April 7 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Hickenlooper calls CDPHE refocusing away from CPP a ’shell game’, unloads on EPA ozone rule; ‘carbon tax’ defeated in Carbondale
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing, Legal, Legislation, New Energy Economy, renewable energy
Less than two weeks after Gov. John Hickenlooper told Colorado Public Radio “we don’t care what the Supreme Court says about the Clean Power Plan”, calling for continued planning for the Environmental Protection Agency’s embattled rule currently under a stay issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Democrat initially appeared to be walking back his initial disregard for the country’s highest judicial body:
Gov. John Hickenlooper said he’s willing to temporarily halt state work on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan if that would defuse an effort to strip funding from the agency developing the plan.
“I’m happy to have them stop working on it if that’s a problem, if that becomes a partisan issue,” Hickenlooper told a CPR reporter after a lunch hosted by the American Petroleum Institute.
But the easing on Hickenlooper’s view of the work being done by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment–dismissive of any SCOTUS intervention via a stay–was itself walked back, as he at first acknowledged that the state could work on its already existing regulatory mandates to achieve similar goals to the Clean Power Plan, but said that any such maneuver would be nothing more than a “shell game”:
“We’re doing the same work anyway,” said Hickenlooper. “I don’t think it would hurt our efforts if we were to reallocate some of that time in other directions. I mean, in the end, we’re going to get to the same place.”
Hickenlooper said state policy and laws, including the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act passed in 2010, already require Colorado to reduce carbon emissions from coal fired power plants.
“Our goals were very aggressive goals, and they are not the same, but they are very similar to what the Clean Power Plan wants,” he said at the gathering.
The governor clarified his comments Wednesday, dismissing the idea that suspending work on the Clean Power Plan would have much real world impact on the state’s clean air efforts.
“I look at the whole thing as ridiculous, to be perfectly blunt,” Hickenlooper told reporters at a regular press gathering. “It’s like a shell game of who’s doing which work. We’re working toward clean air, that’s what the state’s doing, that’s what people want us to do. We can get into … semantical battles over this thing, but it’s pretty straightforward.”
When it comes to Hickenlooper’s pronouncements on any number of issues, including this one, it’s usually never “pretty straightforward.”
Hickenlooper, just days ago, attempted to cast a non-partisan tenor to the debate over the Clean Power Plan:
Gov. John Hickenlooper also defended the new air quality rules at an event hosted by the Colorado Petroleum Institute.
“Clean air is too important to Colorado to become a partisan issue,” he said. “I am convinced as much as I ever have been that this is in the self-interest of the state.”
Jack Gerard, the head of the American Petroleum Institute, disagreed with Hickenlooper’s assessment.
“We look at the Clean Power Plan as it’s unnecessary to regulate as trying to pick favorite energy forums,” Gerard said.
Hickenlooper’s soft spot for the Clean Power Plan did not hold him back from being critical of the EPA’s ozone rule, which he said risked the “possibility that there will be penalties eventually that will come from lack of compliance.” He also blasted a Democrat bill that would allow for more lawsuits over damage caused by earthquakes that allege a connection to oil and gas development, as well as a ballot measure that would create a 2500 foot setback, saying that it would deprive mineral rights owners of their property–a taking that could cost billions.
Energy in Depth has more on Hickenlooper’s statement on the ballot initiative that would create 2500 foot setbacks:
Colorado’s Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, is speaking out against an initiative backed by ‘ban-fracking’ activists to dramatically increase oil and gas setback distances in the state. The comments came at an event yesterday sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Colorado Petroleum Council (CPC) featuring the governor and API President and CEO Jack Gerard.
When asked about the ballot initiative pushed by activists with strong ties to national ban fracking organizations, that would increase oil and gas setback distances to 2500 feet, Hickenlooper strongly denounced the effort. As reported by CBS Denver:
“That would be considered a taking, and I think the state would probably be judged responsible, and I think the cost could be in the many billions of dollars. I think that’s a risk that most Coloradans — if it was laid out for them in a sense they could clearly understand — would not support it.”
Hickenlooper’s assertion that the initiative could cost the state billions is backed up by a recent economic assessment from the Business Research Division at University of Colorado Leeds School of Business. Economists found that a 2,000 foot setback distance could cost the state up to $11 billion in lost GDP a year and 62,000 jobs. The 2,000 foot setback economists looked at is more modest than the 2,500 foot distance that activists are attempting to put before state voters this year.
Those mineral rights are worth billions of dollars to Coloradans and fill the coffers of counties and other entities annually to the tune of millions in property and severance taxes.
A thinly disguised attempt to ban fracking under the ruse of “local control” failed in the Colorado House on Monday:
Activist groups have not been shy about the fact that they see “local control” as a de facto ban on fracking. On a recent call with supporters, Tricia Olson of Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development (CREED), the group behind a series of ballot initiatives targeting energy development, even told the group that their “local control” measure is basically a “full-fledged” fracking ban:
“This version however has one significant difference, what we would call a floor, not a ceiling language. To lift its points, it authorizes local governments to pass regulations — prohibit, limit or impose moratoriums on oil and gas development. Of course the word prohibit means ban. This allows for a broad range of local government options within their jurisdictions from local actions to a full-fledged ban.” (23:14-23:44)
EID detailed the “local control” proponents’ misinformation campaign to push the measure. Two Democrats joined with Republicans to kill the bill on the floor of the Colorado House.
And former Gov. Bill Ritter–you know–of the “New Energy Economy” and a paragon of all things green (dubbed the “Greenest Governor”), rejected a national ban on fracking:
“If you passed a national ban, this industry would go away and it would be harder for us to get to our place of transition on clean energy and climate.”
“I believe that with a good set of regulations, with good enforcement, with good compliance on the part of the industry, it [fracking for natural gas] can be a part of a clean energy future,” Ritter said.
Ritter and Hickenlooper, both Democrats, face opposition from their far-left counterparts when it comes to these types of calls for bans on responsible oil and gas development:
“We won’t transform the energy supplies of our nation overnight; there’s been rapid growth in solar and wind, but we’re a long way from saying we can walk away from hydrocarbons and not do significant damage to our economy,” Hickenlooper said.
“The number of people in Colorado who want to ban hydrocarbons is probably a small minority,” he said.
Gerard said the oil and gas sector will continue to play a significant role going forward, even through energy efficiency efforts focused on the automotive sector.
