismatches rather than guessing.

Within this matched subset, 1,357 had Denver acceptance. Of those, 804—59.2%—still carried the state’s pending-error label. Another 531 showed acceptance in both systems, and 22 lacked a published or joined state status.

This is a deliberately narrow comparison. It is not a match of every Denver building, and it is not a representative sample from which to extrapolate a citywide failure rate. The records were observed during the same research session, but the underlying programs can update on different schedules.

Owner action: keep the city and state building IDs, submission receipts, fee evidence where applicable, and revision notices together. Resolve each reporting record directly with its program. A public map screenshot is useful context; it does not replace the owner portal’s confirmation.

Sources: Denver’s current public map, Colorado BEAM. The matched-record CSV makes the calculation auditable.

What “filed,” “accepted” and “unknown” mean here

A report can be received and still need correction. For cities that distinguish those states, filed at least means accepted plus pending revisions. It is a lower bound observable from the public labels, not a claim about all submissions in a private portal.

Program	Listed records	Accepted	Pending revisions	Explicitly not submitted	Excluded	Unknown	Filed at least
Colorado	10,390	2,573	7,718*	Unavailable*	14	85	Unavailable*
Denver	3,105	2,680	101	256	68	0	2,781
Boulder	478	450	7	14	5	2	457
Aspen	189 addresses†	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	189	Unavailable
Fort Collins	1,362	1,266	6	20	70	0	1,272
Lakewood	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable

Colorado’s pending-error label is not used to infer receipt. Zero occurrences of an explicit non-submission label is not a verified zero non-filers. “Excluded” means an explicit exemption, waiver or non-covered status. These categories sum to the source universes using the underlying status counts in the download.

†Aspen’s PDF contains 190 address occurrences and 189 distinct address strings; 155 LONE PINE RD appears twice. That is an address-list measure, not a certified physical-building count. The list supplies coverage, not 2026 filing status.

Do not add these rows into a statewide building total. A building can appear under both a city program and the state program. City map inventories also have different filters and reporting boundaries.

Which rules apply? Start with size and location

03 / Where coverage starts

Below 50,000 square feet
doesn’t mean outside the rules.

Colorado

50,000+sq ft

Statewide

Denver

25,000+sq ft

Annual benchmarking

Boulder

20,000+sq ft

Existing private buildings*

Aspen

5,000+sq ft

Commercial; multifamily 15,000+

Fort Collins

5,000+sq ft

Eligible commercial / multifamily

Lakewood

10,000+sq ft

First report: Dec 31, 2026

Energize Denver: reporting plus a performance pathway

At 25,000+ sq ft, covered buildings benchmark annually, with reports due June 1. The city also requires data verification and compliance with the building’s applicable performance pathway. Our current-map snapshot shows 2,680 accepted records out of 3,037 after explicit exemptions: 88.2%. Benchmarking steps, large-building overview

Buildings from 5,000–24,999 sq ft have separate efficiency requirements. The first remaining size-band deadline is December 31, 2026 for 20,000–24,999 sq ft; progressively smaller bands follow in 2027, 2028 and 2029. These buildings are not counted in the large-building acceptance rate above. Small-building requirements

Next action: confirm the building’s size band, annual report, verification status and assigned performance dates. Read our 2026 Energize Denver rules guide.

Boulder: a good report is the beginning

Boulder’s 2026 workbook lists 478 affected records. We joined 476 to its current reporting map and left two unmatched records unknown. The result is 450 accepted / 473 after exemptions = 95.1%. Using the old workbook’s status for the two missing map records would wrongly make a February label look current.

BPO covers existing private commercial and industrial buildings from 20,000 sq ft, qualifying new buildings from 10,000 sq ft, and specified city buildings. Alongside rating and reporting, owners may have energy assessment, lighting, retro-commissioning and measure-implementation obligations. Boulder program and 2026 workbook, compliance map

Next action: look beyond the benchmarking line. For the 20,000–30,000 sq ft group, the published schedule includes a June 1, 2027 retro-commissioning measure-implementation deadline. Verify the building-specific schedule and any extension.

Aspen: strong published participation, a different evidence year

Building IQ covers commercial properties from 5,000 sq ft, multifamily properties from 15,000 sq ft, and covered city properties. Benchmarking is annual, due June 1. Aspen says its performance standards’ specific coverage, timelines and targets remain under development. Building IQ

The city’s 2025 report, covering data through 2024, reports participation above 97%. That is useful historical context, but it cannot fill the missing 2026 status column. Its more actionable finding is that hotels accounted for 41% of benchmarked building emissions, with 73% of hotel emissions tied to natural gas. 2025 report, city announcement

Next action: for a hotel, connect benchmarking to heating and hot-water measurements, operating schedules and the equipment replacement plan. A high filing rate alone does not identify the next efficiency project.

