Colorado

bak 320

DEM AG WEISER

YT 12 25

---

an 12 25

On Thursday, President Donald Trump claimed to have pardoned an ally serving a prison sentence related to his efforts to contest the 2020 election results, in a move Colorado Democrats called "meaningless" due to his lack of authority. Now, her lawyer has backed the use of military forces to help get his client out of prison, per a report from The Independent.

Tina Peters, 70, is a former Colorado election official currently serving out a 9-year prison sentence on state-level charges, having been convicted by a Mesa County jury in August 2024. Peters was found guilty of facilitating a security breach after she let prominent election denier and MyPillow salesman, Mike Lindell, enter a secure room and download data containing Colorado's 2020 election results, as part of his effort to find evidence of fraud and contest Joe Biden's defeat of Trump.

Following a series of federal pardons and dropped cases, Peters is now the only person serving prison time for actions related to Trump's denial of the 2020 election results. Despite Trump claiming to have pardoned her this week, the president is only capable of commuting federal charges, and Colorado officials have dismissed the possibility of releasing Peters from custody at his command. Appearing on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, her lawyer, Peter Ticktin, agreed with Bannon's assertion that Trump should dispatch the 101st Airborne Division to free Peters from prison.

“Do I think it should be done? For who I am, yeah – I’d love to see that happen," Ticktin said.

Ticktin had previously issued pleas for Trump to pardon his client, despite the president lacking the necessary authority. In response to the earlier pleas, Phil Weiser, the Democratic Attorney General for Colorado, said any attempt by Trump to pardon Peters “will not hold up.”

“One of the most basic principles of our constitution is that states have independent sovereignty and manage our own criminal justice systems without interference from the federal government,” Weiser said.

Shad Murib, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, also said that Trump “has no legal authority” to facilitate Peters' release from prison, and called the notion of a pardon from him "meaningless."

“We’re not surprised by President Trump shouting into the wind and issuing a meaningless pardon for his friend and fellow election denier Tina Peters,” Murib said.

Though some state governors lack complete pardon powers for state-level charges, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, does have complete pardon power, and has not indicated that he has any intention to pardon Peters.

---

5/20

desmog

Colorado is moving ahead with a plan to get nearly 1 million electric vehicles (EV) on its roads by 2030 and, for the first time, has adopted a long-term goal of transitioning to 100 percent electric and zero-emission vehicles.

... >Colorado Communities Ask Judge to Send Their Climate Claims against Exxon and Suncor to Trial

The city of Boulder and two other Colorado communities have asked a state court to let a jury decide the outcome of their climate damages cl

Colorado Judge Orders Denver to Stop Enforcing Ban Against Camping

new Study Projects Severe Water Shortages in the Colorado River Basin

:{BY: BOB BERWYN

The loss of the reflective snowpack drives evaporation and reduces the flow of water, the study found. Read More}:

colo front line in fracking fight 2018 Jared Polis GOV (jewish, gay, progressive)

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122019/colorado-fracking-threat-sustainable-agriculture-industry-paonia-north-fork-valley

Driving down Highway 133 from the craggy wilds of the West Elk Mountains in central Colorado, one of the first signs of civilization is a mile-long coal train on a siding, along with the rusting steel framework of a canyon-spanning loading station that still dumps the black rock into trains at the rate of 50 cars per hour.

This nearly relict fossil fuel infrastructure is an improbable gateway to the orchards and vineyards of North Fork Valley. The few miles between the mine and Paonia mark a transition from the fossil fuel era into an uncertain post-carbon age, defined by climate change.

In Paonia, the air around Big B's fruit stand is scented sweet-sour from the harvest of ripe apples. There are four types of cider on tap and nearly all the food on the menu is grown within a few miles of the local gathering spot.

The Mountain Harvest Festival is underway, and the place is buzzing, as community catalyzer Pete Kolbenschlag starts explaining how Paonia is building a sustainable future.

About eight years ago, the federal government proposed major oil and gas drilling in the North Fork Valley, and the plan roared to life this past summer, just as the organic food industry was really starting to take off. New drilling would take up land and threaten to bring more air pollution and potentially groundwater contamination that could put organic crops in jeopardy, while also contributing to climate change.This community once relied heavily on coal mining jobs. Now it is developing a path toward a sustainable local economy based partly on organic agriculture and local renewable energy. It also must find ways to navigate challenges like global warming—and the growing threat of new fossil fuel development.

That's not a mix that can work, said Kolbenschlag, who's been working on community sustainability in the North Fork Valley for 20 years.

Many proposed drilling areas are right next to organic farms or ranches, and even directly on top of community drinking water springs, according to the Western Environmental Law Center, which is supporting the community's legal challenges to fracking. Leaks from drilling could threaten local and regional water supplies. Industrial emissions and dust from increased traffic could taint fruits and vegetables, and energy infrastructure could harm wildlife habitat and diminish the area's tourism appeal, along with the direct climate-harming impacts of more fossil fuel development.

"Leases were proposed in a ring around my house for 2 miles in every direction," Kolbenschlag said. "We were able to stop that lease sale twice because the underlying land plan was outdated. There's millions of dollars of agriculture on the line, even in a small area like this."

...

1019

A key GOP senator in Colorado is facing increasingly steep odds of keeping his seat

cory g? impeach pressure?

desmog 719

In recent years, the majority of Coloradans have been struggling to breathe clean air, and tailpipe emissions carry much of the blame. Lawmakers have started to take on this threat with a number of clean car standards and incentives coming out of the Governor's office and the state legislature. However, a newly formed coalition of car dealers, the oil and gas industry, and free market advocates are working to put the brakes on clean air policies in Colorado, and they're using a disinformation playbook often used by organizations in the Koch network.

Launched in March, the Freedom to Drive Coalition has fought against Colorado’s adoption of low emission vehicle standards (which the state’s Air Quality Control Commission approved in a unanimous 9-0 vote) and is now battling a complementary effort to adopt zero emission vehicle (ZEV, or electric car) standards that would greatly reduce tailpipe emissions. ... >March For Our Lives, the gun violence prevention movement, called for an end to #GenerationLockdown following the latest school shooting.

Two suspects opened fire at the Denver-area STEM School Highlands Ranch Tuesday. Kendrick Castillo, 18, died. He was just days away from graduation. Eight others were injured. >March For Our Lives, which was formed in the wake of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting last year, demanded an end to such violent acts. The group said people must not to “grow numb” to the tragedies and urged political leadership tackle the gun violence epidemic.

The group made the calls in a Twitter thread that included video from local Denver7 News of young STEM students boarding a bus outside the school....

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/colorado-sheriffs-say-theyll-go-to-jail-rather-than-enforce-controversial-red-flag-gun-control-law/

Colorado Governor Jared Polissigned a controversial new gun control bill into law on Friday. You might first remember Polis because the recently elected governor is both the first openly gay governor and first Jewish governor in the state. But this new measure, sometimes known as a “red flag” law, didn’t come easily, and in fact, came after about two months of legislative hearings and debates.

We’ll break it down in more detail below, but the basic idea is that this law, effective Jan. 1, 2020, will allow law enforcement, family members, and roommates to appeal for an individual’s firearms to temporarily be removed, for their own protection and general public safety. CNN reports that fourteen other states (plus D.C.) have passed similar legislation. ...On the other hand, however, some progressives also have mixed feelings about the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” take. Why? Statistics show that people with mental illnesses are way more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence.

It’s also important to point out that media coverage and cultural dialogue can vary widely depending on the race or ethnicity of the shooter in question. For example, while a person of color may quickly be described as a terrorist, a white shooter may be described as mentally ill.

Polis, however, isn’t under the impression this law will prevent every shooting. He sees it as a stepping stone in the right direction. “This law will not prevent every shooting, but it can be used in a targeted way to make sure that those who are suffering from a mental health crisis are able to temporarily have a court order in place that helps make sure they don’t harm themselves or others,” Polis said on Friday, as first reported by The Denver Post. “Today we may be saving the life of your nephew, your niece, your grandchild.”

Now for some background specific to Colorado. Two years ago, a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy was killed by a gunman who was, as reported by The Denver Post, “in the middle of a mental health crisis.” This situation in part inspired the bill, which was called the “Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Protection Act.”

Today, roughly half of the counties in the state are calling themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” (Yes, really.) As reported by CNN, sheriffs across the state have declared that they’d rather go to jail than enforce this new legislation. Their argument is they believe it is unconstitutional.

So how does this law function in practice? Family members, as well as law enforcement officials, will have the chance to request a protection order for a person’s firearms to be confiscated. The idea is that if the individual in question is a risk to other people or themselves, a judge can grant this order temporarily, to alleviate risk in the short-term. This temporary protection order could last about two weeks, at which point a judge would decide at a hearing if the protection order should be extended for up to one year.

During this process, the responsibility is basically on the gun-owner to prove they are not a risk.

Again, a lot of Republicans feel that this is an attempt to steal people’s Second Amendment rights. It’s somewhat surprising that this moved along in Colorado; a similar bill was rejected last year in the Senate, for example. The difference here is likely that Democrats have taken control back in the state Senate, and in spite of the controversy, pushed the measure along to Polis.

See also: Why midterms really do matter!!

On a serious note, if you (or someone you know) may be struggling with mental health issues, or just wants some support, please don’t hesitate to reach out to a trusted person and/or mental health professional. Here’s a roundup of free resources you can access right from your home or computer.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15012019/colorado-oil-gas-drilling-supreme-court-ruling-climate-change-public-health

gov polis goes for law change

copies CA CAFE?

big continuing fight on frack local regs:

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/08/oil-gas-drilling-colorado-election-2017/

nov 9 2017

Whether local governments should have more say over oil and gas drilling remained a potent issue this week at the ballot box and at the municipal dais, with multiple Front Range communities grappling with how to handle a surge in drilling permits.

Voters in Broomfield on Tuesday approved by a 57 percent margin giving their government more authority over the industry.

Industry forces said the ballot initiative in Broomfield was not in compliance with state law and was sure to invite costly litigation that taxpayers would have to pay. Even though the courts have ruled that state power to regulate the industry trumps local measures, local residents continue to push local elected officials for action at a time when oil and gas interests also have mobilized themselves politically.

The night before voters went to the polls, the Lafayette City Council passed a six-month moratorium on oil and gas drilling to give time for the city to forge new regulations. Hours after Lafayette acted, industry-backed City Council candidates won elections in Greeley while an engineer who works for Noble Energy, the second-largest driller in the state, narrowly beat back a challenge to a council seat she holds in Thornton.

One night after election night, controversy continued to erupt, this time in Adams County over plans for 26 wells near Silver Creek Elementary School in Thornton. Homeowners near that proposed well site asked Adams County commissioners to block the wells.

“This is a very volatile, salient issue at the moment,” political consultant Eric Sondermann said. “It’s not going away, … and it’s going to be front and center in 2018, and probably indefinitely into the future.”

All the skirmishing is coming in advance of a projected drilling boom across the Front Range that could last as long as 30 years. Many local government officials say they are trying to respond to angry residents who are jamming public meetings and demanding action.

“We’re at a crossroads, I think, as a state,” said Lafayette Mayor Christine Berg. “Who do we want to be? Do we want oil and gas to continue to operate with impunity and continue to develop closer and closer to our neighborhoods and schools? This is a big issue.”

Industry forces have fought back, signaling they probably will take the Broomfield voter initiative and Lafayette moratorium to the courts, where oil and gas interests prevailed in the past. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down efforts by Fort Collins and Longmont to regulate the industry. Lower courts thwarted similar efforts by Boulder and Larimer counties. The courts have said the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — not local governments — has ultimate authority over where operators can drill.

“It is hard to see how Ordinance 43 will do anything other than lead to costly — and avoidable — litigation for Lafayette,” wrote Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council in a letter she sent to the Lafayette City Council before it approved the moratorium. “As you know, Boulder County has already been sued (and lost) this year over its oil and gas moratorium, with legal bills paid for by taxpayers. It defies reason why Lafayette would follow the same path, and with a full understanding that Ordinance 43 is pre-empted by state law.”

Berg said “frustration is at an all-time high” over drilling throughout the Front Range. She said concerns have been enhanced by the fatal house explosion in Firestone in April that was linked to a severed natural gas pipeline. Controversies over drilling are likely to spill over into next year’s open-seat races for governor and attorney general, she predicted.

Berg pointed to a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling from March that said the protection of public health and the environment as “a condition that must be fulfilled” by the state before oil and gas drilling can be done. “That case is an important one,” she said. “We are not afraid of the lawsuits.”

“We’re going to try to ensure we have strongest regulations possible and push for better leadership on this issue at the state level,” Berg said.

Industry forces say it’s not fair to say state officials haven’t acted. They point out that state regulators have adopted methane rules for drillers. Regulators in 2013 also adopted a rule requiring a 500-foot buffer from existing homes statewide for new wells. Oil and gas advocates say leaving regulations up to local governments will crimp an industry they contend supports more than 230,000 jobs in Colorado.

https://theconversation.com/how-weakened-us-fossil-fuel-regulations-threaten-environmental-justice-in-colorado-87161

From the start, President Donald Trump’s administration has made dismantling regulations, especially for the oil, gas and coal industries, a top priority.