“When you look to make cars more energy efficient, you make them lighter with plastics brought to you by petroleum, you make the windows more efficient [with films] brought to you by petroleum, the gadgets you play with in your hand every day also come from petroleum,” he said.
As we can see, it’s not just about fracking, or burning oil and gas for electricity, as API’s president pointed out.
Hickenlooper continues to express deep concern about the EPA’s ozone rule, reducing the target for acceptable ground level ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb, saying a suspension of the rule “would be a great idea”:
Transcript of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ozone rule delivered to the Colorado Petroleum Council and the American Petroleum Institute on March 31, 2016 via the Center for Regulatory Solutions:
So I think it would be a great idea if they suspended the standard. I mean, just with the background [ozone], if you’re not going to be able to conform to a standard like this, you are leaving the risk or the possibility that there will be penalties of one sort or another that come from your lack of compliance. Obviously, no different than any business, states want to have as much predictability as possible, and I think if they suspend the standards, it’s not going to slow us down from continuing to try and make our air cleaner. …
You know, we’re a mile high. Air quality issues affect us more directly than they do at lower elevations. So we’re going to keep pushing it, we’re not going to back off, we’re going to continue to improve the air quality in the state every year if I have anything to say about it, but at the same time, those standards, you know, to be punitive when you’re working as hard as you can … to get cleaner air as rapidly as you can, it seems like it’s not the most constructive stance.
A bi-partisan chorus of opposition to the ozone rule has emerged, and Independence Institute energy policy analyst Simon Lomax notes that the rhetoric surrounding the ozone rule, and in particular, its potential impact on public health, is filled with fearmongering from the “bad-air chorus.”
Lomax testified before CDPHE last month on the ozone rule:
The nature of the problem is clear. The EPA’s new ozone standard goes too far. It will throw large areas of the state into long-term violation of federal law. Violation will impose new restrictions on economic growth and jeopardize badly needed investments in transportation infrastructure.
And because the stringent new standard approaches background ozone levels, which state regulators are powerless to control, there will be little, if any, environmental benefit in return. For months, stakeholders from across government, across the political spectrum and across the economy have stated and restated the problem. But admiring the complexity of the problem won’t solve it.
Notably, the ozone rule would attack the “bridge” fuel, namely natural gas, that the earlier versions of the Clean Power Plan envisaged would get the nation from a fossil fuel fleet to one primarily composed of renewables. Between the attempts to ban fracking, the leap made by the final Clean Power Plan that pushes almost exclusively for renewables, and the ozone rule’s affect on oil and gas development (emissions are a key component to create ground level ozone), the stage has been set for an onslaught of anti-oil and gas regulation that would devastate Colorado’s economy.
Colorado faces geographical and topographical challenges with any ground-level ozone measurements due to elevated background ozone levels, as Hickenlooper pointed out. Anthropogenic emissions in other states and Mexico and as far away as Asia (China), wildfires, atmospheric intrusions, and our elevation combine to bring levels of background ozone to the state that can’t simply be regulated away.
From the “excellent news” category–carbon tax gets shot down in Carbondale, 61 to 39 percent:
For the so called “carbon tax,” 1,022 voters cast ballots against, while only 637 Carbondale residents voted in favor.
And with more than $3,000 in contributions, the committee supporting the carbon tax raised and spent more money than any single candidate for the board of trustees.
The climate action tax proposed to increase residents’ gas and electric bills in an attempt to promote clean energy projects and reduce energy usage in keeping with the town’s 2020 energy goals.
The climate tax would have been applied uniformly across town, with one set of rates for residents and another for business owners.
Supporters of the carbon tax had estimated that the average household’s utility bills would go up $5 to $7, and the average business would see a $10 to $30 increase.
This carbon/climate action tax would have just added more misery to Colorado’s already skyrocketing electricity rates.
Hickenlooper: ‘we don’t care what the Supreme Court says’ on Clean Power Plan; supports growing state renewables standard for ‘no cost’
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Legal, preferred energy, regulations, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy
Transcript of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s comments on Colorado Public Radio’s “Colorado Matters” with Ryan Warner, Thursday, March 24, 2016:
Ryan Warner: A question about your commitment to fighting climate change. Larry Milosovich of Lafayette asks about the state’s requirement that a certain percentage of energy come from renewables. So in 2004, voters decided that it should be 10% by 2020; before you took office, that got bumped up to 30% for investor-owned utilities. Milosovich says that made Colorado a leader nationally, but quoting here now, “we have since fallen behind several other states. Isn’t it time we sent signals that we are still serious about moving forward on clean energy beyond 2020?” He asked would you be willing to pursue an updated Renewable Energy Standard equal to that approved by New York and California, namely 50% renewables by 2030?
Hickenlooper: So I certainly wouldn’t do it without sitting down and seeing what it would cost, you know what our citizens would have to pay for their electricity. It goes to prove that you’re never going to satisfy everybody. But we have been one of the more aggressive states saying “we don’t care what the Supreme Court says about the Clean Power Plan [emphasis added], we recognize we want to have the cleanest air possible.” I think we need to look at, you know, what are our core values? We want the cleanest energy we can have, reduce our carbon emissions in every way possible, but we want to do so in such a way that saves money. Well it might well be certainly in the next couple of years if we’re looking at these large-scale industrial solar plants, they’re saying they might come in lower than natural gas plants.
RW: But it sounds like you think the market might drive it from here, as opposed to the state upping its Renewable Energy Standard. Would that be a fair assessment?
Hickenlooper: No I think the market helps nudge the universe from time to time, but I don’t think we would…we’ve never left it to a completely market driven decision.
RW: Would you like to see a higher Renewable Energy Standard in Colorado? Do you think it should grow from where it is?
Hickenlooper: Well again, as I’ve said I think it depends on exactly what the cost would be and what that looks like, but in an ideal world, if there was a way to do it for no cost, absolutely.
Senate Bill 157, an attempt by Senate Republicans to halt state planning on Clean Power Plan compliance while the stay is ongoing became a flashpoint, as the issue became a battle over budgeting for the state’s Air Quality Control Division.
Future Leaders intern Sarah Huisman contributed to this report.
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Legislation
(l-r: Michael Sandoval, Independence Institute; bill co-sponsors Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg and Sen. John Cooke)
Testimony delivered, more or less as written, on behalf of SB 61 on March 10, 2016:
Testimony on behalf of
SB61 Ratepayer Protection
March 10, 2016
SENATE AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE
GREETINGS Mr. Chairman or Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee
Sen. Sonnenberg and Sen. Cooke.
