Colorado could see significant changes to energy and environmental policy under an incoming Republican Donald Trump administration.

The Centennial State is in many ways ground zero for policy and research surrounding energy development, climate change science and management of public lands. It is home to universities and research facilities that have paved the way on the subject, including the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.

Colorado also has been a target for public lands issues, with the debate focused on whether to transfer management of federal lands from the federal government to the states, or to sell those lands to private interests.

Some Republicans have suggested that states and private interests could do a better job managing lands than the federal government, especially as it pertains to combating and mitigating wildfires and maintaining trails.

The topic played out during the U.S. Senate race in Colorado this year, when unsuccessful Republican candidate and El Paso County Commissioner Darryl Glenn proposed transferring management of lands to the states. In Congressional District 3, Democratic challenger Gail Schwartz alleged that Republican incumbent Scott Tipton  supported a transfer and sale of lands despite Tipton vehemently denying that accusation.

It’s possible that the debate gains momentum under a Republican-controlled Congress and executive branch.

And with a robust oil and gas industry-delivering a $30 billion economic impact to Colorado-questions linger as to how a Trump administration’s energy policy could change the landscape in Colorado, potentially opening more lands to oil and gas activities, while rolling back regulations, to the ire of environmental and conservation interests.

Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado, said Trump and his administration would be wise not to make radical decisions, such as walking back stringent methane regulations, which is something Colorado led the way on with first-of-its-kind rules in 2014.

“If you look at a ‘drill, baby, drill’ kind of mantra coming in, that would be so out of step with Coloradans,” Maysmith said.

His concerns revolve around Trump’s Cabinet selections, which still require Congressional confirmation.

There’s former Texas Gov. Rick Perry  to lead the Department of Energy, a man who once threatened to abolish the department and who has vocally expressed skepticism that climate change is caused in part by man.

Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson has been tapped for secretary of state, raising fears that Trump’s administration will lean toward oil and gas interests.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt would lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is an ally to the fossil-fuel industry, offering a sign that the incoming administration could look to undo President Barack Obama’s legacy fighting climate change, including requiring a reduction in carbon emissions. Pruitt vehemently opposed the rules, helping to craft a lawsuit seeking to overturn the mandate.

One bright spot, at least for conservationists and sportsmen, could be Trump’s pick of Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke as interior secretary. Zinke, a hunter and outdoorsman, appears committed to keeping federal public lands public and under the management authority of the federal government. But even with Zinke, there are concerns that he wouldn’t have the will to take on fossil-fuel interests.

“These choices are so outside the mainstream values that Coloradans hold around our environment, our wild open spaces, and our energy future. They are extremely disappointing,” Maysmith said.

Concerns for environmental interests in Colorado run the gamut, including potentially undoing the 2014 Roan Plateau agreement, which protects most of the landscape near Rifle, while allowing development to continue on other leases in the area. There’s also anxiety over revoking a 2015 presidential proclamation declaring Browns Canyon near Salida a national monument. Both scenarios, while unlikely, have environmental interests on edge.

State departments-including the Department of Natural Resources and the Energy Office-are hesitant to speculate on how policy could change in Colorado under a Trump administration.

Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said, “While it’s hard to know what may be coming from the new administration, the election didn’t change the things that are important to Coloradans: cleanest air in country, healthiest state and reasonable regulations that protect people and work for business. We will work with the Trump administration to be sure Colorado’s values and its approach to these important issues are understood.”

The governor announced in August that he is pursuing an executive order that would order cuts in carbon pollution, despite any action by the federal government or courts that could derail the federal Clean Power Plan.

The proposed executive order would direct state agencies to “incorporate additional climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.” It would call for a 25-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 2025, as compared to 2012 levels, and a 35-percent reduction in emissions by 2030.

Despite what Colorado may do on its own around climate change and energy production, oil and gas interests are encouraged by the direction they are seeing under a Trump administration.

“President-elect Trump has been a vocal supporter of the oil and gas industry and he wants to put Americans back to work,” said Dan Haley, president and chief executive of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

Haley is optimistic that projects such as the Jordan Cove natural gas pipeline, which would build a natural gas export terminal in Oregon, will receive more favorable treatment under a Trump administration. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied a permit for the project in March and recently denied a request for a rehearing.

Western Slope natural gas stakeholders in Colorado say the Jordan Cove project would help with low prices by offering a way to transport and widely export the resource.

“His selection for Interior certainly signals a new day for how the administration views not only the oil and gas industry but also federal lands,” Haley said. “Responsibly developing our natural resources on federal lands has become very difficult under the current administration and we’re hopeful the new president and new interior secretary will work to reverse some of the obstacles and help promote this notion that you can support energy production and still care about clean air and water.”

Closely tied to the issue of environmental and energy policy is research.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder operates with a budget of just over $200 million, with about 95 percent coming from the federal government.

It’s difficult to say how much of the budget goes into climate and energy projects, but research includes air quality, severe weather and wildfire prediction, to name a few areas.

Another example is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a government-owned, contractor-operated facility in Golden. It is funded and overseen by the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which sponsors about 80 percent of NREL’s funding. Congress sets the budget, which goes to the Department of Energy. The department then determines how much funding is passed on to national laboratories.

Researchers don’t want to speculate on what a Trump administration could mean for funding. In the meantime, scientists are hopeful that their budgets won’t shrink under a Trump administration.

“We can’t predict what funding may look like in the next administration. There is broad bipartisan support for atmospheric and related research, which helps protect lives and property and strengthens the economy,” said David Hosansky, spokesman for NCAR.

Heather Lammers, spokeswoman for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, added, “We can’t speculate on what sort of policies President-elect Trump may choose to prioritize or what the related funding impacts will be for NREL. In the meantime, we remain focused on our mission to find answers to today’s energy challenges.”