And though his claims of rolling back more regulations than any other administration are exaggerated, Trump’s team has tried hard to erase many environmental and energy-related rules.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinkeand Trump have teamed up with the Republican-led Congress to get federal agencies on the case, by streamlining environmental permitting and attempting other sweeping changes.

As an environmental sociologist who has spent hundreds of hours researching communities directly affected by oil and gas production, I find that many people living in these places feel that fossil fuel industries already had the upper hand before Trump took office.

Even among people who support drilling, many believe these industries need to be more regulated. The residents I have interviewed report feeling uncertain and vulnerable. They tell researchers like me they consider themselves powerless to control their surroundings or to protect the environment, their health or their property. Reducing regulations even more will only intensify these problems.

The fracking boom

...

https://www.ecowatch.com/colorado-sues-exxonmobil-2560966559.html

Colorado Communities Sue ExxonMobil and Suncor for Climate Damages

By Elliott Negin

Two Colorado counties and the city of Boulder are suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, Canada's largest oil company, to hold them responsible for climate change-related damage to their communities.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in a state district court by Boulder, Boulder County and San Miguel County, is seeking compensation for damage and adaptation costs resulting from extreme weather events.

New York City and eight coastal California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Oakland, have filed similar lawsuits against ExxonMobil and other oil and gas companies, charging that they have injured their communities under common law. The Colorado suit is the first by an inland county or municipality.

"Climate change is not just about sea level rise. It affects all of us in the middle of the country as well," said Boulder County Commissioner Elise Jones. "In fact, Colorado is one of the fastest warming states in the nation."

Oil Industry Knew About Threat 50 Years Ago

The 1,300-square-mile San Miguel County sits in the southwest corner of the state on the Utah border. About a third of the county's 8,000 residents live in Telluride, a well-known ski resort town. Boulder, 25 miles northwest of Denver, is the county seat of the 740-square-mile Boulder County and home to nearly a third of the county's 319,000 residents. The three communities have been ravaged by costly climate-related extreme weather events, including wildfires and flash floods, according to the 100-page complaint. Likewise, each community has launched initiatives to curb carbon emissions and adapt to a changing climate.

The Colorado communities contend that ExxonMobil and Suncor were aware that their products caused global warming as early as 1968, when a report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the U.S oil and gas industry's premier trade association, warned of the threat burning fossil fuels posed to the climate. Subsequent reports and memos prepared for API and its member companies came to similar conclusions. Regardless, ExxonMobil and Suncor not only continued to produce and market fossil fuel products without disclosing their risks, the complaint charges, they also engaged in a decades-long disinformation campaign to manufacture public doubt and confusion about the reality and seriousness of climate change.

The plaintiffs want the two oil giants to "pay their share of the damage" caused by their "intentional, reckless and negligent conduct." That share could amount to tens of millions, if not billions, of dollars to help cover the cost of more heat waves, wildfires, droughts, intense precipitation, and floods.

Colorado State Representative Lori Saine (R-63) arrived a little later than expected to this week’s American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) States & Nation Policy Summit in Nashville, but she had a great excuse.

Saine was arrested Wednesday at the Denver International Airport for trying to bring a loaded semi-automatic handgun through security.

Saine was charged with a sixth-degree felony. If convicted, she could face up to 18 months in jail and a fine of up to $100,000.

It is unclear why Saine tried to sneak a loaded gun onto a plane. Firearms are only allowed on planes if they are unloaded and properly stored in checked baggage.

ALEC apparently did not find Saine’s actions disturbing, as it went on to award her the Public Sector State Chair of the Year award on Thursday anyway. The award is given to State Chairs to recognize them for their work with ALEC members in promoting ALEC’s extremist agenda.

ALEC and FreedomWorks, a right-wing group instrumental in the Tea Party movement, also awarded Saine the “Legislator of the Week” award in March.

FreedomWorks praised Saine again yesterday on Twitter, “Colorado Representative @lorisaine fights for lower taxes, especially on small businesses. Thank you, Rep. Saine!”

For a number of years, the gun industry’s lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association (NRA), co-chaired ALEC’s Task Force on Public Safety and Elections, which has since been disbanded after public controversy concerning the shooting of Trayvon Martin and ALEC’s backing of radical “stand your ground” laws.

ALEC pushes a wide range of pro-gun bills around the country and opposes of gun safety measures. Currently, ALEC’s executive assistant to CEO Lisa Nelson, Sarah Spaulding, is a former legislative assistant for the NRA, and the corporate pay-to-play group’s public affairs staffer, Ashley Varner, previously worked as an NRA media spokesperson for eight years.

actual voter fraud: Steve Curtis, the former chairman of the Colorado GOP, has been found guilty of voter fraud for forging his ex-wife’s signature on a ballot.

As The Denver Post reports, Curtis may face up to three years in prison for forging his ex-wife’s signature on a Colorado ballot in November 2016 after she’d moved to South Carolina in 2015. He was arrested in February after handwriting analysis and DNA testing revealed he’d committed the forgery.

Curtis pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed that he’d signed his ex-wife Kelly’s ballot during a middle-of-the-night diabetic episode and accidentally mailed it the next day.

As Salon noted earlier this year, Curtis blamed Democrats for forging votes and committing voter fraud on his radio show last year.

colo springs newspaper, got beat

xian anschutz

https://hightowerlowdown.org/article/colorado-springs/

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/11/13173/fracking-special-interests-spent-big-2016-elections

Corporations that profit from fracking funneled millions to PACs for "independent expenditures" in the 2016 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

For example, the fracking giant Devon Energy gave $500,000 to the "Congressional Leadership Fund," a Super PAC "exclusively dedicated to protecting and strengthening the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives." Devon is notorious for helping to bankroll the fight against citizens in Denton, Texas, who won a bid to ban fracking in 2014 . The Denton ban passed with 59% of the vote, but Texas state legislators and members of the American Legislative Exchange Council nullified that local initiative and pre-empted. Devon spent $195,000 in disclosed spending in the local battle and has spent an untold sum to influence the results local and in the state capitol.

Another corporation with a big interest in fracking gave an additional $500,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund. That half million dollar donation came from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson, a manufacturer and distributor of well-stimulation equipment like fracking blenders, fracking pumps, and chemical additive units.

Fracking special interests also gave at least $3.35 million to the "Senate Leadership Fund," a Super PAC with "one goal: to protect and expand the Republican Senate Majority." That sum includes $250,000 from Continental Resources, a self-described "leader" in fracking and a $250,000 check from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson.

The outside spending equivalents that support Democrats--the House Majority PAC and Senate Majority PAC--received no comparable reported donations from the fracking industry.

Fracking companies also gave overwhelmingly to the GOP through corporate PACs that include donations from executives and other employees.

For example, according to Open Secrets, the Devon Energy PAC directly contributed $263,625 this election cycle to 44 federal candidates, 43 of whom were Republican. Continental Resources' PAC gave $118,400 to 31 federal candidates, 27 of whom were Republican. Meanwhile, global oil corporations like ExxonMobil, which now invests significantly in fracking, gave $1,555,000 to candidates, with 90% going to Republicans.

When the 115th Congress convenes in January 2017, fracking interests will be well-positioned toplay with federal legislation after spending so much to help Members of Congress elected. The Republican Party is firmly in the hands of fossil fuel interests including the fracking industry.

(There is no reported figure for how much such corporations spent on groups that are registered as 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations that do not disclose donors and which have grown dramatically since the Citizens United decision. Unlike Super PACs, so-called social welfare organizations like Karl Rove's "One Nation" do not disclose their donors but sometimes play an influential role in the elections. It is not known how much money they may have received from fracking interests but they have received such funding in the past, according to the limited information available.)

Fracking Interests Buy the States

The fracking industry also played big in 2016 in state elections, particularly in states that have shale gas formations and tight oil deposits.

In Pennsylvania, where the bulk of the Marcellus Shale formation lies, fracking interests contributed at least $700,000 this election cycle. Amongst those interests was Chesapeake Energy,a company that spent $111,800 this cycle. Its former CEO, Aubrey McClendon, once wrote a contribution check to then-Governor Corbett that "arguably changed not just the history but also the political direction of the state."

The second largest overall spender in state's 2016 elections was the Senate Republican Campaign Committee of PA. State filings show the committee was financially supported by Consol Energy, Range Resources, Southwestern Energy Company, and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, all of whom are major players in the fracking industry.

In North Dakota, the home of the Bakken Formation, fracking interests like Continental Resourcescontributed roughly $100,000, a significant amount in a small state.

In Texas, a state with colossal shale gas and shale oil reserves, fracking interests contributed $1.22 million, with all the usual suspects writing checks: Devon Energy, Chesapeake, Pioneer Natural Resources, and Exxon.

These numbers are by no means a final tally. There are simply too many campaign spending vehicles to account for, from the "dark money" groups to national organizations like the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) that funnel corporate money into state races.

The RSLC, for example, received at least $200,000 from Devon Energy, $201,000 from Marathon Petroleum, and $150,000 from Noble Energy–all of whom operate fracking wells–yet state campaign finance filings only show the Republican State Leadership Committee's name when the committee makes a disbursement, if the name is mentioned at all.

Fracking Interests Fight Democracy

There is a reason why fracking special interests sometimes hide their election activities: the fracking process is so intrusive and damaging, it is leading to popular revolt through local democratic initiatives by Americans affected by the process.

Communities that have been fracked are torn apart – physically, metaphorically, ideologically–in a process that shakes them to their core.

Although it is particularly salient with fracking, this "popular revolt" phenomenon extends to a host of public policy issues. Repressive workplace conditions, hazardous levels of gun violence, and the unjust deportation of migrant workers have led many municipalities to democratically take action by raising the minimum wage, establishing gun safety measures, and enacting sanctuary city policies.

Local governments can right these wrongs, and can ban invasive and harmful practices like fracking, which is why local democracy is seen by corporate interests as a threat. As CMD has documented, ALEC corporations, including fracking operators, have worked through ALEC and state legislatures to try to supplant local democracy and preempt/prevent cities from regulating corporate activities.

ALEC legislators who are members of the GOP have spearheaded state efforts to preempt local democracy. November 8th's election results will likely worsen the situation. The GOP did not just win Washington D.C. on election night; thanks in part to a deluge of corporate-funded outside spending, the party made gains in statehouses across the country.

As a result, half of all U.S. states will be under Republican trifectas in 2017, with GOP control of governorships and both houses of state legislatures (including the unicameral Nebraska).

For example, in Iowa, a state that just elected a GOP trifecta to office, local bans on fracking sand mining operations could be targeted for preempting by ALEC state lawmakers. The Democrats lost majority control of the state senate in November.

Yet not all legislative bodies are willing to preempt local democracy, which is why, as CMDdocumented, after a flurry of anti-fracking measures nearly missed being placed on the November ballot in Colorado, fossil fuel interests funded Amendment 71, a ballot initiative designed to make it harder for Coloradans to petition their government and amend the state Constitution.

Amendment 71's primary financial support came from the "Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence" PAC, which received $5.38 million from Noble Energy, a fracking operator responsible for 358 oil spills between 2009 and 2011, the most of any oil company operating in the state. It received an additional $6.7 million from Anadarko Petroleum, a fracking company that spent 2016 sending "brand ambassadors" to high schools to speak on the benefits of fracking.

In the end, Amendment 71–a ballot initiative which on its face dealt only with governing process and not energy policy–passed with 55% of the vote after the fracking industry poured millions into the campaign.

Which is why Amendment 71 serves as a perfect symbol of the 2016 elections. As Michael Klare predicted, in order to frack the nation, Big Oil must first buy it.

Klare has detailed what he calls the fossil fuel-funded "third-worldification" of the United States.

Klare warned that the "resource curse" theory, which had been used by academics to describe the political conditions of far-off locales like Nigeria, was coming home to the U.S. with the fracking revolution, and that as a consequence, "the rights and wellbeing of local citizens will be trampled underfoot."

That political transition would not, however, be self-enacting. Klare proposed that to succeed, "Big Oil will have to overcome a host of regulatory and environmental obstacles. It will, in other words, have to use its version of deep-pocket persuasion to convert the United States into the functional equivalent of a Third World petro-state."

The 2016 election was a concrete example of how, as Klare predicted, fracking interests have invested in the state in order to minimize it.

Has American democracy been bought by the frackers? Maybe. At the least, fracking interests appear to be renting it for 2017, and with the prospect of Trump in the White House it remains to be seen what national parks or other resources the regularly bankrupt businessman will seek to sell off to a fracking industry intent on currying favor with him.

Cities can and have taken the lead where federal policy lags. San Diego, California made a trailblazing move shortly after the summit when it passed an ordinance vowing to move to 100 percent renewable energy in 20 years. Portland, Oregon passed a resolution in November that opposes local expansion of any new fossil-fuel storage or transportation projects, andBoulder, Coloradohas been working to dump its investor-owned energy utility and launch a public municipal utilitythat would have an easier time moving away from fossil fuels and towardrenewable sources.

interesting that 2 passed 28th prop at same time, ATI territory? also montana

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_26862751/citizens-united-28th-amendment

jeff c

Colorado voters agree. In 2012, Colorado was one of the first two states to pass ballot initiatives calling to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics. To date, 16 states and nearly 600 cities and municipalities have called for a 28th Amendment to restore the Constitution and prevent the power of concentrated money from undermining the power of 'We the People.'