My name is MICHAEL SANDOVAL. I am an ENERGY POLICY ANALYST for the Energy Policy Center at the Independence Institute.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of SB61.
At the Independence Institute, we are agnostic on energy resources. It is our strong belief that the choice of energy resources should come from the demands of the free market, and not from the preferences of policymakers, lobbyists, or special interest groups.
The goal of the Energy Policy Center is to promote a free market in energy production, where no protections, subsidies, or regulations result in energy winners and losers. We advocate that government remain neutral, which then encourages a level playing field. That is the best way to ensure that consumers reap the benefits of a healthy energy market – competition, lower prices, and more options.
We find SB61 to be consistent with our principles of protecting ratepayers from unnecessary costs associated with the implementation of a likely unconstitutional rule.
In light of the US Supreme Court stay for irreparable harm that would result if the Clean Power Plan was not immediately halted, the decision by this state to proceed with a state plan promising cost neutrality is unwarranted.
The negligible and practically undetectable reduction of only 0.02 degrees Celsius in global temperatures does not justify ratepayers picking up the tab for the social engineering of electricity.
Ironically, four decades ago a previous federal decision to promote coal for electricity production locked in much of the current fleet of baseload generation that is the target of the current rule.
Additional costs—in the form of enormous and potentially catastrophic transition costs—should be shouldered by those insisting on carrying out such measures. Capital costs run through to ratepayers, and we have already seen the effect in places like Pueblo. These transitions should not be cost-shifted to those who can least afford it.
Colorado should remain focused on electricity generation that emphasizes affordability and reliability. The regressive nature of electricity cost increases affecting low income, minority, and elderly residents is well-documented. Last year, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, for example, found that poverty rates in black and Hispanic communities would rise 23 percent and 26 percent, respectively.
The Independence Institute has documented the skyrocketing increases in electricity rates for Colorado’s residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation customers. From 2001 to 2015 Colorado has seen a residential increase of more than 60 percent, 8 percent higher than the average for all Mountain states. For all sectors, Colorado has experienced a 62.5 percent increase, 15 percent higher than the Mountain states and 23 percent higher than the US average. This far outpaces the 24 percent increase in median income or 34 percent increase in inflation over the same period. Finally, Colorado residential ratepayers already pay a 22.5 percent premium above the average for all sectors in the state combined for their electricity.
For those reasons shielding Colorado’s electricity ratepayers from any adverse impacts of compliance costs caused by implementation of this rule would be consistent with the principles of the Independence Institute.
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, renewable energy
On Monday February 22nd, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) held a public meeting to discuss the status of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which the U.S. Supreme Court officially stayed on February 9th.
The agenda for this previously scheduled meeting was modified in order to address the recent developments of both the CPP stay, and the CDHPE’s statement in response, which was posted the very next day. In short, Colorado will essentially pursue CPP goals as if the stay never happened, while the states surrounding Colorado have put it on hold while the legal process plays out.
The 90-minute meeting consisted of a brief presentation by APCD deputy director, Chris Colclasure, followed by a Q & A and public testimony. Mr. Colclasure began by discussing public comments already received by his office, which were overwhelmingly in support of the CPP, including over 500 form-emails from nationally organized campaigns.
Colclasure defended CDPHE’s position to move forward on CPP emission goals, stating that his department will “take actions that have benefits regardless of the litigation,” because despite the legal process, “climate change remains a critical issue.” However, these purported benefits remain subjective, and are disputed by many stakeholders.
What analytical use is it to know a presumed benefit without knowing about its life-partner, cost? The CDPHE is conducting, a benefit analysis (and acting on it), rather than conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Colclasure stated in his presentation that they “hope” to model potential costs. The private sector metaphor here is a borrower going to a lender and saying, “lend me money for a house, because I hope to be able to afford my mortgage.” But in this case, the taxpayers are the ones being recklessly put at risk.
That isn’t a stretch. Energy Strategies and the Center for the New Energy Economy produced a model used by APCD to evaluate the CPP, but this model was never built to consider costs. During Monday’s public meeting, Mr. Colclasure admitted that the above companies have the ability to build a cost-inclusive model, but they were specifically contracted to not include costs in their modeling.
About 15 people spoke during the public testimony period, the majority of which supported the CPP, proving that the extreme environmental movement is well funded and well organized. Local, state, and national groups were represented, some even claiming the CPP doesn’t go far enough, and that environmental racism and injustice is not adequately addressed.
The testimony that did not support the CPP was moderate by comparison. Representatives from the Colorado Energy Consumers and the Colorado Mining Association requested that given the gift of time resulting from the stay, cost modeling, including probable job losses and ratepayer increases, be a priority in the coming months.
The CDPHE has demonstrated that it is unlikely to model the almost certainly heavy costs of the CPP, let alone reconsider implementing it. Colclasure spoke with certainty about the inevitability of carbon dioxide regulations, be they from the CPP or some other avenue. By all appearances, extreme and economically unsound environmental regulations are a runaway train in Colorado.
Sarah Huisman is an Independence Institute Future Leader, and Master’s student at Liberty University’s Helms School of Government.
February 23 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Conflicting views over Colorado CPP prep; Gold King Mine persists for Navajo Nation
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Legal, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy
An E&E story ‘Colo. steps back from crafting formal plan for EPA rule’ might give readers pause, thinking that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was backing off its previous statement to proceed with “prudent” Clean Power Plan development even as a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court was in effect (paywall):
Colorado officials said yesterday they believe it is “prudent” for the state to keep working toward power plant carbon emissions reductions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling to freeze a key federal climate change regulation.
But the state’s original path toward meeting U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan goals will be recharted, officials declared at Colorado’s first public meeting about the regulation since the court stay.
“We don’t think it is appropriate at this point to continue drafting a full state plan,” said Chris Colclasure of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Air Pollution Control Division. “There’s just too much uncertainty for that.”
Colclasure said the decision to stop work on developing a full compliance plan is part of an effort in smart time management.
“We want to take any steps that we can to put Colorado in the best position given the uncertainty so that when the Supreme Court gives us a ruling, we have used that time effectively,” he said.
The state is “trying to identify actions that we can take that will have benefits regardless of the outcome of the litigation,” Colclasure said, adding that “we don’t want to waste time, either, by having people work on activities that wind up being irrelevant.”