Fort Collins: near-complete acceptance in the observed map

BEWS requires eligible commercial and multifamily buildings from 5,000 sq ft to report annually by June 1. The city lists exclusions, including multifamily buildings under three stories, row homes, townhomes, industrial and agricultural facilities. Fort Collins BEWS

The 2026 required-property map contains 1,362 records: 1,266 accepted, 70 exempt, 20 not submitted and six pending revisions. Removing explicit exemptions yields 98.0% acceptance. This is the observed public-map population, not a separately certified census of every eligible building. Public map

Next action: close the remaining submission or correction issue, then use the verified baseline to investigate operational waste. Reporting is most valuable when someone acts on what it reveals.

Lakewood: a new deadline below the state threshold

Lakewood adopted its benchmarking ordinance on February 23, 2026. Eligible commercial, multifamily and public buildings of 10,000+ sq ft must first report 2025 energy use by December 31, 2026. Draft program rules were open for feedback through September 16 when this edition was prepared. City program update

We did not obtain a current public filing inventory for this edition. An unavailable count is not zero covered buildings, and a new program should not be assigned a failure rate before its first deadline.

Next action: establish the property boundary, organize the 2025 utility data and follow the city’s implementation instructions. Lakewood describes this phase as benchmarking; the program does not itself require a retrofit.

The state list reaches far beyond the city programs

04 / State list, grouped by reported city

The work extends beyond Denver.

Records labeled “Pending revisions: Error” in the state’s 2026 cycle.

Denver

1,758

Colorado Springs

1,218

Aurora

481

Boulder

238

Fort Collins

247

Englewood

239

The six largest city-name groups above contain 4,181 of the state’s 7,718 pending-error records—54.2%. Denver accounts for 1,758; 5,960 sit in other city-name groups. These are geographic groupings of the state list, not local ordinance counts.

For example, the state list contains 200 Longmont records, including 171 pending-error records, and 261 Lakewood records, including 188 pending-error records. Neither number is the total population covered by a separate city ordinance. Lakewood’s local threshold is much smaller than the state’s.

This edition covers the statewide program and the five city programs verified here. Other cities and counties can have building codes, permit conditions, utility programs or developing policies; those should not be represented as an annual reporting mandate without an adopted source.

Three decisions owners can make this month

1. Close the reporting record. Identify every applicable jurisdiction, locate the current owner-portal notice, submit or correct the report, and retain acceptance and any required payment evidence.
2. Separate the data problem from the equipment problem. Check meter completeness, floor area, use types and operating details before calculating an energy-use gap or choosing equipment.
3. Give the next efficiency action an owner and a date. Once the baseline is defensible, prioritize operating changes, retro-commissioning or equipment planning that address the building’s actual loads and deadlines.

The checker is a screening aid, and its data refresh can differ from this dated research edition. It does not currently provide a full local Lakewood lookup or a confirmed Fort Collins covered-building inventory. For those programs, use the official links above and request a manual review. Owners can also file directly with their programs and use available public help desks.

Download and cite this edition

This is edition 1 of a monthly series. There is no month-over-month change claim yet. Future editions will preserve dated snapshots and explain changes in coverage, matching or status definitions.

• Jurisdiction summary CSV
• Machine-readable summary JSON
• Minimal record IDs and source statuses CSV
• Denver–Colorado matched records CSV
• State records grouped by reported city CSV
• Source URLs and methodology
• Raw-source checksums and retrieval timestamps

Suggested citation: Mbori, Chris / EnergyzedWorld. Colorado Compliance Index, September 2026. Public records observed September 9, 2026 MDT. Methodology v1.0. Link to this article and the dated dataset you used.

The index measures observed annual-report acceptance, calculated as accepted records divided by listed records after explicit exclusions. It does not certify legal compliance, energy performance, or a current enforcement decision. Public maps may lag owner portals. Reporting records may represent properties or campuses, and municipal boundaries may differ from postal addresses. The state list also includes 486 missing floor-area values and 229 values below 50,000 sq ft; we retained them so the denominator is the published list, not an undocumented size filter.

Corrections welcome: email Chris Mbori with the jurisdiction, record ID, reporting period and official source. AIM Dynamics provides commercial energy services; this publication is independent analysis and is not an official government index.