Opposition

No formal opposition was formed against the measure,according to the Colorado Secretary of State's website.
Blogger Ari Armstrong wrote an article published in the Denver Post that stated, "Oddly, while Amendment 65 asks Congress to impose censorship, it is totally silent as to how, or even whether, Congress must stop with censorship. Voting for Amendment 65 is like handing a random politician your credit card, sending him on a shopping spree, and asking him to buy whatever he thinks you need.^[4]
According to a column by Mike Rosen, radio hostin the state, "The so-called instructions of Amendment 65 couldn't even dictate the behavior of our two U.S. senators, elected statewide. They have minds of their own. As Edmund Burke, a member of the English Parliament, explained to his constituents in Bristol, 'I am your representative, not your delegate.' If you don't like how a legislator votes, vote for someone else next time. In the meantime, he's not a puppet on a string. Amendment 65 won't change anything if it passes, although it would reveal that Coloradans who vote for it don't know much about civics."^[5]

Path to the ballot

In order to qualify the initiative for the 2012 ballot in the state, supporters had to gather 85,853 valid signatures by the August 6, 2012 petition drive deadline.

According to reports, amendment supporters delivered 176,000 signatures to the Secretary of State on the deadline. It was subsequently approved for the ballot.^[6]

Similar measures

The Feds Have Awarded more than $82 Million for Charters in Colorado since 2010

Last fall, the U.S. Department of Education approved a Charter School Program-State Education Agency (CSP-SEA) grant to the state of Colorado for $36,359,999. The federal government previously awarded the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) $45,982,596 in 2010.

The new grant approved in September 2015 is for a shorter period and thus amounts to increased federal funding for Colorado charters.

This increase comes at a time when traditional public schools for all children are facing many budget challenges—due in part to continuing problems caused by the "TABOR" law, a controversial budget law peddled by the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation funded in part by proponents of privatizing public education, such as ALEC corporate board members K12 Inc., a for-profit virtual school corporation, and Koch Industries, which is controlled by billionaires Charles and David Koch who have spent decades peddling policies hostile to even the idea of public schools. (ALEC recently held a session that included how to promote the TABOR bill under a different name since it has caused so many problems.)

The new grant announcement for Colorado and seven other states was marred by the fed's decision to approve such grants despite major scandals over the misuse of charter funds in several states--including in Ohio where poor charter testing results had been manipulated by a state official—Dave Hansen—who previously worked as a top lobbyist for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (and whose spouse, Beth Hansen, is the manager of Gov. John Kasich's presidential campaign).

Colorado is slated to receive more than $11 million in 2015-2016, the first year of its renewed CSP-SEA grant.

CMD has requested materials from the CDE about its handling of the initial set of CSP-SEA grants and charters, as part of an examination of accountability for those taxpayer monies. CMD found that the federal government has spent more than $3.7 billion in Americans' taxes fueling a charter school industry in the states that is exerting increasing political influence on state and federal agencies. Colorado is complying with state sunshine laws in providing timely and responsive documents.

CMD's review of the emails and documents from Colorado reveals that the charter school industry and the state oversight agencies are even more intertwined than initially believed.

"Volunteers" Reviewing Who Should Get Charter $$$ Hail from . . . Charter World

For example, the records show that "volunteer" reviewers who evaluate and recommend which Colorado charter schools get to share the state multi-million dollar federal grant have direct connections to charter schools and are proponents of the charter school movement.

Based on an email recently disclosed from October 2014, here are the names and brief bios of people receiving an email from the state to Colorado Charter School Program grant reviewers who would be scoring charter schools seeking funding from taxpayer moneys. There are two main categories of people on the list: 1) people who worked directly for charters or the charter school industry and 2) people who worked for state or county agencies in support of charters.

1) Charter Grant Application Reviewers who Work for Charters or Charter Consultancy Companies

- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13079/colorado%E2%80%99s-not-so-independent-oversight-charter-schools#sthash.V7se6FBq.dpuf

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/14/3680340/colorado-renewable-energy-decision/

Colorado’s ambitious renewable energy standard will remain in place thanks to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Monday shielded the law from a legal attack by a right-wing litigation group.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge NeilGorsuch affirmedthat the clean energy law does not violate the U.S. Constitution, as the plaintiff Energy and Environment Legal Institute had argued. E&E Legal, formerly called the American Tradition Institute, is a nonprofit that advocates a “free-market approach” to environmentalism. It is the same entity that launched a high-profile lawsuit against climate scientist Michael Mann seeking to view his email communications, an effort which ultimately failed.

The case over Colorado’s renewable energy law was E&E Legal’s second most high-profile case. The group launched the lawsuit back in 2011, arguing that the clean energy standard — which requires utilities to get 30 percent of the electricity they sell to Colorado customers from renewable sources — violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

More specifically, the group said that the law unfairly harmed out-of-state businesses. Colorado relies on other states to get a good portion of its electricity, the group argued, and therefore out-of-state coal producers would be disproportionately harmed.

Judge Gorsuch disagreed, saying that while out-of-state coal producers would likely be hurt, it wasn’t disproportionate. Indeed, financial harm to fossil fuel companies would likely be equal across the board.

“To be sure, fossil fuel producers like [E&E Legal]’s member will be hurt,” Judge Gorsuch wrote. “But as far as we know, all fossil fuel producers in the area served by the grid will be hurt equally and all renewable energy producers in the area will be helped equally. If there’s any disproportionate adverse effect felt by out-of-state producers or any disproportionate advantage enjoyed by in-state producers, it hasn’t been explained to this court.”

Gorsuch also noted that if the mandate raises electricity prices for Colorado residents, that didn’t matter either — because Colorado voters had approved the law in 2004 with “overwhelming support.”

“That’s a cost they are apparently happy to bear,” he wrote.

Colorado is a national leader in clean energy, in part due to the state’s ambitious renewable energy standard. The state is home to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is the federal government’s primary research facility for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

E&E Legal did not respond to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment on Tuesday. But David Schnare of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which represented the group, told Law360 that it would likely not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Either way, Schare reportedly said they were disappointed in the ruling, and that Judge Gorsuch failed to consider many of their points regarding constitutionality.

“They simply ignored our arguments,” he reportedly said. “They did not cite or mention or discuss any of our arguments or our cases. They had ignored the fact that we had undercut their argument and shown it wasn’t a valid point.”

The ruling was a win not only for the law, but for environmental groups looking to promote renewable energy in Colorado. In a statement, the group Conservation Colorado said the ruling would ensure the protection of public health via cleaner air and continued reduction of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

“Today is a good day for renewable energy in Colorado and our efforts to clean our air and combat climate change,” Carrie Curtiss, Conservation Colorado’s deputy director said. “It is time for the climate deniers and dirty energy lobby to end their frivolous lawsuits and recognize that clean, renewable energy is here to stay.”

2014 JCN $ to win AG

Also vying to succeed Suthers as Colorado's chief legal officer was Republican contender Cynthia Coffman. Coffman served as chief deputy under Suthers. Coffman's husband, Mike Coffman (R), is a three-term U.S. Representative from Colorado's 6th Congressional District and a formerColorado Secretary of State.^[3][2] Like Quick, she had the connections and access to deep pockets necessary for running a legitimate statewide campaign.

Quick and Coffman were uncontested for their respective party nominations in the June 24 primary and advanced automatically to the general election. Libertarian attorney and party activist David K. Williams was the only third party candidate on the November ballot. Coffman won the general election on November 4, 2014.

Money in the race

The Republican Attorney Generals Association spent $2.6 million on Coffman's campaign as of September. Quick was operating on less than one-quarter of that amount, and he tried to compensate for the relative funding shortage by "walking 2.6 miles a day in campaigning."^[8]

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman is a dedicated public servant, attorney and leader. In November 2014, she won statewide election and on January 13, 2015, was sworn in as Colorado’s 38th Attorney General. Prior to being elected, Ms. Coffman was appointed in 2005 to serve as Chief Deputy of the Office proudly filling the role of chief of staff and chief operating officer for the largest public law firm in the state.

In 2004, Attorney General Coffman had the honor of serving then Colorado Governor, Bill Owens as his Chief Legal Counsel in the State Capitol. She has also served as the Director of Legal & Regulatory Affairs and later Deputy Executive Director for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment where she gained extensive experience with environmental issues related to air and water quality, hazardous waste regulation, and environmental health in addition to working on statewide bioterrorism and emergency planning efforts, disease control and prevention, maternal and child health programs and hospital and health facility regulation.

Her first job in Denver was working for the Colorado General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Council. Ms. Coffman staffed the Senate Judiciary Committee and assisted with a study of the state’s adult parole system. Her legal career began 24 years ago in the Georgia Attorney General’s Office. As a courtroom attorney, she defended that state’s juvenile justice system and public health department. A few years later, she worked as a lawyer for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta.

huffpo post CU analysis

ColoradoPublic Interest Research Group (COPIRG) unveiled their report Reclaiming Our Democracy: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Midterms to a Small Donor Democracy. The report examinesthe role of money in the 2014 congressional elections, and demonstrates that matching small political contributions with limited public funds "can change the campaign landscape for grassroots candidates."

Clean Slate Now advocates for legislation and candidates focused on campaign reforms, specifically promoting publicly financed campaigns and small donor empowerment, addressed in part by their endorsement of The Government By the People Act. Clean Slate tracks candidates who do or do not accept special interest PAC money.

Also represented at the event was an activist from Lafayette who has worked with the **Colorado** Community Rights Network. To date, over 150 local ordinances and charter amendments to restore local community rights and prevent corporate preemption have been passed in 11 states. In Colorado in 2013, aided by Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), the residents of Lafayette passed a Community Bill of Rights, which was added to their City's Charter. It bans oil and gas extraction within the city limits, grants rights to Nature, and states that corporations are not people. Such acts challenge several centuries of court decisions and laws that bypass the basic democratic rights of people, and grant so-called corporate rights of "personhood." Subsequently, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), sued the City of Lafayette, claiming that a State law -- the Colorado Oil and Gas Act -- trumps the people's right to self-determination. Lafayette citizens in turn launched a class action lawsuit to protect their community rights ban on fracking.

Colorado House Kills Senate Bill to Rollback Renewable Energy Standard (Denver Post)

Illinois Gov. Rauner Seeks to Slash Efficiency, Energy Programs (Midwest Energy News)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/colorado-proposition-105-gmo_n_6038812.html

— Farms and fields dominate Colorado ads opposing a ballot measure to require labels on some foods that have been genetically modified, with farmers telling voters the labels will damage their businesses.

But farmers and agriculture groups are just bit players in the $11 million campaign to defeat Proposition 105. The real money is coming from biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., which has given more than $4.7 million, and food giants like Pepsico and Coca-Cola, which sent a combined $1.9 million to fighting the proposal.

Hormel Foods, Kraft Foods, Kellogg Co. and The Hershey Co. are also outspending farm groups to fight the proposal. Food companies are pouring big money into fighting a similar ballot measure in Oregon, too.

Colorado and Oregon are battlegrounds in a national war over genetically modified organisms, or organisms that have been altered at the molecular or cellular level. So-called GMOs now make up almost the entirety of many staple crops, such as corn and soybeans, which are used in many items on grocery-store shelves.

"We're not saying GMOs are bad. We're saying we want them to be labeled," said Tammi DeVille Merrell, campaign manager for Right To Know Colorado, which has raised less than $500,000 and has no TV or radio ads to promote its campaign.

Short on funds, the campaign is relying on big-name endorsers to take their side.

Chipotle, along with Ben & Jerry's ice cream company, has backed GMO labeling. Former Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich has planned a visit to Colorado next week to talk up the measure.

Labeling opponents in Colorado feel confident they'll be able to defeat the proposal. They've spent just about $3 million on television ads, according to campaign finance data analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity.

sal pace vs ready wacko http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/11/1328881/-Another-Republican-candidate-implodes-by-telling-the-truth-about-his-beliefs?detail=email

Colorado's Frack-Free Movement Sacrificed for Democrats Facing Re-election

Backed by a wall of suited supporters, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper proudly announced Monday that it was game-over for two popular anti-fracking state ballot initiatives.