This would include whether to cancel, reschedule, or rework meetings already on the CDPHE agenda for this spring.
A generous reading would see CDPHE’s declarations as a revision or walk-back of its post stay bravado to carry on with CPP preparation at the state level. But there might be no walk-back, but some verbal gymnastics designed to throw off possible legislative action this session or to see other reasons (not just “we should do something anyway because it’s a good thing”) like the state’s own impending 2020 renewable energy standards or Governor John Hickenlooper’s 2015 Colorado Climate Plan.
Meanwhile, at least 17 other states’ governors have signed a bipartisan pledge to promote a “new energy future” as CPP litigation continues.
An amicus brief filed by 34 Senators and 171 Representatives supporting the CPP lawsuit:
WASHINGTON – Led by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), 34 Senators and 171 House Members filed an amicus brief today in the case of State of West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
The amicus brief is in support of petitions filed by 27 states seeking to overturn the EPA final rule identified as the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015), also known as the “Clean Power Plan.” A copy of the brief can be found here.
As Senators and Representatives duly elected to serve in the Congress of the United States in which “all legislative Powers” granted by the Constitution are vested, the members state that:
The Final Rule goes well beyond the clear statutory directive by, among other things, requiring States to submit, for approval, state or regional energy plans to meet EPA’s predetermined CO2 mandates for their electricity sector. In reality, if Congress desired to give EPA sweeping authority to transform the nation’s electricity sector, Congress would have provided for that unprecedented power in detailed legislation. Indeed, when an agency seeks to make “decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance’” under a “long-extant statute,” it must point to a “clear” statement from Congress. Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160, 529 U. S. Ct. 1291, 1315 (2000)). EPA can point to no statement of congressional authorization for the Final Rule’s central features, precisely because there is none.
Gov. Hickenlooper defended his views about the CPP on CPR: ignoring SCOTUS stay to do a Colorado approach–more wind, more solar–”I think we do have a responsibility to go to those communities and see what we can do to try and find new businesses or be able to retrain some of the miners so that that community doesn’t suffer so much economically.”
“We really can have inexpensive electrical generation and clean air at the same time,” said Hickenlooper.
That “responsibility” Hickenlooper outlined will be tested, as coal communities see economic upheaval already:
The downward slide continued for Colorado’s coal industry in 2015, highlighted by production at Routt County’s Twentymile Mine, which was down 38 percent.
Statewide, production in Colorado was down 18.5 percent, with 18.7 million tons, the lowest amount of coal mined in 23 years.
In Moffat County, production at the Trapper Mine was actually up nine percent, with 2.1 million tons. At Colowyo Mine, production was down six percent at 2.3 million tons.
Colorado Mining Association President Stuart Sanderson said the drop in production is a result of lower demand, but it was not caused by natural market forces.
“What we are seeing is the direct result of government regulations that are designed to drive coal out of the energy mix,” Sanderson said.
Sanderson pointed to the 2010 Clean Air Clean Jobs fuel-switching bill from coal to natural gas.
“Moving forward, there is no question that the companies are suffering from this absurd action by the government to put hardworking men and women out of work,” Sanderson said.
In other words, mining communities aren’t just suffering economically, they’re suffering governmentally.
At the “Lifting the Oil Export Ban” event, Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter indicated support for a 5-10 cent gas tax hike as an “investment”–as he “comes from a construction family” (51:00 mark):
The Gold King Mine spill prompted by the Environmental Protection Agency still has lingering effects in Navajo Nation areas south of Colorado:
Millions of gallons of contamination from heavy metals flowed from the Animas River in Colorado into the San Juan River in New Mexico, threatening their economy and their spiritual way of life.
Joe Ben Jr. is a farmer and representative to the Navajo Nation board. He walked with CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger through corn stalks in a field.
“This corn should normally be higher than 6 feet, it’s about 4 feet,” Ben said.
With sadness he told of how they shut off the irrigation water when they heard the toxic plume was coming and still haven’t turned it back on. Some 550 indigenous Navajo farmers in the region have felt the impact. Ben says farming is an art in their culture for those who live off the land.
Among them is Earl Yazzie and his family. He can only bundle up what remains of what might have been a bountiful harvest. The mine spill took a toll on his farm. He estimates the loss at $10,000.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked–“What if a business did this?”:
If this were a private business, EPA would never have accepted this answer. It would have decried such behavior as “cutting corners” and rushing ahead with little regard to safety and the environment. Fines would’ve been issued.
Just like when EPA fined an oil exploration company $30,500 only a few days before the Gold King Mine spill for leaking 500 gallons of well testing fluids on Alaska’s North Slope. EPA allowed 6,000 times that amount of material to pour into a river. Will EPA (i.e. taxpayers) fork over $183 million in fines?
Last year, Administrator Gina McCarthy said EPA will be held accountable for the spill:
“We are going to be fully accountable for this in a transparent way,” she said at a press conference. “The EPA takes full responsibility for this incident. No agency could be more upset.”
When asked if the EPA will investigate itself as vigorously as it would a private company, McCarthy said, “We will hold ourselves to a higher standard than anybody else.”
On the transparency front, EPA is lacking. As noted above, Griswold’s email about water pressure concerns wasn’t included in EPA’s December 2015 report. Also, committee members are subpoenaing the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers for more documents about the spill, because they don’t think the agencies have been forthcoming.
As for holding itself to a higher standard, that’s yet to be seen six months after the spill.
A House committee is seeking Interior Department documents in the Gold King Mine incident and the subsequent post-spill investigation:
Sally Jewell was ordered Wednesday by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources to produce a long list of records and correspondences by the end of next week.
Specifically, the committee wants information about how investigators under Jewell worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to peer review the report.
The committee’s chair, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the Department of Interior has interfered with his requests for information on how the Gold King Mine report was compiled.
Bishop says the DOI has tried to block records showing the Army Corps of Engineers had “serious reservations about the scope and veracity” of the interior department’s review.
Army Corps records were also subpoenaed Wednesday.
Meanwhile, CDPHE sees the Gold King Mine spill as the impetus for action on other mines around the state:
SILVERTON —Of the 230 inactive mines the state recognized six months ago as causing the worst damage to Colorado waterways, state officials say 148 have not been fully evaluated.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has cobbled together $300,000 for an “inventory initiative” to round up records and set priorities. The agency is enlisting help from the Colorado Geological Survey at the Colorado School of Mines.
Colorado officials hope attention on the Animas River after the EPA-triggered spill at the Gold King Mine in August will spur action at scores of other inactive mines contaminating waterways. After the disaster, the state identified the worst 230 leaking mines draining into creeks and rivers.
There are an estimated 23,000 inactive mines in Colorado and 500,000 around the West. State officials estimate mining wastewater causes 89 percent of the harm to thousands of miles of waterways statewide.
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Legal
Join us Tuesday, February 16 at noon as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Independence Institute discuss the latest on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan/111d rule, including the SCOTUS stay issued this week.
Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, and Raymond Gifford, a partner at the law firm Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP and a leading an expert in public utilities law, will provide in-depth analysis of what the Clean Power Plan means for Colorado and discuss the efforts being made across the country to stop this onerous regulation.
Free lunch, RSVP required.
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration’s initiative to limit carbon emissions from power plants, dealing an early and potentially significant blow to a rule that is the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change.
The court, in a brief written order, granted emergency requests by officials of mostly Republican-led states and business groups to delay the regulation while they challenge its legality.
Although the Supreme Court’s order is temporary and isn’t a ruling on the merits, it indicates the court’s conservative majority harbors misgivings about the Obama administration plan. It signals the rules could run into trouble in the courts, which could hamper the administration’s ability to follow through on U.S. commitments in the Paris climate deal.
The court’s action, which divided the justices along ideological lines, came as a surprise to many observers because the court has strict criteria for granting stays. And the Environmental Protection Agency rules, issued last summer, have yet to be evaluated by lower court judges.
The EPA rule is aimed at compelling utilities to shift away from coal-fired power plants, which have been the bedrock of U.S. electricity generation for decades, toward such renewable sources as wind and solar, and to a lesser extent toward natural gas and nuclear power.
Some have said that all that needs to be done is for the administration to change as a result of the 2016 election, but that may not be enough:
The Supreme Court issues stays sparingly, and only when specific criteria are met. Those include a “reasonable probability” that four justices will agree to review the case, and a “fair prospect” that five justices could vote to overturn a lower court ruling.
In addition, the court must find that irreparable harm will result to parties in the case unless the stay is granted, and that public interest is served by granting a stay.
White House officials said they were surprised by the court’s move. “Granting a stay in these circumstances is extraordinary,” one official said.
The ultimate outcome of the case likely won’t be decided until the next president is in office. Should the rule survive in the courts and a Republican be elected president, a GOP administration would face hurdles in abandoning the regulations.
Very few final regulations have ever been repealed by an administration—Republican or Democratic. To repeal a regulation, you have to write, and legally justify, a new regulation explaining why you are getting rid of the earlier one, a process that could take years and would be unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny, experts say.
As we wrote in a previous blog post, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment plans on proceeding with the rule’s implementation, calling its own decision to do so, “prudent”:
It is prudent for Colorado to move forward during the litigation to ensure that the state is not left at a disadvantage if the courts uphold all or part of the Clean Power Plan. Because the Supreme Court did not say whether the stay would change the rule’s compliance deadlines, Colorado could lose valuable time if it delays its work on the state plan and the rule is ultimately upheld.
The legal experts I’ve spoken with have said that the compliance deadlines were part of the stay, and dispute the agency’s interpretation that the state would lose time if it did not proceed with planning.
When the Independence Institute conducted our own poll last August on Colorado and the Clean Power Plan, “Nearly 6 in 10 said the state should wait to comply—not move forward as Governor John Hickenlooper has directed—on drawing up a state implementation plan for the Clean Power Plan.”
The new timetable for the Clean Power Plan and any legal proceedings should push well into 2017 and even early 2018.
The Attorney General’s office said Cynthia Coffman would not pursue intervention at the state level (DBJ article, paywall).
The EPA, like CDPHE, plans to push forward at the state level, offering guidance:
The EPA immediately issued a statement pledging to support states that wish to continue developing compliance plans.
“We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action,” the EPA said. “Millions of people are demanding we confront the risks posed by climate change. And we will do just that. We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution.”
Legal experts began weighing in on the SCOTUS stay, saying the EPA’s own attitudes and statements regarding previous rulemaking legal challenges may have pushed the Court to take this action:
This Court’s decision last Term in Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015), starkly illustrates the need for a stay in this case. The day after this Court ruled in Michigan that EPA had violated the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) in enacting its rule regulating fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, EPA boasted in an official blog post that the Court’s decision was effectively a nullity. Because the rule had not been stayed during the years of litigation, EPA assured its supporters that “the majority of power plants are already in compliance or well on their way to compliance.” Then, in reliance on EPA’s representation that most power plants had already fully complied, the D.C. Circuit responded to this Court’s remand by declining to vacate the rule that this Court had declared unlawful. […] In short, EPA extracted “nearly $10 billion a year” in compliance from power plants before this Court could even review the rule […] and then successfully used that unlawfully-mandated compliance to keep the rule in place even after this Court declared that the agency had violated the law.
Reaction from the Colorado Senate Republicans was swift:
Senate President Bill L. Cadman said he believes Gov. Hickenlooper should respect the Court’s ruling by instructing the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to suspend all CPP implementation activities.
“In granting the stay on the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, the US Supreme Court said there is a likelihood that the 27 states now suing the EPA will prevail in court and that allowing EPA to proceed without a stay would do irreparable harm to the states,” said Cadman. “That being the case, Colorado should follow the federal court ruling and suspend all CPP implementation.”
Senator John Cooke (R-Weld County) called the stay “a great victory for Colorado ratepayers and the rule of law. This US Supreme Court decision should send a strong message to the Governor not to force Colorado working families into an expensive, likely unconstitutional EPA plan that will cost Coloradans thousands of jobs.”
Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) said he is very surprised by the White House and CDPHE statements defying the Supreme Court ruling. “Today the CDPHE said it is ignoring the stay and proceeding to implement the CPP. That is unacceptable, and Governor Hickenlooper needs to explain why his administration is not complying with the federal court order,” said Sonnenberg.
Republicans also offered praise for Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s participation in the 27-state court challenge, which has drawn fire from Gov. Hickenlooper.
“We owe a big ‘thank you’ to Attorney General Cynthia Coffman for challenging the plan in federal court,” said Cooke. “This victory illustrates the value of having an attorney general who can act independently from the governor when the public interest demands it.”