United States:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source | edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;display:inline !important;background-image:none !important"):}::{]}:

In 1993, then President Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax. A BTU tax is a type of energy tax (Baron, 1997, p. 14).^[3] The tax would have taxed all fuel sources based on their heat content except for wind, solar, and geothermal. It was never adopted. The BTU tax passed the House, but was rejected by the Senate in light of the lobbying effort mobilized against its adoption. The rejected proposal was watered down, as the Clinton administration tried to salvage their efforts by offering to exempt manufacturers and base the tax on the cost rather than the heat content of energy.^[4] Many of the House Democrats who voted for the tax and who lost their seats in the 1994 midterm election, blamed their loss on their vote for the BTU tax. Getting "BTU'd" became Beltway slang at the time for those who lost reelection by voting for the controversial proposal.^[5]

Colorado:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source | edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;display:inline !important;background-image:none !important"):}::{]}:

On 7 November 2006, citizens of Boulder Colorado (a college town with roughly 100,000 residents situated in the foothills of the Rocky Mtns) voted in favor of initiative 202, the Climate Action Plan Tax. This marks the first time in the nation that a municipal government has imposed an energy tax directly upon its residents to combat global warming. The CAP tax applies to energy consumption with deductions for carbon-neutral and renewable energy sources (such as Xcel Energy’s WindSource). The tax appears on consumer’s energy bills, and is used to fund the city’s Office of Environmental Affairs which, is in charge of programs designed to reduce Boulder's carbon footprint.

The CAP tax will generate roughly $1 million annually. The City Council has the authority to increase the rates as needed. As of October 2009, the rate is assigned as follows:^[6]

Electricity User Type	Tax Rate	Average Annual Tax
Residential	$0.0049/kWh	$21
Commercial	$0.0009/kWh	$94
Industrial	$0.0003/kWh	$9,600

References

With now-Secretary of State Scott Gessler as lead attorney, in 2009 Western Tradition Partnership filed suit against Longmont’s Fair Campaign Practices Act. Western Tradition Partnership also funded the Longmont Leadership Committee who conducted a political campaign that unabashedly lied in order to oust certain council members in 2009 and replace them with members who would promote their radical agenda and who would consistently vote their rabid anti-environmentalism and their absolutism on property rights.

After Bryan Baum, mayor, and his majority won the 2009 election, they directed that the Campaign Practices Act lawsuit be settled, and Gessler was paid $68,500. Following that the Campaign Practices Act had much, if not most, of its transparency removed. Only 19 words were changed because of the lawsuit. The rest of the changes were instituted because the Baum majority wanted those changes. They were dutifully following the Republican playbook which opposes campaign contribution restrictions and transparency.

Western Tradition Partnership renamed itself American Tradition Partnership. Even though they are a 501c4 and can’t officially endorse candidates, they have thus far sent out two mailers — one that essentially endorses Bryan Baum and Heath Carroll (at-large) and the other against Sean McCoy and Sarah Levison.

Contrary to the assertion in the mailer, American Tradition Partnership is NOT a local organization. They were organized first in the state of Montana by two Republican state legislators. They later registered in Colorado. However, I have no doubt that there are members of our community, who have had and likely will have business before the city, who have chosen this avenue to contribute sums in excess of the $200/per person candidate campaign limit and to keep those contributions secret.

Under their previous name, Western (now American) Tradition Partnership was taken before the Montana Political Practices Commission for their campaign practices and attacks against Democratic candidates in Montana for the same practices that WTP used in Longmont in 2009 through the Longmont Leadership Committee.

The Montana Political Practices Commission in its ruling effectively called the organization “corrupt.” The Commission heard testimony from a former employee of Western Tradition Partnership that indicated that the organization promotes itself by telling contributors that their identities will never be known and that some of WTP’s contributions had origins in foreign countries, a violation of U.S. law.

Why all the interest in Longmont from an organization such as American Tradition Partnership?

In Western Tradition Partnership’s 2008 IRS “990” filing , Western Tradition Partnership had $665,725 in contributions. That was their first year in existence and the only documentation located to date. These contributions clearly come from the oil, gas and coal industries whose interests are the first priorities of Western/American Tradition Partnership and ultimately motivate other political activities.

During the first decade of the 21st century, Colorado’s state government shifted Democratic after a long history of being Republican. This change did not facilitate the interests of American Tradition Partnership. Longmont, a community that Republicans had consistently counted on as a Republican stronghold, was moving Democratic as well. In order for Republicans to retake control of state government, Longmont needed to be recaptured.

Operating Oil/Gas Drill Sites

Because of advancements in oil and gas extraction technology, it is now possible to retrieve oil and gas that was previously uneconomical to recover. These techniques include directional and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Colorado is among those states that have many of these deposits. The Wattenberg field is the 10th largest gas field and 13th largest oil field in the nation. It may come as a surprise that some of these deposits are under property owned by the City of Longmont. At least 54 of the identified wells are at the edge of or under Union Reservoir itself!

Wise Use? ATI

The first land-transfer efforts began much earlier, in 1929-’30, spurred by anger over grazing fee hikes. Later Sagebrush Rebellion skirmishes, in 1979-’80 and in 1995-’97, forced federal agencies to collaborate more with locals on land management. Now, the Arizona Legislature demands that the feds relinquish some 48,000 square miles, roughly the area of Pennsylvania, by 2014, while Utah asserts ownership of about 47,000 square miles. (At press time, Gov. Jan Brewer had yet to sign or veto the Arizona bill.) InColorado, a bill seeking control of 36,000 square miles recently failed. The bills exclude national parks, Indian reservations, and military bases. A handful of other states are said to be contemplating similar measures for next year. “What we envision,” says state Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, the primary sponsor of Arizona’s bill, “is all of the Western states going before the Supreme Court to force this issue.” alec? 95 sagebrush bill

Colorado: Four members of Colorado’s delegation are Dirty Air Villains: Reps Scott Tipton (RCO3),

Doug Lamborn (R-CO5), Cory Gardner (R-CO4) and Michael Coffman (R-CO6). Three

members are Clean Air Heroes: Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), and

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO1).

===

e Koch brothers are playing their greatest hits list of right-wing talking points in a new lit piece sent to Colorado voters. They’re attacking Morse and Giron on healthcare and taxes while trying to tie them to scaaary East Coast “liberals” like New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. You can see the piece for yourself here.

TAL: Reporter Julia Kumari Drapkin tells the story of Colorado’s State Climatologist, Nolan Doesken. Doesken has long believed the humans are driving climate change, but never connected it to his own life. Even after several years of some of the most devastating weather his state has ever seen, Nolan considered climate change a worry for the future. Then, last year, he watched as his state experience some of the most extreme weather it ever has. For the first time, Nolan felt like he was looking at what the future would be like where he lives. He felt scared. Julia tells the story of how this has all changed Nolan, and changed what he’s saying to the people of his home state. Julia is the lead producer of iSeeChange at station KVNF, funded by Localore, AIR and CPB. (18 minutes)Environment

voter dis:

rove creates Fed Election Assistance Commission 133

CO 2008 obama but gop landslide 2010; worst vote machines, so promised to get rid after 2012; purged felons tho not illegal for them to vote; indeed illegal to purge 90 days so time to contest; done by Drew Durnham, ex asst to TX AG (who said he was racist) 184

w/ HAVA atty G target 2012 OH, CO, Az, WI, FLA.

Donetta co sec of state for job chair of FEAC (still exists but gop won't allow any appts, so empty?)

wsj runs John Fund bs

Tova Wang (legit academic) did book on fraud w/ rw guy, but another book put out undersame name w/ her name 186 [2 guys on booktv?]; her boss donetta davison kept her from testifying; did anyway, fired but beat attack w/ pro bono lawyer 188

AlterNet [1] / By Phillip Doe [2]

Why Citizens in Colorado Can’t Keep the Oil Industry Out of Their Backyards

May 23, 2013 |

Do you want to know how cold it can get in Antarctica in midwinter? Go to a city council meeting in Greeley, Colorado, any time regulation of the oil and gas industry is on the agenda. You’ll get an idea. Last week, the room temperature felt near absolute zero from the iciness of the council’s reaction to citizen petitions to rein in industry designs on their neighborhood, a place called Fox Run.

What was up for debate was a proposal to approve permits for 16 horizontally fracked oil wells on a small parcel of undeveloped land, itself about 16 acres within the city. The 16 wells would be only 350 feet from the back door of some residences. These wells, according to the oil company, would be fracked four at a time, meaning the citizens of these neighborhoods could expect heavy industrial activity out their back door for up to three or four months a year, 24/7, over half a decade, perhaps. We’re talking literally tens of thousands of truck trips to deliver water, chemicals, steel pipe and a variety of heavy industrial machinery via a single point of ingress.

Envision, if you will, the Saturday afternoon barbeque, with the excited voices of children at play competing with the drone and earth rattle of drilling next door as unknown quantities of who-knows-what are spewed onto the festivities. This scene could be played out over and over again as money is made for the few and public health and social wellbeing are sacrificed by the many. That was the argument most often made by the homeowners.

Add to this that some local businesses would actually be only 200 feet from the wells. It happens that the man who owns the 16 acres for the drilling site also owns the street-front buildings in which these businesses are housed. They had all voluntarily agreed to the reduced setback, and no one suspected collusion in these robust economic times. As the owner said--employing small town, Daddy Warbucks logic--these people couldn’t tell him what to do with his land. That would be a takings, and he would have to be compensated, royally. In his mind, his individual rights were superior to the public’s.

His understanding is almost certainly wrong, for the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed over and over again that the protection of the public’s health and well-being is superior to property rights, but no use to talk to this scion of private-property-rights-uber-alles. The only thing keeping the takings assertion alive for the oil boys and rent-seeking land owners is that government refuses to look at the health implications of fracking systematically, even though a host of scientific and public policy leaders at all levels of government and academia are asking for them. The EPA is studying the impacts on water. A draft of this study is to be released in 2014, but the agency has scrubbed any analysis of air impacts as a result of oil industry pressure.

In 2000 the number of active oil and gas wells in Colorado almost doubled from 22,228 to 43,354 in 2010. Analysts believe there is more oil shale and shale gas to be found in the state.^[1] Pushing the lease growth is the discovery of oil in the Niobrara shale formation, which sits more than 6,000 feet below the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. The oil is not uniformly distributed in the vast shale and limestone formation, which stretches from southern Colorado into Wyoming.^[2]

Contents [hide]

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) notes that 95 percent of new wells in Colorado are fractured wells, releasing natural gas. The BLM states that, in Colorado, the majority of fluids used in the fracturing process are recycled and no fluids are sent to wastewater treatment plants, which has caused water quality concerns in the eastern United States. For the fluids disposed of, the BLM states that 60 percent goes into "deep and closely-regulated" waste injection wells, 20 percent "evaporates from lined pits" and 20 percent is "discharged as usable surface water" under permits from the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.^[3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis claimed in 2009 that natural gas industry represented 7.3% of Colorado’s economy.^[4] According to industry data, at least 430 million gallons of chemical-laced fluids have been injected into more than 9,000 oil and gas wells in the state, mostly along the northern Front Range and the Western Slope.^[5]

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) is a former petroleum geologist for Buckhorn Petroleum. Hickenlooper took $75,000 from oil and gas interests in his 2010 election, and appointed an industry campaign donor to an important regulatory position. He has appeared in industry-funded ads in newspapers and on radio stations across the state, proclaiming that no water in Colorado had been contaminated by fracking, and has said that fracking fluids are edible.^[6]

History

Drilling wells

Western Voices -- North Fork Valley

Gas and oil leases in six Colorado counties — Larimer, Weld, Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and El Paso — more than doubled between 2008 and 2011, with 8,100 leases filed from August 2010 to August 2011, according to county records. Leases were granted to 40 different companies. If Weld County, a traditional oil and gas area, is removed, leasing activity jumped to 2,700 leases in 2010-2011, from 117 in the same period in 2008-09. According to the Denver Post, "Propelling the rush is the discovery of oil in the Niobrara — a geological formation sitting more than 6,000 feet below the Front Range."^[2]

Proposed projects

[img]

In August 2012, about 30,000 acres will be put up for lease for oil & gas drilling near the North Fork Valley communities of Hotchkiss, Paonia, and Crawford, Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management released a March 2012 Draft Preliminary Environmental Assessment and announced a Finding of No Significant Impact. The finding was based on two old guidance documents: a 1989 Resource Management Plan and a 1987 Report on Oil & Gas. Critics say oil & gas has changed a lot over the years, particularly the growth of fracking, and more is known today about possible health risks, with BLM currently working on new guidance documents. They say a detailed Environmental Impact Statement is needed for the decision, particularly since the parcels being considered are near Paonia Reservoir, Fire Mountain Canal, Cottonwood Creek and other critical waterways.^[7]

The 2010 top drillers and number of permits in Colorado

The top drillers and number of permits in Colorado for the 12-month period ending August 30, 2011:^[2]

Weld County

Mineral Resources: 1,018

EOG Resources: 594

Diamond Resources: 483

Larimer County

Marathon Oil: 50

Strata Oil & Gas: 45

Prospect Energy: 44

Arapahoe County

GFL & Associates: 137

Chesapeake Exploration: 82

Upstream Innovations: 56

Douglas County

Chesapeake Exploration: 103

Meredith Land & Minerals: 55

Great Western Oil & Gas: 16

Elbert County

Chesapeake Exploration: 411

ConocoPhillips: 162

Continental Land Resources: 155

El Paso County

Transcontinent Oil: 138

Continental Land Resources: 110

Simmons-McCartney: 94

Gothic Shale, Colorado

Bill Barrett Corporation has drilled and completed several gas wells in Colorado's section of the Gothic shale formation. The wells are in Montezuma County, Colorado, in the southeast part of the Paradox basin. A horizontal well in the Gothic flowed 5,700 MCF per day.^[8]

Disposal wells

Colorado has about 305 disposal wells and two or three sets of earthquakes in the state have been linked to injection wells, although none definitively since the early 2000s. One of the earliest known cases of “induced seismicity” from wastewater injection occurred at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1966, linked to a well designed to dispose of tainted water from the chemical weapons site. More recently, a series of small earthquakes near Trinidad may have been related to drilling injection wells.^[9]

In 2011, the oil and gas commission began requiring a site review by the Colorado Geological Survey to look for proximity to known faults before permitting injection wells. The commission also limits the injection pressures for the wells to prevent fractures and limits the total volume of wastewater pumped down the wells.^[9]

Waste Exemptions

A 2012 ProPublica investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste found the EPA has granted energy and mining companies exemptions to release toxic material in more than 1,500 places in aquifers across the country. The EPA may issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water; however, EPA documents showed the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted. More than 1,100 aquifer exemptions have been approved by the EPA's Rocky Mountain regional office, according to a list the agency provided to ProPublica. Many of them are relatively shallow and some are in the same geologic formations containing aquifers used by Denver metro residents. More than a dozen exemptions are in waters that might not be treated before supplied as drinking water.^[10]

Environmental Impacts

Water

State officials charged with promoting and regulating the energy industry estimated that fracking required about 13,900 acre-feet of water in 2010, about 0.08 percent of the total water consumed in Colorado. A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report projected water needs for fracking will increase to 18,700 acre-feet a year by 2015. Environmentalists point out that the water used by fracking gets lost from the hydrological cycle forever because it is contaminated.^[11]

Several projects in the state have proposed draining water out of Colorado rivers and siphoning the water to towns and cities that have been selling large quantities for fracking. Environmental advocates note that fracking in Colorado could negatively impact the state's rivers, as the process requires a significant amount of water.^[12]

As of 2012, water-intensive fracking projects includes:^[13]

the Windy Gap Firming Project, which proposes to drain up to an additional 10 billion gallons of water out of the Upper Colorado River every year and pipe and pump that water to northern Front Range Colorado cities including Loveland, Longmont and Greeley -- three cities that have recently started selling water for fracking (Greeley sold over 500 million gallons in 2011).
the Northern Integrated Supply Project, which proposes to drain an additional 13 billion gallons per year out of the Cache la Poudre River northwest of Fort Collins.
the Seaman Reservoir Project by the City of Greeley on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River, which proposes to drain several thousand acre feet of water out of the North Fork and the mainstem of the Cache la Poudre.

Is fracking to blame?

the Flaming Gorge Pipeline, which could reportedly take a large amount of water—up to 81 billion gallons—out of the Green and Colorado River systems every year and pipe and pump that water to the Front Range.
the City of Denver has opened up drilling and fracking on its property at Denver International Airport, while Denver is also pushing forward with the Moffat Collection System Project, a proposal to drain water out of the Upper Colorado River and pipe it to Denver.

In March 2012 at Colorado's auction for unallocated water, companies that provide water for hydraulic fracturing at well sites were top bidders on supplies once claimed exclusively by farmers. The Northern Water Conservancy District runs the auction, offering excess water diverted from the Colorado River Basin — 25,000 acre-feet so far this year — and conveyed through a 13-mile tunnel under the Continental Divide. The average price paid for water at the auctions has subsequently increased from around $22 an acre-foot in 2010 to $28 in 2012.^[14] In June 2012, the town of Erie doubled its commercial water rate from $5.73 per 1,000 gallons to $11.46 per 1,000 gallons -- for oil and gas developers only.^[15]

About 98 percent of the state is experiencing varying levels of drought in 2012, according to the Colorado State University (CSU), with the most severe in the Arkansas Basin, where drought levels range from D1, or "moderate," to D3, or "extreme." The Texas drought from summer 2011 is also still affecting Colorado, CSU said.^[16]

An analysis by Environmental Working Group and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) found that at least 65 chemicals used by natural gas companies in Colorado are listed as hazardous under six major federal laws designed to protect Americans from toxic substances.^[5]

On July 9, 2012, the Aurora City Council in CO voted to "lease" water to Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum, which will use the water for hydraulic fracturing. Anadarko will pay the city $9.5 million over five years for access to almost 2.5 billion gallons of water.^[17]

Air

Health effects

A study conducted over three years by the Colorado School of Public Health concluded that fracking can contribute to “acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites”. The report will be published in Science of the Total Environment. "The study found those living within a half-mile of a natural gas drilling site faced greater health risks than those who live farther away." Researchers located “potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.” Benzene is classified as a known carcinogen by the EPA. Concerns about water pollution are well publicized. However, this study illuminates the dangers fracking poses to air quality. The LA Times reports, "It’s almost as if a small factory is rapidly erected at the drilling site, as machinery and tanks of chemicals and water are brought in. Studies have shown that air pollution at many of these sites is greater than in surrounding areas." Researchers collected data in Garfield County, CO from January 2008 to November 2010, using EPA air quality standards. The study reiterates earlier research which shows that prolonged exposure to airborne petroleum hydrocarbons causes “an increased risk of eye irritation and headaches, asthma symptoms, acute childhood leukemia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and multiple myeloma.” Lead author of the study, Lisa McKenzie, PhD, MPH (masters of public health) stresses the importance of including air pollution into the national discourse on hydraulic fracturing.^[18]

Methane

A 2012 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research and led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, estimated that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Colorado are losing about 4% of their natural gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory of methane leakage.^[19]

Ozone

According to the state of Colorado, natural gas and oil operations were the largest source of ozone-forming pollution, VOCs and NOx, in 2008.^[20]

A 2013 Environmental Science and Technology study by scientists at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences found that emissions from oil and natural gas operations account for 55% of the pollutants -- such as propane and butane -- that contribute to ozone formation in Erie, CO. Key to the findings was the recent discovery of a "chemical signature" that differentiates emissions by oil and gas activity from those given off by other sources.^[21]

Silica

In July 2012, two federal agencies released research highlighting dangerous levels of exposure to silica sand at oil and gas well sites in five states: Colorado, Texas, North Dakota, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Silica is a key component used in fracking. High exposure to silica can lead to silicosis, a potentially fatal lung disease linked to cancer. Nearly 80 percent of all air samples taken by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health showed exposure rates above federal recommendations. Nearly a third of all samples surpassed the recommended limits by 10 times or more. The results triggered a worker safety hazard alert by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.^[22]

Spills and accidents

In 2004, Canada-based Encana Corp. improperly cemented and hydraulically fractured a well in Garfield County, Colorado. The state found that the poor cementing caused natural gas and associated contaminants to travel underground more than 4,000 feet laterally. As a result, a creek became contaminated with dangerous levels of carcinogenic benzene. The state of Colorado fined Encana a then-record $371,200. After more than seven years of cleanup efforts, as of September 2012, three groundwater monitoring wells near the creek still showed unsafe levels of benzene.^[23]

Legislation

Disclosure rules

Effective April 1, 2012, companies using fracking must post on FracFocus within 60 days the names of products, chemicals, and their CAS numbers. Landowners within 500 feet of a well will receive information on how fracking works and how to do baseline water testing. The information is also disclosed to Colorado Oil and Gas Commission and to health care professionals in an emergency. The chemical family of each proprietary compound will be disclosed to the public, although it allows exemptions for "trade secrets."^[24]

Regulations and oversight

The Colorado General Assembly created the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to “foster the responsible development of Colorado’s oil and gas natural resources.” To do so, the COGCC developed and implemented regulations to govern the oil and gas industry. In 2010, there were more than 43,000 active wells in Colorado. That year the COGCC employed 15 inspectors, 7 who performed a total of 16,228 inspections.^[25]

In January 2013 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was set to begin a public debate over the future of fracking regulations in the state. One proposal from commission staff members would bump up the buffer between well sites and buildings from "150 feet in rural areas and 350 feet in urban areas to a flat 500 feet anywhere." Additionally, "within 1,000 feet of a building, oil and gas operators would have to notify neighbors and employ 'enhanced mitigation' measures to cut down on dust, noise, odor and lighting." It was also reported that under the new rules, "operators would have to have a hearing before the commission before proceeding with a well less than 1,000 feet away from a high-occupancy building, such as a school or hospital."^[26]

Chemical disclosure

In December 2011, in accordance with new rules brokered by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, energy companies in the state will have to disclose to the public the chemical family of each chemical they use in their fracking process. It has been reported that the disclosure must be made within two months on an independent internet database: FracFocus.org.^[27]

The new rules require drillers to file a “notice of intent to conduct a fracking treatment” of a well 48 hours prior to a frack job, and to identify the chemicals used in a frack job within 60 days after the job is finished. Chemicals can still remain protected by trade secret designation, although that designation can be challenged by the public. Even if there are complaints, however, the COGCC is not required by the new rules to investigate, although citizens can then file a legal claim.^[28]

Water testing

On January 7, 2013, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's (COGCC) nine-member commission unanimously voted to approve the "Statewide Groundwater Baseline Sampling and Monitoring" rule that requires oil and gas operators to collect up to four water samples from aquifers, existing water wells and other "available water sources" within a half-mile of proposed wells. The sampling must be done before wells are drilled and within 72 months after the wells are placed into operation. The rules are the first to require the oil and natural gas industry to test groundwater quality both before and after drilling.^[29]

Regulatory violations

In 2004, a faulty natural gas well casing in Colorado was linked to contamination of water 4,000 feet away from the well site.^[30]

A 2008-2011 Colorado School of Public Health hydrological study found that as the number of gas wells in Garfield County increased, methane levels in water wells also rose. State regulators later fined EnCana Oil and Gas for faulty well casings that allowed methane to migrate into water supplies through natural faults.^[31][32]

In 2008, a drilling wastewater pit in Colorado leaked 1.6 million gallons of fluid, which migrated into the Colorado River.^[33]

Citizen activism

Western Voices -- Rifle

El Paso County

In September 2011, El Paso County Commission voted to impose a four-month moratorium on issuing permits for activities involving oil and gas drilling, to provide time to determine whether the Colorado county needs additional regulations on drilling.^[2]

Colorado city ponders ending water for fracking

The City of Loveland's water utility has been selling water to suppliers of the oil and natural gas industry from metered city hydrants for use in controversial hydraulic fracturing processes to recover petroleum. In April 2012, city councilors began a process to decide whether the city will join Northern Colorado neighbors Fort Collins and Boulder in barring water sales for fracking.^[34]

Longmont debates fracking ban

In May 2012, the Longmont ballot issue committee Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont filed a notice of intent with the Longmont City Clerk to put a charter amendment on the November 2012 ballot to ban hydraulic fracturing within Longmont city limits. According to Food & Water Watch, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) and the Colorado Attorney General have tried to weaken Longmont's local regulations for oil and gas drilling, such as prohibiting drilling in residential areas, spurring the amendment. If successful, Longmont would be the first city in Colorado to ban fracking.^[35]

Citizens march to deliver signatures opposing fracking operation

In June 2012 a group of mothers and children living in Colorado marched into EnCana Corporation headquarters in Denver to deliver a petition signed by 21,000 people demanding the company pull the plug on its project near the town of Erie, Colorado. Encana is preparing to drill a well in Canyon Creek, where a prairie rife with birds and a wetland alive with waterfowl separate it from hundreds of houses in the nearby Creekside neighborhood. An elementary school is located a few hundreds yards south of the drilling site, which is at a legal distance.

Industry representatives dismissed the petition. A large rally was planned for June 9, 2012 to try to draw more attention to the drilling noise and pollution that burden affected citizens.^[36]

Longmont activists start petition drive against fracking

In June 2012 the group Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, began a petition drive to ban fracking within city limits.^[37] The ban — Ballot Question 300 — was passed by majority vote in the November 2012 election, and will amend Longmont's city charter to ban hydraulic fracturing and the storage of fracking waste in city limits.

The oil and gas industry fought the ban, giving $507,500 to the opposing group Main Street Longmont. The Colorado Supreme Court has forbidden cities from banning oil and gas drilling outright, but has decided lesser measures on a case-by-case basis. Gov. John Hickenlooper said that passage of Ballot Question 300 would likely bring a second lawsuit from the state.^[38]

Public Trust Initiatives

Phil Doe of Littleton and Richard Hamilton of Fairplay have introduced Public Trust Initiatives 3 and 45 to protect state waters. Initiative 3 would apply the common-law doctrine of “public trust” to water rights, and make “public ownership of such water legally superior to water rights, contracts, and property law.” It would also grant unrestricted public access to natural streams and their banks. Initiatives 45 would amend Article XVI, Section 6 of the state constitution to limit, and possibly prohibit, stream diversions that would “irreparably harm the public ownership interest in water.” In April 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way for the initiatives to proceed. In order for them to appear on the November 2012 ballot, each initiative must get 86,000 signatures by August 6, 2012,^[39] but they did not receive the required signatures to appear on the ballot.