As a reminder, the Heritage Foundation’s Nic Loris outlines just how much an impact the Clean Power Plan would have on its intended target–climate change:
The plan, which the EPA finalized in October 2015, requires most states to meet individual carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for existing power plants by 2022 and again in 2030. States are to submit plans about how they would comply with the regulations by September but could ask for two-year extensions. As Politico reports, “[l]awsuits over the rule are expected to continue into 2017 at the earliest, with the Supreme Court widely expected to be the final arbiter of the regulation.”
To be clear, the Clean Power Plan has nothing to do with regulating pollutants that have adverse impacts on human health. Instead, it focuses strictly on attempting to combat global warming. Attempting is the operative word.
Even if you accept the administration’s premise that climate change is an urgent threat (which is questionable), the regulation would have almost no effect on global warming. If the states implemented the regulations flawlessly, a near impossibility, the Clean Power Plan would avert a mere 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100.
As we say frequently on this blog, there will definitely be more to come!
January 20 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Billionaire Steyer plays CO politics; NM files intent to sue EPA over mine spill
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Legislation, New Energy Economy, PUC, solar energy, wind energy
Independence Institute associate energy policy analyst Simon Lomax has the latest on green billionaire Tom Steyer’s efforts to tilt the legislative balance in Colorado in 2016:
San Francisco billionaire activist Tom Steyer is getting more deeply involved in Colorado politics than ever before. After spending more than $350,000 on research and polling in the Centennial State last year, two groups aligned with Steyer are now funding political attacks on State Senator Laura Woods (R). Republicans control the Colorado State Senate by a single vote, so unseating Woods could return control of the state legislature to Democrats and reinstate one-party rule under Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) until early 2019 at least.
Read all of his latest piece here.
Our neighbors to the south, New Mexico, has filed an intent to sue notice over the Animas River/Gold King Mine spill last year triggered by the Environmental Protection Agency:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – New Mexico plans to sue the federal government and the owners of two Colorado mines that were the source of a massive spill last year that contaminated rivers in three Western states, officials said Thursday.
The New Mexico Environment Department said it filed a notice of its intention to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the spill, becoming the first to do so. The lawsuit also would target the state of Colorado and the owners of the Gold King and Sunnyside Mines.
The New Mexico regulators said they will sue if the EPA does not begin to take meaningful measures to clean up the affected areas and agree to a long-term plan that will research and monitor the effects of the spill.
“From the very beginning, the EPA failed to hold itself accountable in the same way that it would a private business,” said Ryan Flynn, state Environment Department cabinet secretary.
While the Navajo Nation is considering its options for legal action, the state of Colorado’s Attorney General had no comment at this time.
Drilling on the Western Slope dropped in 2015:
Garfield County last year held onto the No. 2 spot statewide in terms of oil and gas drilling activity, despite the lowest level of activity since the 1990s.
Mesa County bucked the statewide trend in 2015, however, seeing a sharp increase in drilling and ranking third among Colorado counties.
Falling oil and gas prices resulted in drilling beginning on just 1,437 wells statewide last year, down from 2,239 the prior year, according to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission data. Much of the decrease occurred in Weld County as companies slowed oil drilling there thanks to falling prices. But the county still continued to see the bulk of activity last year, with drilling begun on 1,084 wells.
Garfield County had just 173 well starts last year, down from 362 in 2014. The last time the county saw less drilling, with 94 well starts, it wasn’t Jeb Bush but his brother, George, who was harboring presidential aspirations, in the year 1999.
Lower commodity prices have given Coloradans a bit of temporary relief, offsetting the region’s cost of living increases:
Two conflicting consumer price trends are pushing around the Denver area’s cost of living like a rag doll.
A new federal report Wednesday says that the cost of shelter in the Denver, Boulder and Greeley area jumped 5.8 percent in the second half of 2015 from a year earlier.
And yet, over the same period, energy costs fell 19 percent.
The result: a 1.4 percent year-over-year rise in the area’s overall consumer prices, the cost of a basket of typical goods and services, according to the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Kansas City office.
Shelter costs outweigh energy costs for most consumers, so shelter plays a bigger role in driving overall consumer prices.
The problem is that commodity prices fluctuate (due to market forces but also to environmental factors like government policies), and this small, offsetting bump for Colorado electricity ratepayers will provide only temporary relief. According to the Denver Business Journal, gasoline is down nearly 26 percent in 2015, with natural gas down nearly 19 percent. Household electricity was off 2.9 percent
On the other hand, gasoline cost 25.9 percent less in late 2015 than it did a year earlier, BLS said, while household natural gas cost 18.9 percent less and household electricity was down 2.9 percent. That’s hardly a dent in the 63 percent increase in residential electricity costs measured through 2014.
Job counters will see in a few years if the solar industry’s employment numbers are real (this time, and not an ephemeral mirage like so many other “green jobs”) and not temporary construction jobs and inferred “indirect jobs,” but for now they admit what is giving the solar folks a bump:
A few key developments are driving the job surge in solar.
Businesses and homeowners are eligible for a 30% tax credit if they install solar panels on their property. That’s been in place since 2006 but in December Congress renewed the tax credit for another six years. That lowers installation costs considerably.
The climate change agreement in Paris and the global action plan to limit global warming is also a positive for the clean energy industry.
And the Environmental Protection Agency released plans last year to force states to lower their carbon output.
Not much in the way of actual demand from consumers without government force (EPA’s Clean Power Plan) or government incentive (tax credit), or public pressure (Paris).
The article notes that lower commodity prices for oil and gasoline, and natural gas, are giving solar a “headwind.” Free market effects will do that.
Despite all the supply-side incentives (tax credits, subsidies, and mandates) and the demand-side disincentives (killing coal through the Clean Power Plan) the Energy Information Administration reports that solar was at 4.4 percent of all renewables in 2014 (last full year of data available), and a mere 0.4 percent of total U.S. energy consumption that year.
December 30 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: the anti-fracking force awakens; EPA receives a lump of coal in its budgetary stocking; pot is not green
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing, Legislation, regulations, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy
As promised, the anti-energy, anti-fracking folks have delivered nearly a dozen ballot initiatives that focus on either banning hydraulic fracturing altogether or a host of other setback measures.
The group has cleverly dubbed themselves Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development, or CREED, likely to inspire confusion among voters who might be only familiar with Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, or CRED:
Each of the constitutional amendments would need signatures from 98,492 registered Colorado voters to get on November’s ballot.
A review-and-comment hearing on the language of the ballot questions is set for at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 5 in Room 109 at the Capitol.