Citizen groups

Industry groups

Colorado Oil & Gas Association

Reports

Air pollution

In a 2012 Science of the Total Environment study, researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health found that air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing or fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites. The report, based on three years of monitoring, found a number of potentially toxic and carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near oil/gas wells, including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. Other chemicals included heptane, octane and diethylbenzene but information on their toxicity is limited. The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period. The effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.

The report, which looked at those living about a half-mile from the wells, was in response to the rapid expansion of natural gas development in rural Garfield County, in western Colorado - residents asked the School to test for health impacts. The lead researcher noted that "there wasn't data available on all the chemicals emitted during the well development process. If there had been, then it is entirely possible the risks would have been underestimated."^[40]

Regulatory enforcement

A 2012 report by the group Earthworks, "Inadequate enforcement means current Colorado oil and gas development is irresponsible," found that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has failed its mission of “foster[ing] the responsible development of Colorado’s oil and gas natural resources,” due to its inadequate enforcement of its own rules. Specifically, the report found that:^[41]

Inspection capacity is inadequate;
Violations are not consistently assessed;
Violations are inadequately reported and tracked;
Fines are rarely issued to violators;
Fines are inadequate to punish or prevent irresponsible behavior by oil and gas operators; and
Ultimately, the environment is not protected.

Resources

References

↑ Lisa Sumi, "Inadequate enforcement means current Colorado oil and gas development is irresponsible," Earthworks Report, March 2012.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 "Oil companies rushing to buy leases along Colorado's Front Range" Mark Jaffe, The Denver Post, October 23, 2011.
↑ "Fracking on BLM Colorado Well Sites" BLM, Fact Sheet, March 2011.
↑ "Natural Gas" COGA, accessed April 4, 2012.
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 "Colorado's Chemical Injection" Dusty Horwitt, EWG Public Lands Analyst, June 2008.
↑ Sam Schabacker, "Hickenlooper May Be in Bed With the Oil Industry, But Coloradans Have His Wake-up Call ," HuffPo, March 12, 2012.
↑ "North Fork of the Gunnison," Western Colorado Congress Website, accessed March 2012.
↑ "Barrett may haveParadox Basin discovery," Rocky Mountain Oil Journal, 14 Nov. 2008, p.1.
↑ ^9.0 ^9.1 Andrew Wineke, "Drilling oil takes water and makes water," The Gazette, April 28, 2012.
↑ Abrahm Lustgarten, "Poisoning the Well: How the Feds Let Industry Pollute the Nation’s Underground Water Supply," ProPublica, Dec. 11, 2012.
↑ Bruce Finley, "Fracking bidders top farmers at water auction," The Denver Post, April 2, 2012.
↑ "Will Fracking Destroy Colorado's Rivers?" Gary Wockner, Huffington Post, March 19, 2012.
↑ Gary Wockner, "Will Fracking Destroy Colorado’s Rivers?" EcoWatch, March 19, 2012.
↑ Bruce Finley, "Fracking bidders top farmers at water auction," The Denver Post, April 2, 2012.
↑ John Aguilar, "In Erie, oil and gas companies to pay twice as much for water," Daily Camera, June 20, 2012.
↑ Monte Whaley, " 98 percent of Colorado in a drought, say CSU climatologists," The Denver Post, April 3, 2012.
↑ Patricia Calhoun, "Fracking: Aurora votes to 'lease' water to Anadarko Petroleum," Denver Westword, July 10, 2012.
↑ Neela Banerjee "Study: 'Fracking' may increase air pollution health risks" LA Times, March 20, 2012.
↑ Jeff Tollefson, "Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field: Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas," Nature, February 7, 2012.
↑ Elena Craft, "Do Shale Gas Activities Play A Role In Rising Ozone Levels?" Mom’s Clean Air Force, July 13, 2012.
↑ John Aguilr, "Study finds that more than half of ozone-forming pollutants in Erie come from drilling activity," Boulder Daily Camera, January 16, 2013.
↑ Adam Voge, "Fracking dust alert not shocking in Wyoming," Wyoming Star Tribune, July 30, 2012.
↑ Dusty Horwitt, "Federal Scientists Warn NY of Fracking Risks," Environmental Working Group, Feb. 22, 2012.
↑ "Fracking Chemical Disclosure Rules," Inside Climate News chart at ProPublica, accessed April 2012.
↑ "COGCC staff report," Jan. 13, 2011. p. 25.
↑ [ahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/rulemaking-for-oil-and-ga_n_2401587.html "Colorado Oil And Gas Association Faces Resistance From Boulder Before Fracking Rulemaking Debate "] John Aguilar, Boulder Daily Camera, January 3, 2013.
↑ "Colorado Takes the Lead in Fracking Regulation" Kelly David Burke, Fox News, January 5, 2012.
↑ John Colson, "County official explains new fracking chemical rules," Post Independent, April 7, 2012.
↑ Scott Streater, "Colo. OKs groundwater sampling rule derided by industry, enviros," E&E, January 8, 2013.
↑ Horwitt, Dusty. Senior Counsel for the Environmental Working Group. [Public testimony]. Oversight Hearing on the Revised Environmental Impact Statement on Hydraulic Fracturing and New York City’s Upstate Drinking Water Supply Infrastructure. Before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection. September 22, 2011 at 2.
↑ Harman, Greg, “Fracking’s short, dirty history,” San Antonio (Texas) Current, January 5, 2011 -January 11, 2011.
↑ Smith, Jack Z., “The Barnett Shale search for facts on fracking,” Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, September 5, 2010.
↑ Lustgarten, Abrahm, “How the West’s energy boom could threaten drinking water for 1 in 12 Americans,” ProPublica. December 21, 2008.
↑ "City of Loveland ponders water sales for oil, gas drilling" Tom Hacker, The Denver Post, April 23, 2012.
↑ "Petition Drive Announced to Stop Fracking in Longmont: If Successful, Longmont Would be the First Colorado City to Ban Fracking," Food & Water Watch Press Release, May 30, 2012.
↑ "Fracking under way near Colorado schools" Troy Hooper, The Colorado Independent, June 5, 2012.
↑ "Longmont activists start anti-fracking petition drive" Scott Rochat, Longmont Times-Call, June 8, 2012.
↑ Scott Rochat, "Ballot Question 300: Longmont fracking ban storms to victory," The Denver Post, Nov. 6, 2012.
↑ Heather Hansen, "Will Colorado Transform its Water Law to Prioritize the Public Good? Colorado could amend its constitution to value public use over private and limit water diversions that negatively affect public uses," Alternet, June 15, 2012.
↑ "Air emissions near natural gas drilling sites may contribute to health problems," News Med, March 19, 2012.
↑ Lisa Sumi, "Inadequate enforcement means current Colorado oil and gas development is irresponsible," Earthworks Report, March 2012.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colorado_and_coal

Contents [hide]

Introduction

In 2006, Colorado ranked seventh in the nation in coal production, with over 36 million short tons of coal produced.^[1] Approximately 68% of Colorado coal is exported to Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. Most of the coal used in Colorado is its own, although the state also imports coal from Wyoming.^[2] About 70 percent of the coal produced in Colorado is a high-grade bituminous coal with low ash and sulfur contents.^[3]

Coal-fired power plants produce about 70% of the electricity generated in Colorado.^[4] In 2006, Colorado power plants consumed 19.37 million tons of coal to generate about 37.5 million MW hours of electricity.^[2]

In 2003, Colorado produced 90 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 23rd in the nation overall.^[5]

Coal production in Colorado dropped from 35.4 million tons in 2006 to 28.5 million tons in 2009, according to statistics from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety.^[6]

Citizen activism

Colorado resident Myron Wilson speaks about Cherokee Generating Station

On November 4, 2008, voters in Boulder County passed Ballot Issue 1A.^[7] The measure will create a voluntary program for property owners to install energy efficiency improvements such as solar panels, with loans backed by up to $40 million in bonds. The individual loans will be tied to the property rather than the owner and will be repaid via assessments added to property tax bills. If a property owner moves within five years, the loan is transferrable to the new owner via the same assessment. Reducing the cost of solar panels and other efficiency measures is expected to remove a significant barrier for many Boulder homeowners.^[8]

July 14, 2009: Residents protest Valmont at public hearing, push for conversion

Xcel Energy and the City of Boulder are in negotiations to renew Valmont Station's contract with the city. The agreement must be renewed every five years and is slated to expire in August 2010.^[9] Many Boulder residents are pushing for the plant to stop burning coal either shut down entirely or convert to cleaner energy.^[10][11]

On July 14, 2009, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission held a hearing to solicit public comment on renewing the plant's permit. More than 200 people turned out to oppose the plant at a rally before the meeting. About 50 people addressed the Commission, asking its members to deny the permit because the plant emits more than 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.^[12]

November 18, 2009: Demonstrators protest Cherokee and Valmont Stations: Denver, CO

Protesters dressed as clowns visited Colorado Governor Ritter's office to urge him to "stop clowning around when it comes to confronting global warming." Environmental groups are opposed to Xcel's request to renew expired permits at its Cherokee and Valmont Stations and want the state to pursue clean energy options instead. New research has shown that nitrogen oxide emissions are clouding lakes, changing lake biology, and threatening the aquatic life in the Colorado mountains.^[13]

November 19, 2009: Residents pack regulator's hearing on Cherokee: Denver, CO

Local residents packed a public hearing by state air-quality regulators, urging officials to deny Xcel's request to renew its permit for Cherokee Station. More than 50 people spoke in opposition to the plant and advocated for a switch to cleaner energy sources. Residents argued that at minimum, regulators should work with Xcel to ramp up natural-gas systems at the plant, and then switch to solar and wind as those technologies mature.^[14]

Colorado resident Ashara Ekundayo speaks about Cherokee Generating Station

November 30, 2009: Activists stage "Die-In" at Department of Public Health and Environment in Denver, CO

Fifteen activists demonstrated outside the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (DPHE) to demand the denial of Xcel Energy's request to renew its air permit for Cherokee Station. The protesters greeted DPHE employees as they arrived for work and called on the department to close the coal plant. Protestors staged a "die-in" to call attention to the harmful health and environmental effects of coal. Other activists wore hazmat suits and roped off the area with "Global Warming Crime Scene" tape.^[15]

February 26, 2010: ‘Die-in’ at Xcel Headquarters in Denver, Colorado

On February 26, 2010, local citizens in Denver staged a 'die-in' at the headquarters for Xcel Energy in opposition to the utility’s plan to build a new coal-fired power plant, Comanche 3, in Pueblo, Colorado. The plant would be the largest in the coal-fired power station in the state. Protesters cited environmental as well as social and economic issues as reasons for their actions. “Our leaders are failing to lead and Xcel is failing to take their responsibility seriously. Xcel should expect more protests and actions unless they start closing down coal plants and moving Colorado to 100% renewable electricity,” Kate Clark, a Power Past Coal activist. The protest was part of an ongoing series of actions by concerned citizens in Colorado who seek to end coal-power in the state.^[16]

April 1, 2010: Activists Pull Prank on Xcel

On April Fools’ Day, as part of the international "Fossil Fools Day" – Colorado activists pulled a prank on Xcel Energy. The group developed a farce website http://www.xcelresponsiblebynature.com, a satirical press release, and a letter to Colorado ratepayers which states that activists helped Xcel Energy become a renewable energy leader. The announcement purported that Xcel Energy would switch to 100% renewable electricity in Colorado by phasing out all coal plants and abandoning plans to convert existing coal plants to natural gas.^[17]

April 27, 2010: 5 Arrested in Boulder Anti-coal Campaign

On April 27, 2010 five people were arrested by Boulder Police officers and Boulder County sheriff's deputies during a protest at the Valmont Station in Denver.

The five activists joined about 20 protesters from the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center who gathered around in the early afternoon protest against use of coal at the plant by Xcel Energy. Reported the Denver Post:

The environmental activists climbed atop a large coal pile in front of the plant, put up two mock wind turnbines and a large banner that read: "RENEWABLES NOW."The protestors [sic] stood atop the coal pile for nearly two hours before authorities arrived, organizers said in a press release."Boulder is ready to move forward with 100 percent renewable electricity. If Xcel is not willing to partner with the city to make this happen, then Boulder officials and citizens need to take our energy future into our own hands," said protestor [sic] Tom Weis.^[18]

April 2011: Groups oppose proposed changes to roadless rules

In April 2011 environmental and sportsmen's groups in Colorado mobilized to toughen the government's latest plan to protect remaining roadless national forest land in the state. A draft plan unveiled on April 14, 2011 by federal and state forest officials weakens the current national rule, contended the groups. The proposed exceptions for new roads included coal-mining, ski area development and tree-cutting to prevent wildfires in beetle-ravaged forests near towns.

The current national rule blocks most road-building on 4.4 million acres of relatively pristine forest in Colorado, where there are about 14.5 million acres of national forest. Nine Colorado environmental groups rejected the updated policy.