“If the state will not adequately protect Coloradans and communities, then we, the people of Colorado, must do it, and that requires a change to Colorado law,” Tricia Olson, CREED’s executive director, said in a statement.
“Our beautiful state should not be overwhelmed by wells, pads and other industrial oil and gas operations plunked down next to neighborhoods and schools.”
As the Post points out, these measures would toss the efforts of Governor John Hickenlooper’s grand pragmatic strategy to develop and cultivate the blue ribbon commission that existed in 2014-15, narrowly averting a previous slate of anti-fracking measures brought forward in 2014 that Democrats feared would threaten the midterm election that cycle.
But the supporters of the 2014 measures felt that Hickenlooper’s attempts to find “balance”–his words–on fracking in Colorado did not go far enough, and felt betrayed when the measures were pulled. Continued efforts on this issue could once again upset a delicate situation for Democrats in the state split between development and anti-energy, more left-leaning Democrats.
The Independence Institute will be tracking these measures throughout the year in 2016, and will provide regular updates on ballot specifics, tracking ballot measure progress, and weighing in when and where appropriate.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Christmas stockings weren’t as full this year as they would have liked, instead getting a lump or two of coal, so to speak:
The EPA received $8.1 billion or $451 million less than Mr. Obama had demanded, and no increase from the year before. Congress has cut the EPA’s allowance by $2.1 billion, or 21%, since fiscal 2010. This has forced the EPA to cut more than 2,000 full-time employees over the same period, and its manpower is now at the lowest level since 1989 (see nearby chart).
Mr. Obama sought an additional $72.1 million to turbocharge his extralegal climate rule on power plants. That request included $8.3 million for the EPA’s science and technology groups, which do the phony modeling to justify regulations. It also included $68.3 million for the agency’s environmental programs and management department, which is where the minions draft and implement the President’s climate initiatives. Congress denied every penny.
Two thousand fewer EPA officials to harass the American public with onerous regulations? Sounds like a good start (from the WSJ):
There will be plenty of energy battles in 2016, from the Clean Power Plan’s effect on rising electricity costs to anti-fracking ballot measures and beyond. The Independence Institute has already revealed that residential electricity rates in Colorado have skyrocketed 63% between 2001 and 2014, before the CPP or other measures even kick in at the state level.
But this nugget, from July 2015, illustrates just how much the impact of rising electricity costs disproportionately targets those least able to afford it:
Average households pay 2 percent to 3 percent for energy, compared with low-income households, which often pay as much as 50 percent.
“That leaves very little for food, clothing, medicine,” said Pat Boland, Xcel’s manager of customer policy and assistance.
The next time someone advocates for higher energy costs through regulation or burdensome energy mandates, remind them who really takes a hit in the pocketbook.
Speaking of folks who like higher energy costs:
A coalition of environmental groups announced earlier this week its intent to take legal action against several federal agencies for extending operations at the Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine just outside Farmington.
On Dec. 21, San Juan Citizen Alliance, among other regional and national conservation groups, filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others over a July decision to allow the plant to operate until 2041.
“While the rest of the world is transitioning to alternative forms of energy, the Four Corners Power Plant continues to burn coal and will do so for the next 25 years,” Colleen Cooley with Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment said in a news release. “Prolonging coal not only condemns our health and the water, air, and land around us, it undermines our community’s economic future because we are not investing and transitioning to clean energy.”
On the other hand, lawsuits to protect Coloradans from rogue agency actions, like the EPA spill in August, could be on tap in 2016:
DENVER – State legislation has been drafted in an effort to pressure the federal government into quickly settling damage claims stemming from the Gold King Mine spill.
Rep. Don Coram, R-Montrose, said he will carry the bill at the start of the legislative session, which begins next month.
The bill would allow the state to file lawsuits against the federal government on behalf of individuals financially impacted by the Gold King Mine spill.
“It’s authorizing the state of Colorado to sue the EPA in case they renege on their obligation,” Coram said.
He added, “The idea behind the bill is that it encourages them to settle this in a gentlemanly manner.”
It’s not every day that pot and energy end up jointly in the same article, but this revelation may be a real eye opener for a lot of folks, some who steadfastly approve of pot legalization but prefer more renewable forms of energy:
DENVER – Pot’s not green.
The $3.5 billion U.S. cannabis market is emerging as one of the nation’s most power-hungry industries, with the 24-hour demands of thousands of indoor growing sites taxing aging electricity grids and unraveling hard-earned gains in energy conservation.
Without design standards or efficient equipment, the facilities in the 23 states where marijuana is legal are responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions almost equal to those of every car, home and business in New Hampshire. While reams of regulations cover everything from tracking individual plants to package labeling to advertising, they lack requirements to reduce energy waste.
Some operations have blown out transformers, resulting in fires. Others rely on pollution-belching diesel generators to avoid hooking into the grid. And demand could intensify in 2017 if advocates succeed in legalizing the drug for recreational use in several states, including California and Nevada. State regulators are grappling with how to address the growth, said Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Pam Witmer.
“We are at the edge of this,” Witmer said. “We are looking all across the country for examples and best practices.”
Light ‘em if you got ‘em. It’s legal here, ya know.
Looking into the future of Colorado’s oil boom, thanks to the end of the U.S. oil export ban–but only time will tell.
Filed under: Environmental Protection Agency, regulations, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy
Or so it would seem based on a photo taken this past Monday at the Environmental Protection Agency’s hearing on the federal implementation and model trading rules portions of the Clean Power Plan:
Independence Institute’s Mike Krause analyzes how even the mere appearance of preferential treatment really calls into question the impartiality of the agency when it comes to hearings on a finalized rule that endangers coal-fired energy use, by putting an organization whose stated goals are to move “Beyond Coal” and whose Rocky Mountain chapter wants to move Colorado to 100% renewable energy, starting with Denver:
November 12 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Colorado hit hard by CPP; Bennet defends pro-Keystone stance; CSU report rejects “sky-is-falling” contamination claims
Filed under: Archive, CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing, Legislation, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, New Energy Economy, regulations
Colorado would be the 18th hardest hit state, and fourth most expensive for the cost of carbon reduction under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, according to a new report from Fitch Ratings:
Wide-ranging voices—in politics; in business; consumer advocates like our coalition—have been warning of the potentially crippling costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s soon-to-be-implemented Clean Power Plan. Its ripple effects will be felt nationwide, and Colorado is by all indications squarely in harm’s way.