The exception for coal companies on Colorado's Western Slope would allow temporary roads for drilling and maintaining methane gas vents needed for expansion of underground mining^[19]

August 2011: Activists attend public meeting regarding proposed coal-fired power plant

On August 29, 2011 activists attended a meeting in Westminster, Colorado about the development of a new coal-fired power plant proposed 895-megawatt Holcomb Expansion in southwest Kansas. The plant would provide power for Colorado customers. The coal-fired power plant, critics said during the meeting, would be a polluter and subject to potentially big increases in coal prices. The plant has been approved by the state of Kansas. Activists at the meeting sought a commitment from Tri-State that it would not pursue development of the proposed plant in Kansas. The company would not commit to the activist's plea.^[20]

September 2011: Boulder citizens push for renewal municipality

Citizens of Boulder, Colorado started a group called RenewablesYes to push for the formation of a municipality to provide its citizens with electrical services in Boulder. The group has held meetings and is working on creating a municipal electric utility for the town powered by renewables.^[21][22]

Legislative and legal issues

Environmentalists are working to introduce legislation requiring utility companies to disclose fuel and emissions information to customers. The legislation would require utilities to put fuel, emissions information, and plain-language explanations of fees for fossil fuels in easy-to-read graphs on customer bills.^[23]

In 2004, Coloradans passed Amendment 37, which set the country’s first voter-approved renewable energy requirement at 10 percent by 2015. In 2007, Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature doubled the requirement to 20 percent by 2020.^[24]

On March 22, 2010, Gov. Ritter signed into law House Bill 10-1001 – sponsored by Rep. Max Tyler and Sens. Gail Schwartz and Bruce Whitehead - which requires that 30 percent of Colorado's electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020. HB 10-1001 also calls for 3 percent of the standard to be met by local solar power.^[24]

Judge forces EPA to address haze rule in four Western states

On September 30, 2011 a federal judge approved a deal requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize by plans to reduce haze-causing pollution from coal-fired power plants and other sources in four Western states by 2012. The Environmental Defense Fund, WildEarth Guardians and National Parks and Conservation Assocation sued the EPA for failing to address haze-causing emissions, which are required under the Clean Air Act in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and North Dakota.^[25]

Kinder to export coal from Port of Houston

In late April 2011 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners stated that the company will begin exporting Colorado mined coal through its bulk terminal at the Port of Houston. According to its first quarter earnings report, Kinder wrote that they had signed an agreement with a “large western coal producer” and will invest about $18 million to expand the ship channel facility.

Kinder stated it will be the first time Western coal will be exported from the Port of Houston. In February 2011, Kinder Morgan inked a deal with Massey Energy to export up to 6 million tons of coal annually through Kinder’s Myrtle Grove, La., facility.^[26]

Studies on coal in Colorado

According to a study conducted by Headwaters Economics based in Montana entitled "Fossil Fuel Extraction and Western Economics" reported that Colorado coal production accounted for 17% of the total mining employment in the state in 2008. Oil and natural gas accounted for a combined 74% for the same year.^[27]

Governors request federal funding for "clean coal"

On February 22, 2009, the governors of Colorado, and Utah, and Wyoming submitted a letter to President Obama asking for funding to develop "clean coal" projects in their states. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, and Wyoming Gov. Dave Fruedenthal, argued that developing a cleaner way to burn coal is essential to reducing emissions, protecting national security, and creating jobs. The letter also said that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 approved federal cost sharing for a clean-coal demonstration project using coal mined in the West, but that no project was ever funded. According to the governors, the three states are ready to start developing new demonstration projects and retrofitting existing plants with carbon capture and storage technologies.^[28]

Arch Coal lays off 61 Colorado miners

In June 2009, Arch Coal subsidiary Mountain Coal Co. laid off 61 miners at its West Elk Mine in Somerset, CO. The layoffs follow a recent release of about 40 contract workers. Arch Coal released a statement saying that US coal markets have gone through "an unprecedented contraction" in the last several months. ^[29]

Union Opposition to Shutting Down Coal Plants

In March 2010 the AFL-CIO, which represents Excel's union workers, stated that as many as 300 union jobs could be lost if Xcel were to shut down its coal plants and convert them to natural gas. The union rep stated that natural gas plants require fewer workers.^[30]

Xcel promises to cut Colorado pollution

In March 2010, Colorado's largest utility Xcel Energy promised to cut air pollution over the next seven years. It will do so by either retiring Front Range coal-fired power plants or replacing them with natural gas and other sources of power. The company is required to submit plans by Aug. 15 to the state Public Utilities Commissions to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions at coal plants by up to 80 percent over the next eight years.^[31]

In August, 2010 Xcel filed its plan to curb emissions from its coal-fired power plants along the front range. The plan stated that Xcel would shut down the Cherokee Station's fourth coal-fired generator by 2022 and replace it with a new, natural gas-fired generator. Xcel’s plan also called for the shutdown of Cherokee’s three other coal units before 2017, as well as the construction of a new natural gas plant.

However, in late September 2010, the Colorado public health department and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) went after Xcel’s $1.3 billion plan to curb emissions from these power plants. The PUC stated that when it ruled that it can’t consider actions that occur after 2017 — the deadline in the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that Xcel's “truncated plan” that stops at 2017, and does not include shutting down Cherokee’s fourth coal unit, won’t meet tighter ozone regulations that are expected from the federal government and thus won’t meet the intent of the Clean Air, Clean Jobs law.

Hearings on Xcel's plan are set for late October, 2010.^[32]

Xcel develops world's first solar/coal hybrid power plant

In July 2010, the first ever solar-coal hybrid power plant began to operate in Colorado. The project was a joint endeavor between Xcel Energy and Abengoa Solar, the unit of Xcel’s Cameo Station is intended to show that solar power can reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired power plants. The plant uses parabolic trough solar collectors to heat the water that goes into the coal-fired turbine, which reduces amount of coal used at the facility by 2 to 3 percent. For a cost of $4.5 million, the hybrid plant will produce the equivalent of just one of 49 megawatts from solar power.^[33]

Xcel offers 70% renewables to Boulder, Colorado residents

In June 2011 Xcel Energy representatives presented Boulder City officials with the company's long-awaited plan for keeping Boulder as a customer of its electricity, which would offer residents there with 70% renewable energy, primarily from wind power.

Xcel attorney Paula Connelly, stated the utility wants Boulder voters to approve two ballot measures in November, 2011. The council has been exploring the possibility of asking voters whether the city should become a municipal utility or extend its longtime relationship with Xcel.

If Xcel is granted its request, one question would ask Boulder voters to approve a new franchise agreement with the company, making it the exclusive provider of electricity to Boulder for the next two decades. A second question would ask voters to approve a public-private partnership in which Boulder customers would pay the difference between the cost of new wind energy on Xcel's system and the company's savings from having the wind energy on its grid.^[34]

City of Boulder, CO begins municipal takeover of Xcel in 2011

Voters in the city of Boulder approved a municipalization process on Nov. 1, 2011, in which the city will take over Xcel utility lines and power generating equipment. The city is the home of the University of Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Over 70 percent of voters supported the initiative according to polls in the fall of 2011, although Boulder Question 2C, which allows for the creation of a municipal utility, passed with 51.8 percent of the vote. XCel spent $950,000 fighting the initiative, while four groups that campaigned in favor of municipalization raised about one-tenth of that amount. ^[35] The process could take as long as five years, and many questions remain about the value of Xcel's generating and transmission equipment.

The project began in 2004 with a decision to study municipalization. ^[36] One study commissioned by the city showing that direct startup costs were in the neighborhood of $28 million for the city's 96,000 residents. ^[37]

Although city staff noted many uncertainties in the municipalization process, by 2009, Boulder officials concluded the city couldn't meet its goal of reducing emissions of greenhouses gases to 1990 levels by 2012. ^[38] During 2009 and 2010, a volunteer team associated with Citizens for Boulder's Clean Energy Future determined that the city could reduce carbon emissions by 60%, increase the percentage of renewables by 40%, all while keeping our rates at parity or lower than those charged by Xcel. The $300 million start up and infrastructure purchase cost should be seen in the context of Xcel's revenues from Boulder, which amount to $100 million per year. ^[39] Another feasibility study for the city put the cost at $223 million, excluding "stranded costs." ^[40]

In August, 2010, the city allowed a contract with Xcel to lapse as municipalization became a more serious option. An August, 2011 poll by the city of Boulder showed that 71 percent of voters supported the creation of a city electric utility. The greatest support was among younger voters, renters, women, and those with an income of less $50,000. ^[41]

Two Colorado Firms Receive Millions for Carbon Capture Testing

In July, 2010 two Colorado companies were awarded a total of $14.1 million in federal grants to develop and test methods for capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. The federal Energy Department announced that the work would be done by ADA-ES of Littleton, Colorado and Ion Engineering of Boulder, Colorado.

ADA-ES of Littleton was awarded $11.1 million to develop a pilot project using solid materials called sorbents to remove carbon dioxide from power plant pollution. The project is expected to take more than three years.

Ion of Boulder will receive $3 million to build and test a technology using a salt-based solvent called ionic liquid to remove CO2. The project is expected to take 15 months.

The Colorado projects are among 10 programs in eight states that will share $67 million in grants.^[42]

Proposed coal plants

Operating

Comanche Generating Station Unit 3 (operating 2010)
Lamar Light & Power / Arkansas River Power Authority (operating 2009)

Cancelled

AES Colorado Power Project (cancelled 2008)
Buick Coal and Power Project (cancelled 2007)
High Plains Energy Station (cancelled 2008)
Ray D. Nixon Power Plant (cancelled 2007)
Unnamed Xcel Energy Plant (cancelled 2007)
Unnamed Tri-State Plant (cancelled 2009)

Citizen groups

Coal lobbying groups

Power companies

Tri-State Generation and Transmission
- Headquarters in Westminster, CO
- Controls 8 coal-fired generating stations with 1710 MW capacity
- Active proposals: Unnamed Tri-State Plant

Westmoreland Coal
- Headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO
- Active proposals: Gascoyne 500 Project

Newmont Mining Corporation
- Headquarters in Denver, CO
- Active proposals: TS Power Plant

North American Power Group
- Headquarters in Greenwood Village, CO
- Active proposals: Two Elk Energy Park Unit 1, Two Elk Energy Park Unit 2

NRG Energy
Public Service Company of Colorado, a division of Xcel Energy

Existing coal plants

Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).^[43][44] None of these units is larger than 50MW.^[45][46] (To see a map of existing coal plants in the U.S., click here.)

7 of these units are larger than 500MW.^[47][48]

Arapahoe - 160MW - 1951, 1955
Cherokee - 801MW - 1957, 1959, 1962, 1968
Comanche - 1,529 MW - 1973, 1975, 2010
Craig - 1339MW - 1979, 1980, 1984
Hayden - 465MW - 1965, 1976
Martin Drake - 257MW - 1962, 1968, 1974
Nucla - 114MW - 1959, 1991
Pawnee - 552MW - 1981
Rawhide - 294MW - 1984
Ray D. Nixon - 279MW - 1980
Valmont - 192MW - 1964

For a map of existing coal plants in the state, see the bottom of this page.

Closure Planned for W.N. Clark Station

It was announced in the fall of 2010 that Black Hills Energy proposed retiring its two coal-fired units at the Clark Station in Canon City and would build a unit in Pueblo, Colorado that would be powered by natural gas. The retirement would be part of the company's proposal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal will be decided on by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by the middle of December, 2010. The company originally stated it would consider using biomass to replace the coal at the plant, but later stated that it would cost too much to run the units on biomass.^[49]

Major coal mines

As of 2010 there were approximately 10 active coal mines in Colorado with production of approximately 25,163 short tons per year.^[50]

Bowie No 2 Mine, Bowie Resources LLC
Colowyo Mine, Colowyo Coal Company LP
Elk Creek Mine, Oxbow Mining LLC
Foidel Creek Mine, Twentymile Coal Company
West Elk Mine, Mountain Coal Company, LLC^[51]
New Elk Mine, Cline Mining Corporation

Proposed coal mine expansion

In Feb. 2011, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians filed an appeal with the Board of Land Appeals, challenging the Bureau of Land Management's approved expansion of the Elk Creek Mine. The groups say the BLM didn't adequately consider how expanded mining and the combustion of the mined coal would affect air quality. The mine's operator, Oxbow Mining, said the expansion would extend coal mining at current levels by a year.^[52]

In March 2011, as a result of the environmentalists' appeal, the BLM announced that they would take another look at the mining expansion and its likely impacts on local air quality.^[53]

Proposed coal mines

Red Cliff Mine, CAM-Colorado

CAM-Colorado has proposed a new underground coal mine 15 miles northwest of Grand Junction in Mesa County. The Red Cliff Mine would produce 8 million tons of coal annually over 30 years, making it one of the largest in Colorado. The public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement closes on March 17, 2009. ^[54]

Sage Creek Mine

Peabody Energy and Twentymile Coal Company hope to begin construction on the new underground Sage Creek Mine in West Routt County, CO as early as 2010. The new mine is expected to replace the existing Twentymile Mine sometime in 2013, when the underground longwall mining operation is projected to run out of coal. Twentymile produced 8 million tons of coal in 2008.^[55]

Mining expansion into protected forest

In 2009, a subsidiary of the Oxbow Corporation requested to expand the Elk Creek Mine into a federally protected roadless area of the Gunnison National Forest. Oxbow requested permission to build into the area in order to drill methane vents for their underground coal mine expansion. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, eventually approved the roadless rule exemption for Oxbow’s Elk Creek mine in May 2010."