As we have contended for some time now, the proposed federal mandate for air standards will impact every type of consumer—residential, small business, agricultural and industrial—in every community in Colorado. That includes consumers served by public utilities, municipal providers and rural cooperatives. And the changes to Colorado’s statewide power generation contemplated by the EPA’s mandates may ultimately cost many billions of dollars.
Rather than heed or, at least, consider some of these urgent concerns, however, defenders of the oncoming Juggernaut have sought in many cases to dismiss the criticism as coming from interests that are supposedly too close to the debate. Stakeholders involved in energy development of fossil fuels, for example, or power generation, are accused of having a vested interest and thus, presumably, are less than objective. Fairly or not, policy debates often turn on such considerations.
Well, now, another authoritative voice has entered the fray, and this time it is one without a discernible horse in the race. It is the voice of a truly neutral arbiter—one of the financial world’s “big three” credit-rating agencies—and it is sounding the alarm on the Clean Power Plan.
Fitch Ratings’ new report, “The Carbon Effect 2.0,” released just weeks ago, raises troubling concerns about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the financial stability of the nation’s electric utilities. More troubling still, in the report’s state-by-state assessment, Colorado is among those facing the most formidable challenges, and potentially steepest costs, in complying with the Draconian EPA rules.
Governor John Hickenlooper continues to maintain his position that Attorney General Cynthia Coffman should defer to the governor on the matter of the AG’s lawsuit over the Clean Power Plan:
On his petition to the state Supreme Court to review Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s authority to sue over the federal Clean Power Plan:
“I think the way the system’s meant, was designed, is that the governor and the attorney general should be consulting together on legal issues facing the state. But ultimately, the attorney general needs a client, and I think the governor was intended to be that voice, to speak for the agencies, the departments, to speak for the people. And I think if the attorney general and the governor don’t agree, my reading and [that of] the lawyers in our office is that this was intended ultimately to be the governor’s decision.”
Hickenlooper filed the petition to the Colorado Supreme Court last week.
The eco-inquisition is here, and the practice of selling environmental indulgences won’t be far behind:
Executives at publicly traded companies like Exxon Mobil may soon be talking more about climate change. Financial regulators are taking a closer look at how these companies disclose the impacts of climate change.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said Monday that Peabody Energy didn’t tell its investors all the financial risks from climate change and potential regulation. Peabody Energy, which owns a mine in Colorado, admits no wrongdoing, but it says it will now make disclosures that accurately and objectively represent climate impacts.
Methane regulations touted as saving money for companies, say regulators and companies hired to find methane leaks:
“What that means to the industry is substantial lost revenues,” he said.
He estimated that loss at about $1.2 billion a year even at today’s low natural gas prices.
Methane also is a potent greenhouse gas, and typically leaks in combination with volatile organic compounds and other pollutants. With that in mind, Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission last year passed what’s known as Regulation 7, imposing the nation’s first rules specifically targeting methane emissions by the industry. Now the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management are considering rules targeting methane at the national level.
“Colorado … is the leader in the country on this issue by passing and enacting Regulation 7. We’re paying real close attention to how that’s going because there are several rulemakings on the federal level,” Von Bargen said.
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet defended his pro-Keystone XL stance even as his party’s leader, President Barack Obama, went the other way on the project last week:
Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet stood behind his vote earlier this year in favor of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline after the Obama administration rejected it on Friday after seven years of study and contentious debate.
“For years, the Keystone XL pipeline has been overhyped on both sides of the debate,” Bennet said in a statement to The Colorado Statesman. “The number of jobs it would create and the amount of carbon emissions it would facilitate have both been exaggerated.”
The proposed 1,200-mile pipeline would have transported 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska and ultimately on to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Bennet voted for a Senate bill approving the project in January.
“Based on scientific analyses that showed building Keystone XL would have little or no bearing on whether our nation will materially address climate change, I voted to move forward with the pipeline,” Bennet added. “The president vetoed the bill that Congress passed and has now administratively rejected the project. This is an issue on which the president and I disagree.”
A new CSU report concludes that, contrary to the popular line put forward by anti-fracking activists and other environmentalists, water-based contaminants from the fossil fuel industry aren’t seeping into wells in northern Colorado:
A new Colorado State University report says there is no evidence water-based contaminants are seeping into drinking-water wells over a vast oil and gas field in northeast Colorado.
A series of studies, led by CSU civil and environmental engineer professor Ken Carlson, analyzed the impact of oil and gas drilling on groundwater in the 6,700-square-mile Denver-Julesburg Basin, which extends between Greeley and Colorado Springs and between Limon and the foothills.
The studies were done under the auspices of the Colorado Water Watch, a state-funded effort started last year for real-time groundwater monitoring in the DJ Basin. The basin shares space with more than 30,000 active or abandoned oil and natural gas wells, say CSU researchers.
They primarily looked at the 24,000 producing and 7,500 abandoned wells in the Wattenberg Field, which sits mainly in Weld County.
“We feel that our results add to our database of knowledge,” Carlson said. “There isn’t a chronic, the-sky-is-falling type of problem with water contamination.”
Methane contamination was found in a small percentage of older wells, but according to the story, “it’s not toxic and isn’t a huge factor in terms of drinking-water safety.”
Many of the most well-known National Parks in the western United States would violate the new 70 ppb ozone regulation finalized last month, with the most egregious violator located along the Colorado-Utah border:
But national parks are among the worst offenders, with one maintaining levels of more than 100 ppb.
The 26 offenders are mainly in the West, with only a handful in the East, where coal-fired power plants dot the landscape.
The biggest violator is Dinosaur National Monument, home to 1,500 dinosaur fossils and a popular white-water rafting destination on the Colorado-Utah border. Its ozone level is 114 ppb. The runner-up at 90 ppb is the 631-square-mile Sequoia National Park in Northern California, a pristine forest boasting 3,200-year-old trees that are among the tallest in the world.
The Grand Canyon? It barely squeaks by at 69 ppb.
In all, 11 states have national parks that are in non-compliance with the new ozone standard: Arizona, 3; California, 9; Colorado, 2; Connecticut, 3; Illinois, 1; Maine, 1; Massachusetts, 1; Nevada, 1; New Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 1; and Utah, 2. Ozone levels are calculated over a three-year period.
The Grand Canyon narrowly missed violating the rule when the EPA went with the 70 ppb level instead of the lower end of the 65-70 range suggested in earlier drafts of the rule.