With the support of Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, the Obama administration in 2011 proposed a Colorado-specific rule that would provide protection for only about half a million acres of Colorado forest land and would permit more logging and road-building on 13% of current roadless areas in Colorado, as well as exempt 20,000 acres of roadless land in the state so that the coal industry can build in the Sunset Trail roadless area as well as other areas.

In May 2011 it was reported that Oxbow was exploring for coal on Colorado’s Oak Mesa, just a few miles from the Currant Creek roadless area. Environmentalists oppose the mine exploration on the basis that it will require road to be built in areas that are currently off limits to road development.^[56]

Colorado coal mine OK seen as a reversal of roadless rule

On November 8, 2011 the United States Forest Service approved a 1,700-acre expansion of the West Elk Mine on Colorado’s Western Slope.

West Elk is owned by Arch Coal, who praised the decision for its job-saving potential. Environmental groups blasted the USFS ruling for its possible industrialization of the pristine Sunset Trail roadless area adjacent to the West Elk Wilderness Area. The West Elk mine expansion would be mostly underground, however Arch Coal would construct up to 48 well pads and 6.5 miles of roads in the Sunset Trail area in order to vent methane gas from the coal mine.

“The Forest Service is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” said Earthjustice attorney Ted Zukoski. “The administration should not be paving the way for an incursion into roadless lands when a court has just upheld its authority to protect those lands. This administration promised to protect Colorado roadless areas as well or better than the 2001 Roadless Rule required. It doesn’t look like they intend to live up to that promise.”^[57]

New Elk Mine lays off workers

In May 2012 the Cline Mining Corporation announced they had laid off a total of 70 miners at the company's New Elk Mine due to coal's weak market performance.^[58]

Resources

References

↑ Existing U.S. Coal Plants
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 "Coal and Mineral Production", Colorado Mining Association, accessed May 2008.
↑ "Rock Talk", Colorado Geological Survey, July 1998. (Pdf)
↑ "The Facts", America's Power, accessed May 2008.
↑ "Texas, Wyoming lead in emissions", USA Today, June 2, 2007.
↑ "Northwest Colorado coal production decreasing" Brian Smith, Craig Daily Press, November 18, 2010.
↑ "Boulder County: Ballot Issue Boulder County, Ballot Issue 1A Results," Denver Post, November 5, 2008.
↑ "Stutzman: Yes on renewable energy measure," Daily Camera, September 10, 2008.
↑ "Xcel franchise negotiations likely to drag into next year," Colorado Daily, June 3, 2009.
↑ Judith Mohling, "Peace Train: Convert Valmont plant to clean energy," Colorado Daily, July 11, 2009.
↑ Anne Butterfield, "Selfishly seeking clean energy," Daily Camera, July 12, 2009.
↑ "Public packs Valmont power plant hearing," Colorado Daily, July 14, 2009.
↑ Bruce Finley, "Protesters want Colorado to 'stop clowning around' on clean air," Denver Post, November 19, 2009.
↑ Bruce Finley, "Air panel urged to deny pollution permit for Xcel coal plant," Denver Post, November 20, 2009.
↑ "Denver N30:Local Citizens ‘Die-in’ at Dept. of Public Health and Environment in Protest over Coal," It's Getting Hot in Here, November 30, 2009.
↑ "Local Citizens ‘Die-in’ at Xcel HQ in Coal Protest Group calls on Xcel to Keep Comanche 3 Closed and Produce 100% Renewable Electricity by 2020" Katie Clark, Colorado Indymedia, February 26, 2010
↑ "Activists Pull Elaborate ‘Fossil Fools Day’ Prank on Xcel Energy" Press Release from Fossil Fools Day Activists, accessed April 1, 2010.
↑ Annette Espinoza, "Five Arrested in Boulder anti-coal protest" Denver Post, April 27, 2010.
↑ "Environmental groups, sportsmen blast plan that weakens forest protections" Bruce Finley, Denver Post, April 15, 2011.
↑ "Tri-State won't rule out coal-fired plant, despite activist objections" Steve Raabe, Denver Post, August 30, 2011.
↑ "Renewables Yes" 3 R's: Reliability, Rates and Renewables, accessed September 7, 2011.
↑ "Cost, renewables debated at utility forum" Michael Davidson, Boulder County Business Report, August 23, 2011.
↑ Comments of Nancy LaPlaca per decision CO8-1198 for December 2, 2008 Hearing, Colorado PUC, November 25, 2008.
↑ ^24.0 ^24.1 "Ritter signs historic renewable energy bill, increasing standard to 30% by 2020" Denver Times, March 22, 2010
↑ "Judge OKs deal on "haze" pollution in West" Associated Press, Chron.com, September 30, 2011.
↑ "Kinder to Export Coal from Port of Houston" Casey Wooten, Business Journal, April 25, 2011.
↑ "Fossil Fuel Extraction and Western Economies" Headwaters Economics, April 2011.
↑ "Governors call for clean-coal funding," Associated Press, February 23, 2009.
↑ "Western Colo. coal mine lays off 61 workers," San Francisco Examiner, June 18, 2009.
↑ "Job losses expected in plan to reduce pollution at coal-fired plants" Mark Jaffe, Denver Post, March 26, 2010.
↑ "Xcel Promises to Cut Pollution in Colorado" AP Press, March 5, 2010
↑ "Xcel's clean air plan hits snag" Cathy Proctor, Denver Business Journal, October 5, 2010.
↑ "World’s First Hybrid Coal-Solar Power Plant Goes Online in Colorado" Cameron Scott, Inhabitat.com, July 12, 2010.
↑ "Xcel officials unveil wind plan to Boulder leaders" Heath Urie, Daily Camera, June 7, 2011.
↑ Laura Snider, "Boulder Issues 2B, 2C: Municipalization, related tax narrowly approved" Boulder Daily Camera, Nov. 1, 2011.
↑ City Council Minutes, March 18, 2008.
↑ "Electric Municipalization Report" City of Boulder, Feb. 27, 2007.
↑ Mark Jaffe "Boulder, Xcel Energy Square Off," Denver Post, Sept. 11, 2011.
↑ Citizens for Boulder's Clean Energy Future Web pages accessed Sept. 2011.
↑ "Boulder Municipal Utility Feasibility Study," Robertson Bryan Inc., Aug. 16, 2011.
↑ Steve Fenberg "Survey shows Boulder voters support creation of a city-owned electric utility by a wide margin" New Era News, Aug. 1, 2011.
↑ "2 Colorado firms get $14M for coal scrubber tests" Associated Press, July 7, 2010.
↑ Environmental Integrity Project, "Dirty Kilowatts: America’s Most Polluting Power Plants", July 2007.
↑ Dig Deeper, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.
↑ Power Plants in Alaska, Powerplantjobs.com, accessed June 2008.
↑ Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration website, accessed May 2008.
↑ Power Plants in Colorado, accessed May 2008.
↑ Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration website, accessed May 2008.
↑ "Colo. hears on utility's emissions-reduction plan" Associated Press, November 20, 2010.
↑ "Coal Production and Number of Mines by State, County, and Mine Type, 2010" U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2010.
↑ Major U.S. Coal Mines, Energy Information Administration, accessed May 2008.
↑ "Groups challenge Colorado coal mine expansion" Charleston Gazette, feb. 23, 2011.
↑ [http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-march/a-chance-to-do-it-right-on-western-coal "BLM gives Colorado coal mine expansion a second look"> Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, March 16, 2011.
↑ "Proposed Red Cliff Mine Project Description", BLM Colorado website, accessed March 2009.
↑ "New coal mine planned for West Routt,
" Steamboat Pilot & Today, April 5, 2009.
↑ "Colorado Roadless Areas on the Chopping Block (Again)" Ted Zukoski, EarthJustice, May 23, 2011.
↑ "Colorado coal mine OK blasted as Obama roadless rule reversal" David O. Williams, The Colorado Independent, November 9, 2011.
↑ "Newly opened southern Colorado mine lays off workers" Ryan Handy, Gazette.com, May 19, 2012.

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

For a list of politicians with known ALEC ties, please see ALEC Politicians.

This is a partial list of Colorado politicians that are known to be involved in, or previously involved in, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is a partial list. (If you have additional names, please add them with a citation. The names in this original list were verified as of posting.)

Legislators who have cut ties with ALEC publicly are also listed here.

Colorado Legislators with ALEC Ties

House of Representatives

Rep. Laura Bradford (R-55)^[1] (did not seek reelection in 2012)
Rep. B J Nikkel (R-49), State Chairman^[2] and Member of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force^[3] (did not run for reelection in 2012)
Rep. Larry G. Liston (R-16); Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force^[4] (could not run for reelection to the House in 2012 due to term limits; ran for Senate District 10 instead and lost the primary election in June 2012)
Rep. Robert S. Gardner (R-21); Civil Justice Task Force ^[5]
Rep. Mark Waller (R-15); Civil Justice Task Force^[6] and Communications and Technology Task Force^[7]
Rep. Cindy Acree (R-40)^[8]; Health and Human Services Task Force^[9]
Rep. Kenneth Summers (R-22); Health and Human Services Task Force^[10] (ran for election in Senate District 22 in November 2012 and lost)
Rep. Carole R. Murray (R-45); Education Task Force^[11]
Rep. Frank McNulty (R-43); Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force^[12]
Rep. Thomas Massey (R-60) (term limited in 2012)
Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-25); Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force^[13]
Rep. David G. Balmer (R-39) listed as ALEC member while serving in NC House. ^[14]

Senate

Sen. Bill Cadman (R-10), State Chairman^[2]; Civil Justice Task Force Member ^[15]
Sen. Nancy Spence (R-27), former co-chair, Education Task Force^[16][17] (ineligible to run for reelection in 2012 due to term limits)
Sen. Steve King (R-7)^[18]
Sen. Keith C. King (R-12); Education Task Force^[19] (did not run for reelection in 2012)
Sen. Scott W. Renfroe (R-13); Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force^[20]
Sen. Kent Lambert (R-9)^[8]
Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-15); Health and Human Services Task Force^[21]
Sen. Greg Brophy (R-1); Public Safety and Elections Task Force ^[3]

Former Legislators

Former Rep. Tom Blickensderfer (Senate Majority Leader), listed in the "1999 ALEC Leaders in the States" by ALEC^[22]
Former Sen. Sam Cassidy, Lt. Gov. 1994-1995 ^[14]
Former Rep. Doug Dean (R, Speaker of the House, now Director of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission), listed in the "1999 ALEC Leaders in the States" by ALEC^[22]
Former Rep. Russell George (Speaker of the House), listed in the "1999 ALEC Leaders in the States" by ALEC^[22]
Former Rep. William G. Kaufman (R, Speaker Pro Tempore, now member of the Colorado Transportation Commission), listed in the "1999 ALEC Leaders in the States" by ALEC^[22]
Former Sen. Mike Kopp (R-22); Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force^[23] (resigned October 2011)
Former Sen. Doug Lamborn (R) (current U.S. House Rep.^[24]), listed in the "1999 ALEC Leaders in the States" by ALEC^[22]
Former Sen. David Owen (R), former ALEC National Board member and State Chair
Former Sen. Ray Powers (R, Senate president, died 2008), former ALEC National Chair^[22]
Former Sen. Steve Ruddick ^[14]

References

↑ Email from Laura Bradford to Anne Landman, dated July 29, 2011, 9:35:12 AM MDT, saying she paid $100 dues to ALEC in November, 2010, covering two years' membership, making her a member through November of 2012
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, "ALEC State Chairmen, organization website, accessed April 2012
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, Public Safety & Elections Task Force 2011 Spring Task Force Summit April 29, 2011 Minutes, organizational document, June 30, 2011, p. 5, obtained and released by Common Cause April 2012
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ organizational member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Communications and Technology Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ ^8.0 ^8.1 American Legislative Exchange Council, Letter to Robert C. Byrd and Nancy Pelosi RE: Federal health reform efforts, June 24, 2009
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Tax and Fiscal Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ ^14.0 ^14.1 ^14.2 American Legislative Exchange Council, Sourcebook, annual organizational publication, 1995
↑ organizational member spreadsheet, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid, RE: the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, March 10, 2010
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council Inside ALEC Nov./Dec. 2009, organization newsletter, November/December 2009, p. 25, accessed 2011. This website has been altered by ALEC. An archived version from April 7, 2011, is available here.
↑ Claudette Konola Hickenlooper to the Rescue, blog, May 12, 2011
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, organizational task force membership directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Health and Human Services Task Force Membership Directory, August 2011, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ ^22.0 ^22.1 ^22.2 ^22.3 ^22.4 ^22.5 American Legislative Exchange Council, ’99 ALEC Leaders in the States, organizational document, archived by the Wayback Machine December 8, 2000, accessed November 2012
↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, Directory – Full Name and Address, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Membership Directory, December 2010, obtained and released by Common Cause
↑ Congressman Doug Lamborn, About, U.S. House of Representatives member biography, accessed November 2012

Categories: