Colorado 2 bak

---

bak 320

no merri

state gop wackos?

CLIMATE LAWSUIT ~ LEO ALEC

target cave tina peters

see Boulder (lawsuits, fusion ctr?!)

gang apt BS cbz mgmt

see boebert

html endit

---

-=-=

RWW

8 26

Hunter Walker @ Talking Points Memo: Colorado GOP Gov Nominee Claims to Have Battled ‘Demons’ With ‘Reptilian’ Eyes

Improbable stories are a foundational element of Marx’s career as a Christian Nationalist Evangelist preacher and podcaster. Marx, a Marine veteran, claims to hold multiple high-level black belts stemming from his stepfather’s creation of a martial arts system, “Keichu-Do” or “Cajun Karate.” At points, Marx has suggested that he’s used these deadly skills to rescue tens of thousands of women and children from hot zones around the world.

-=-=

AN 8 26

In August 2025 — roughly seven months into his second presidency — Donald Trump threatened Colorado officials with "harsh measures" if they didn't release former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters from prison, where she was serving time for criminal charges related to her efforts to overturn 2020's presidential election results. Now, newly revealed e-mails, according to MS NOW's Steve Benen, shed light on the steps Trump took to punish the State of Colorado for Peters' incarceration.

Highlighting one of Benen's August 17 opinion columns in a post on X, formerly Twitter, journalist Kyle Griffin notes, "Emails revealed in court: As Trump publicly condemned Colorado for incarcerating convicted felon and election denier Tina Peters, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies — with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado. The next day, federal agencies announced they were canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for Colorado projects."

Benen, in his column, points out that the "degree to which" Trump "was serious" about punishing Colorado because of Peters "is still coming into focus."

"The New York Times reported, late last week, for example, that as Trump publicly condemned the Rocky Mountain State for incarcerating a convicted felon, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies, with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado," Benen explains. "The meeting, evidently, was a success — at least as far as the administration was concerned."

Trump's "assault against the Democratic-run state," Benen observes, ranged from cutting off transportation funds to taking "steps to dismantle a renowned science lab in Colorado."

"But while the pattern is not new, what is new is the newly disclosed document: We're now aware of an e-mail, sent by White House special assistant Emily Underwood just days after the president published a series of messages related to Peters, which reinforces rather obvious suspicions that the administration's campaign against Colorado was not a mere coincidence: Team Trump set out to punish the state, and then took a variety of steps to execute that plan ... It's worth emphasizing that the gambit — what was effectively an extortion plot, hatched by the White House against an American state — proved effective."

Benen continues, "In mid-May, Polis succumbed to pressure and announced his commutation for Peters, a convicted felon who illegally tried to use her office in pursuit of pro-Trump election conspiracy theories. But the fact that the scheme worked doesn't make it any more defensible."

---

AN PP 4 26

Across the country, Republican-led state legislatures are passing a slate of laws that effectively shield oil and gas companies from legal claims that they are responsible for the destruction and mounting toll caused by climate change. Fifteen laws have either been passed or are currently being debated in 11 states. Together, they threaten to remove long-standing tools for the public to hold corporations accountable.

A ProPublica investigation has found that most of these bills are part of a coordinated effort, orchestrated by a constellation of groups that share staff or have funding ties to the prominent conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is credited with placing conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. These groups have drafted state legislation, planned its dissemination and engaged a well-connected lobbying firm to get them signed into law.

The effort is unfolding as courts are weighing more than 30 significant lawsuits by states, counties and municipalities accusing fossil fuel companies of misrepresenting the risks their products posed to consumers and seeking to recoup the costs of disasters and other climate impacts like wildfire losses or coastal flooding that their products helped cause. A goal of the legislation is to block these cases from going forward and prevent new ones from being filed.

The strategy to establish state laws that will make it all but impossible to sue oil and gas companies was laid out in detail by a group of lobbyists and political operatives in December, during a panel presentation at the annual States and Nation Policy Summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council — the influential organization that brings together state lawmakers, corporate leaders and conservative activists to draft and promote legislation.

During the session, one of the panelists, Will Hild, the executive director of a nonprofit called Consumers’ Research, described the climate cases as a liberal effort to use the judicial system to exact a new tax on energy companies in the form of civil judgments. Another panelist, Oramel H. Skinner, the former solicitor general for Arizona and the executive director of the nonprofit Alliance for Consumers, warned that those judgments will trickle down to make citizens’ lives less affordable and ultimately make many of their choices — whether to own pickup trucks or purchase a side of beef — illegal.

ProPublica reviewed an audio recording of the event obtained by the nonpartisan watchdog group Documented.

Hild and Skinner had come to the session with a ready-made fix: a set of pre-written bills and plenty of funding.

Consumers’ Research and the Alliance for Consumers are both funded by organizations connected to Leo. ProPublica examined lobbying records across 25 states, federal tax disclosures for more than a dozen organizations and notes from other closed-door strategy sessions among ALEC members and found that several Leo-supported groups are part of a national strategy to give legal immunity to companies for their climate emissions.

Since 2021, Leo has been deploying a $1.6 billion gift through a series of nonprofits and other organizations that obscure the source and the recipients of donations — so-called dark money groups. Much of that money has been routed through a nonprofit judicial advocacy group Leo founded — now called The 85 Fund — which both receives and disseminates Leo’s funding. Many of these nonprofits are increasingly focused on issues related to climate change.

The panel session’s moderator, Michael Thompson, is a senior vice president at CRC Advisors, Leo’s for-profit Virginia-based political and corporate consulting firm. He also sits on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council. Hild’s organization, Consumers’ Research, received more than 65% of its funding in 2024 through a dark money group called Donors Trust. The 85 Fund contributed more than $67 million to Donors Trust in 2024. Consumers’ Research also works closely with — and contracted more than $670,000 of work in 2024 to — CRC Advisors. Another panelist, Paul N. Watkins, was a legal fellow at Consumers’ Research. According to tax filings, his law firm received more than $2.2 million in 2024 from the group. As recently as 2024, Skinner was also counsel for Leo’s 85 Fund, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings.

= POWELL MEMO BS

“For decades, the left has leveraged immense resources to capture the institutions that shape our society — the legal system, universities, medical and scientific bodies, the entertainment industry, and our biggest corporations,” Leo wrote to ProPublica in a text message. “That takeover resulted in a radically woke culture that does not reflect the will of the American people, or the pillars of limited constitutional government that made our country great. That is why our enterprise supports organizations that are committed to crushing liberal dominance and restoring balance in the institutions that shape society.”

At the ALEC session, Skinner presented a model bill that would effectively bar cities and towns from bringing public nuisance lawsuits against corporations and others when the issue is a broad public harm like climate change. In several cases, plaintiffs have argued that the impacts of climate change — the buckling of a road from extreme swings in temperature, for example — are a “nuisance” caused by fossil fuel companies.

Nuisance claims are common in the American legal system, giving individuals, companies or communities a way to sue when someone else’s actions damage their property, degrade the health or safety of the environment around them or interfere with their rights. Under these laws, parties can ask for financial compensation or seek court orders to remedy problems, such as pollution. Skinner, however, argues that nuisance laws should only be used to address local, easily fixable problems, like excessive noise from a bar. His bill would curtail the use of public nuisance suits in climate cases by limiting liability for manufacturers and other businesses and giving state attorneys general the sole authority to bring them.

“Think really hard about every lever you have in your states to shut off the ability for this woke lawfare machine to churn,” Skinner told the audience. “The left’s goal is to reshape society around you using the courtroom.”

The second draft law, called the Energy Freedom Act, was produced by the policy nonprofit associated with Hild’s organization. It would, among many provisions, shield businesses from liability related to emissions of greenhouse gases if those releases did not violate the federal Clean Air Act.

Critics of the bills say they subvert the rights of local communities. They send the message that “you can pollute with impunity,” said Carly Phillips, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s really a thumb in the eye of places that are affected by climate change.”

The push to block climate suits across the states comes as several of the cases against the oil industry approach, or have already entered, the perilous legal phases of discovery, when plaintiffs will have the opportunity to seek confidential industry documents and depose oil executives. The stakes for oil companies are enormous. By some estimates more than $10 trillion in damages can be attributed to U.S. emissions.

:{:{There’s a reason why state and local governments have increasingly brought these suits. The frequency and cost of climate-influenced disasters, including severe storms, drought and flooding, continues to mount — between $350 billion and $450 billion in each of the last three years — stretching government budgets.}:

Significantly, the science that makes it possible to attribute how much any one disaster was influenced by climate change has steadily advanced. To cite one example, the March heat waves across the U.S. would have been virtually impossible without the emissions that have caused climate change, according to the European science group World Weather Attribution, and were about four times as likely to happen as they were a decade ago.}:

Boulder, Colorado, is among the places facing increasing droughts, more extreme precipitation and larger wildfires — all of which are significantly propelled by climate change linked to the emissions from the use of fossil fuels. The state has estimated the costs of these perils will run into the many hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2018, Boulder County sued Exxon Mobil and the Canadian oil company Suncor Energy, accusing the companies of “intentional, reckless and negligent conduct.”

Among its claims, the county alleged the oil companies engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public and violated consumer protection rules by mischaracterizing the dangers of their products. They accused the oil companies of creating a public nuisance by altering the environment and leaving the county to pay to abate growing hazards such as the flooding that tests roads and bridges. Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy have never filed a response in Colorado but asked for the case to be dismissed.

Ever since, the lawsuit has been mired in a dispute over whether Colorado courts were the correct venue, with the state Supreme Court ultimately ruling last May that they were. Suncor filed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider, and this fall it will weigh the company’s petition asking whether federal environmental law preempts the state law.

:{:{The high-profile national court case is just one facet in an increasingly tense fight over liability for the fossil fuel industry. In January, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest fossil fuel industry group in the United States, said fighting the climate liability lawsuits was one of its top priorities in 2026. Lobbying records for the group from last year show that it advocated for legislation to protect oil producers from climate lawsuits at the state level. }:

The Trump administration; other industry groups, including the Chamber of Commerce; and several of the nonprofit advocacy groups associated with Leo have argued that state courts are the wrong venue for claims that ultimately concern emissions that drift widely across borders, and they wish to see other cases moved or dismissed. They say that because the federal government already has the authority to regulate those emissions, the federal courts, not the states, should hear the claims.}:

In an interview, Hild told ProPublica that he sees the suits as an illegitimate effort to enact policy through the courts and to “regulate the entire U.S. economy from a single state.”

In an email, Skinner wrote: “Our effort is not one focused on climate change. But it is true that left-wing activists and their dark money donors have put vast sums of money and years of groundwork into pushing a coast-to-coast campaign of climate-focused public nuisance lawsuits.”

Neither Watkins nor Thompson responded to requests for comment.

When Skinner and Hild finished their presentation at ALEC they made a QR code available to download the language of the model bills and directed the audience to a woman named Catherine Gunsalus, who was in the back of the room. She would be able to answer any questions, they said.

Gunsalus until recently worked for the Heritage Action Fund, the political and lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, the Trump-aligned think tank that is most recently known for promoting the Project 2025 agenda. Records show that Gunsalus has also lobbied in collaboration with another Leo-affiliated group, Americans for Public Trust.

In April 2025, she formed a lobbying firm called Varidon Strategies and began registering in states almost immediately afterward, according to records. By mid-summer, Varidon was representing Alliance for Consumers Action Fund; Consumers’ Research; The Honest Election Project, an affiliate of The 85 Fund; as well as other Leo entities in 25 states. In the majority of those filings, Varidon used an email address at the domain of Holtzman Vogel, a Virginia-based law firm that is often retained by Leo’s organizations.

Gunsalus did not reply to a detailed list of questions.

In the four months since the ALEC summit, there has been substantial activity in the states where Varidon has registered. On Jan. 5, representatives in Missouri introduced the loosely related Eliminate Criminal Profiteering Act, which could stop revenues flowing to law firms from settlements in the sort of nuisance suits often used in climate cases. Two days later, legislators took up the Public Nuisance Reform Act, which proposes narrowing the definition of what could be considered a nuisance.

That same month, similar bills were introduced in Indiana, Oklahoma and Tennessee. In February, eight more followed in Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Utah, Louisiana and Kansas. Skinner, who is registered to lobby in Kansas, was invited to testify in a hearing about that state’s bill and launched a new “End the Lawfare” website targeting the “left-wing” agenda. As of April 2, versions of the model legislation offered at the ALEC meeting have been introduced across 11 states altogether. In Utah, the governor has signed two related bills into law, and in Tennessee and Indiana, bills are awaiting their governors’ signature.

The more states there are with some sort of waiver in place, the narrower the pathway for cities and states to seek redress as environmental conditions worsen, and the costs continue to rise. Hild and Skinner and the Leo network’s bills also serve another purpose: teeing up a conflict that pits states against one another, a conflict that only the Supreme Court or Congress can finally resolve.

As Hild put it at the ALEC gathering, “This is economic civil war.”

---

A Hawaiʻi state judge last week_rejected oil companies’ attempts_to have Honolulu’s climate deception case dropped,sending the case forward toward discovery.
We may know as early as Monday whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant_Big Oil’s plea_ to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Boulder, Colorado’s, climate deception lawsuit. Keep an eye out on our socials for timely updates.

CCI

GMAIL CCI 12 25

Washington residents are arguing that Big Oil’s “coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels” has led to escalating home insurance costs, according to a _recently-filed lawsuit_. The federal class action lawsuit is the first of its kind, aiming to hold oil companies accountable not just for their decades of climate deception, but for the resulting insurance crisis that has stemmed from more frequent and severe weather disasters.

We may know as early as Monday whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant Big Oil’s pleato review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Boulder's climate deception lawsuit. Keep an eye out on our socials for timely updates.

---

===

AN SN 11 25

When the Trump administration requested that Colorado transfer custody of Tina Peters from the state to the federal government, there was only one plausible response: Not in a million years.

But Gov. Jared Polis seems to have a different idea.

For some mysterious reason, he appears to think there might be some merit to the request. No matter how he comes down on the matter, he has already undermined the rule of law and insulted every local official who helps manage honest elections in the face of right-wing extremist threats.

Peters is serving time in state prison, and for good reason: The Republican former Mesa County clerk was the linchpin in a plan to breach the security of her own election equipment to prove the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. She was convicted in state court of multiple counts related to the scheme, including four felonies, and sentenced to almost nine years behind bars.

The local district attorney who prosecuted the case was a Republican in a county that favored Trump by 28 percentage points, and there is no credible reason to think the conviction was unjust or compromised by politics.

But in MAGA America, what matters more than anything is personal loyalty to President Donald Trump, which Peters offers in ample measure. That’s why the president has repeatedly demanded that she be released, claiming preposterously that “she did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election” and promising “harsh measures” if Colorado fails to comply.

In March, J. Bishop Grewell, then the acting U.S. attorney for Colorado, and Peter McNeilly, then an assistant U.S. attorney for Colorado, were among three Justice Department officials who told a federal judge in Colorado they were reviewing the state’s prosecution of Peters. This month, Trump’s Bureau of Prisons formally made a request to the Colorado Department of Corrections to transfer her to federal custody.

The request is corrupt and deserves no consideration. Trump wants to aid a criminal ally, as he’s already done so many times since January.

“One is only left to assume that either the Trump administration wants her moved to federal custody so that they could somehow then release her outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado, which would be a blockbuster obstruction of justice by the U.S. government against a lawful state criminal order, or they want to put her in federal custody to give her some improved conditions,” lawyer Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, said during an with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen.

Yet more than a week after the Trump administration sent its request to the state, Polis’ office in a statement to Newsline said he was still “reviewing” the request.

There’s nothing to review. As stated by Phil Weiser, the Democratic Colorado attorney general, and Dan Rubinstein, the Republican district attorney who prosecuted Peters, in a joint letter last week imploring Polis to deny the administration’s request, Trump “has no legal basis to interfere with the sentence in this case,” and the request is an attempt “to circumvent Colorado’s sovereignty.”

Even if Polis ultimately decides to deny the request, his long silence in the face of such brazen lawlessness has already made him look weak, and it has done real damage. During a Tuesday press conference, when a bipartisan group of local election officials from around the state exhorted Polis to deny the request, county clerks said they have experienced an “immediate uptick in concerns about safety” in relation to the Peters case.

The clerks said they have yet to even hear from Polis, even though they sent him a letter last week requesting a meeting with him about Peters.

This is hardly the first time Polis has appeared to accommodate Trump or fully sided with team MAGA. His administration has been all too eager to supply sensitive information about Colorado residents to ICE as part of Trump’s inhumane mass deportation program.

In the Peters case, he risks undermining the rule of law and fueling doubts about voting in a state where brave Democratic and Republican officials have done so much to defend free and fair elections.

He owes it to anyone who hopes systems of justice can withstand authoritarian attacks to quickly, forcefully and publicly tell the Trump administration that Peters isn’t going anywhere.

---

nyt

Trump Rally in Aurora, Colo., Is Marked by Nativist Attacks

The former president continued to make claims about the city that have been disputed by local officials, including its Republican mayor.

Donald Trump speaking onstage, in a blue suit and red tie.

Former President Donald J. Trump at a campaign rally in Aurora, Colo., on Friday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Michael GoldJonathan Weisman

By Michael Gold and Jonathan Weisman

Michael Gold reported from Aurora, Colo.

Oct. 11, 2024

Former President Donald J. Trump escalated the nativist, anti-immigration rhetoric that has animated his political career with a speech Friday in Aurora, Colo., where he repeated false and grossly exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants that local Republican officials have refuted.

For weeks, Aurora has been fending off false rumors about the city. And its conservative Republican mayor, Mike Coffman, said in a statement on Friday that he hoped to show Mr. Trump that Aurora was “a considerably safe city.”

But Mr. Trump has made debunked claims about Aurora, a Denver suburb, such a central part of his stump speech that he took a campaign detour to Colorado, which has not voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 2004, to make the case in person at a rally at the Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center.

And during a meandering 80-minute speech Mr. Trump repeated claims, which have been debunked by local officials, that Aurora had been “invaded and conquered,” described the United States as an “occupied state,” called for the death penalty “for any migrant that kills an American citizen” and revived a promise to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process.

That law allows for the summary deportation of people from nations with which the United States is at war, that have invaded the United States or that have engaged in “predatory incursions.” It was far from clear whether the law could be used in the way that Mr. Trump was proposing.

The false tale that Aurora, Colorado’s third-largest city, was occupied by armed Venezuelans stemmed from a dispute over housing conditions.

An out-of-state landlord, CBZ Management, was being pressed by the City of Aurora over the deplorable conditions in three of its apartment complexes. The landlord told the city in July that its property managers were unable to make the repairs that tenants and city officials were demanding because armed leaders of Tren de Aragua had taken over the complexes and violently expelled the managers. The claim was amplified by news reports and politicians, and took on a life of its own, especially after Mr. Trump began making it a regular part of his stump speech — even after city officials said the claims had been overstated and were not true.

Image

An apartment complex in Aurora, Colo., owned by CBZ Management that was closed this year by the city after it pressed the landlord to improve living conditions there.Credit...Michael Ciaglo for The New York Times.

The city put out a statement on Friday pre-emptively fact-checking the former president ahead of his rally.

“A gang has not ‘taken over’ the city,” it said. “The overstated claims fueled by social media and through select news organizations are simply not true. It is tragic that select individuals and entities have mischaracterized our city based on some specific incidents.”

Major crimes, it continued, are down more than 17 percent in Aurora. And “the city is actively deploying every legal tool to ensure CBZ Management is accountable for its properties and meets its responsibilities.”

After the rally, Mr. Coffman, the mayor, said that he was “disappointed that the former president did not get to experience more of our city for himself” and that “the reality is that the concerns about Venezuelan gang activity in our city — and our state — have been grossly exaggerated and have unfairly hurt the city’s identity and sense of safety.”

“The city and state have not been ‘taken over’ or ‘invaded’ or ‘occupied’ by migrant gangs,” he said. “The incidents that have occurred in Aurora, a city of 400,000 people, have been limited to a handful of specific apartment complexes, and our dedicated police officers have acted on those concerns and will continue to do so.”

Mr. Trump’s visit to Aurora comes as he has ramped up his harsh language on immigration and continues to claim falsely that undocumented immigrants are fueling a “migrant crime” wave. Available national crime statistics do not support that assertion. But Mr. Trump relies on anecdotal evidence to make his case.

Mr. Trump’s nativist message was echoed by other speakers at the rally, including Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado. Shortly before Mr. Trump’s remarks, Stephen Miller, his top immigration adviser, made anti-immigrant language central to his appeals to the crowd to vote.

“You have the right to want a country that is of, by and for Americans and only Americans,” Mr. Miller said.

Image

Even as city officials tried to set the record straight before Mr. Trump’s rally, the former president repeated many of the false assertions. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

His false assertions extended to another city, Springfield, Ohio, where he continued to insist falsely that Haitian migrants who are in the country legally were “really illegal,” as he persisted in stretching the bounds of what he described as unlawful entry into the country.

Many of the Haitian migrants in Springfield have Temporary Protected Status, which gives people from a country in crisis — typically after a natural disaster or political upheaval — the opportunity to remain in the United States legally, regardless of how they entered the country. (In the presidential debate last month, Mr. Trump falsely claimed that the migrants there were eating household pets.)

At the rally, Mr. Trump continued to use dehumanizing rhetoric, referring to violent immigrants as “animals,” “barbaric thugs” and “sadistic monsters.” At one point, he falsely claimed that Ms. Harris had “infested” buildings in Aurora with gang members.

Though immigration dominated Mr. Trump’s speech, he digressed to attack the news media, demean Ms. Harris and stray to other topics. At one point, he seemed to mix up his namesake company with his presidency. “On Day 1 of the Trump Organization — the Trump Organization, when I founded it, it was nice, but now it’s great,” he said. “But I want to get back to the Trump administration, because the Trump administration is going to do things.”

Mr. Trump during his speech acknowledged that his trip to reliably blue Colorado was meant to draw attention to his message on immigration.

The Aurora rally was one of several stops in blue states he will make as the election closes, in a period when campaigns would typically be more focused on battleground states. On Saturday, he will hold a rally in Coachella, Calif., and he will hold a rally in Manhattan at Madison Square Garden later this month.

Michael C. Bender and Jazmine Ulloa contributed reporting.

Michael Gold is a political correspondent for The Times covering the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and other candidates in the 2024 presidential elections. More about Michael Gold

Jonathan Weisman is a politics writer, covering campaigns with an emphasis on economic and labor policy. He is based in Chicago. More about Jonathan Weisman

===

an 8 24

A new report is sounding the alarm about Republican election officials in Colorado who will likely protest the 2024 election results.

Colorado's election certification system is run by local canvassing boards that feature one Democratic appointee and one Republican, along with an elected elections official, USA Today reported. In the past few elections where the GOP appointee has protested certification, the Democrat and the elected official have outvoted the Republican.

In Jefferson County, which is the western and southwestern part of Denver, Republican representative Nancy Pallozzi has spent the last three elections refusing to certify results, but critics say that she hasn't ever raised any legitimate reasons to call the results of the election into doubt.

“We’ve worked with Nancy many times, and every election, she sends us a letter with some sort of reason for not certifying the election, and none of it is ever coherent,” wrote Jefferson County Clerk spokesperson Sarah McAfee. “It seems to be some sort of political statement.”

Pallozzi's actions are part of a broader trend of Republican elections officials refusing to sign off one elections where Democrats win. While these objections so far haven't blocked elected officials from taking office, they could nonetheless create chaos and delay the certification of the electoral college this November.

“I think the powers driving the election denial movement have been using the last three years as a testing ground for different techniques, different strategies to see what they can do to create confusion and cause chaos in the process,” Matt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, told USA Today.

Professor Rick Hasen, from the University of California Los Angeles, who runs ElectionLawBlog.org, said that those local officials could stop the final result if they have enough allies and the election is close.

“It’s a kind of strategy, if it’s a close election, to find a way to slow things down or provide a path for changing election outcomes,” said Hasen.

See the full report and other concerning elections canvassing board officials here.

===

[### Jeffco GOP censures local leader who called for state party ...

Colorado Public Radio

https://www.cpr.org › 2024/06/14 › jefferson-county-g...](https://www.cpr.org/2024/06/14/jefferson-county-gop-censure-over-dave-williams-recall/)

Jun 14, 2024 — On Thursday night the Jefferson County Republican executive committee censured county chair Nancy Pallozzi for acting in a manner “of much ...

[### County chair reprimanded over effort to oust Colorado GOP ...

KDVR

https://kdvr.com › politics › colorado-politics-news › c...](https://kdvr.com/news/politics/colorado-politics-news/county-chair-reprimanded-over-effort-to-oust-colorado-gop-chair/)

Jun 14, 2024 — Jefferson County Republican Party Chair Nancy Pallozzi was censured over her efforts to remove Colorado GOP Dave Williams from his position.

[### Bid to oust GOP's state chair is unprecedented

Colorado Springs Gazette

https://gazette.com › opinion › bid-to-oust-gop-s-state-c...](https://gazette.com/opinion/bid-to-oust-gop-s-state-chair-is-unprecedented-and-needed-dick-wadhams/article_1f0b988a-2a6a-11ef-b308-030a149411f8.html)

Jun 17, 2024 — Jefferson County Republican Chair Nancy Pallozzi is leading an insurrection within the 400-member Colorado Republican State Central Committee to ...

[### Nancy Pallozzi

Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org › Nancy_Pallozzi](https://ballotpedia.org/Nancy_Pallozzi)

Karla Esser defeated Nancy Pallozzi in the general election for Colorado State Board of Education District 7 on November 3, 2020. Candidate. %. Votes. ✓. Image ...

---

rww 7 24

While June is typically celebrated as LGBTQ+ Pride month, Colorado Republican Party chairman Dave Williams has spent the last several weeks bashing the LGBTQ+ community. And on Tuesday night, Centennial State Republicans handed him a major loss.

---

texas-lt-gov-wants-to-remove-biden-from-ballot-after-colorado-booted-trump-video

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/education/new-colorado-gop-chair-opposes-public-schools-because-they-purportedly-teach-students

---

wildfire took out 1k houses? put out by snow?!

---

an 10 22

Colorado Republican United States Senate candidate Joe O'Dea revealed on Sunday's edition of CNN's State of the Union that he will “actively campaign against” former President Donald Trump if he mounts a White House bid in 2024.

“I don’t think Donald Trump should run again,” O’Dea said. “I’m going to actively campaign against Donald Trump and make sure that we’ve got four or five really great Republicans right now" who could defeat Trump in the GOP primary.

“They can run and serve for eight years,” O’Dea predicted of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, ex-South Carolina governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. “I’m going to do my job as a U.S. senator to make sure that they have good campaigns in the primary here so we have a good selection of candidates for 2024.”

On Monday, Trump attacked O'Dea on his Twitter copycat app Truth Social as a Republican In Name Only and proclaimed that his Make America Great Again movement only elects the best and brightest people.

"There’s this RINO character in the Great State of Colorado, Joe O’Dea, that is running against the incumbent Democrat for the United States Senate, who is having a good old time saying that he wants to 'distance' himself from President Trump, and other slightly nasty things. He should look at the Economy, Inflation, Energy Independence, defeating ISIS, the Strongest EVER Border, Great Trade Deals, & much more, before he speaks. MAGA doesn’t Vote for stupid people with big mouths," Trump wrote. "Good luck Joe!"

---

she is a crook"

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/tina-peters-mesa-county/

---

an 6 22

although Colorado is far from a red state at this point, it has its Republican-leaning districts — and one of Colorado’s most infamous GOP politicians is Rep. Lauren Boebert. Colorado has a Democratic governor (Jared Polis) and two Democratic U.S. senators (John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet), and Democrats have majorities in both the Colorado State Senate and the Colorado House of Representatives.

But Boebert, a far-right MAGA extremist, conspiracy theorist and QAnon supporter along the lines of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Paul Gosar or Arizona, has been a consistent source of embarrassment to Colorado — and journalist Nick Bowlin, in an article published by The Guardian guk on June 27, describes efforts by both Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans to get her voted out of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

Bowlin explains, “Boebert’s extreme right-wing stances range from absolute opposition to gun control to questioning the effectiveness of vaccines and the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections. All are conveyed by a social media persona fine-tuned to inflame the culture wars…. Along with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance and others, she is among a vanguard of younger, stridently conservative politicians following former President Donald Trump’s path to prominence.”

Boebert is running for a second term in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

But her critics, Bowlin explains, are hoping to prevent her from being reelected. And they have two opportunities to defeat her: a GOP primary this Tuesday, June 28, and the general election — both of which are longshots.

“Colorado holds what are known as open primaries,” Bowlin notes. “This means independent voters automatically receive election ballots for both Republican and Democratic Party elections. These unaffiliated voters outnumber both Republicans and Democrats in Colorado’s third district, making up about 44% of active voters. With the Democratic Party’s failure to come up with a high-profile candidate, there has been a concerted anti-Boebert push among quietly dissenting Republicans, angry unaffiliated voters and even Democrats who renounce their party registration to vote in the GOP primary against Boebert.”

One of the residents of Boebert’s district who would like to see her voted out of office is Susan Reed, a retired cultural archeologist who changed her registration from Democrat to unaffiliated.

Reed told the Guardian, “Boebert is an embarrassment to our district. We need a legislator and not a Fox News personality.”

A variety of Boebert opponents, according to Bowlin, are rallying around Colorado State Sen. Don Coram — a Republican and moderate conservative who is challenging Boebert in the primary. In the Colorado State Senate, Coram has a reputation for making deals with Democrats.

“At times, Coram’s politics veer beyond the normal GOP boundaries,” Bowlin observes. “In 2015, he helped write a bill to provide millions in state funding to provide free contraceptives to teenagers. Coram opposes abortions. Preventing them, in his view, requires easily available contraception."

Not surprisingly, Boebert has been slamming Coram as a RINO: Republican In Name Only.

Coram told The Guardian, “We’re concentrating on what we refer to as kitchen-table Republicans, the more moderate Republicans that aren’t all driven by theories and agendas. We’re concentrated on them and the unaffiliated vote.”

Coram is facing an uphill climb, as Boebert is popular with the MAGA crowd and is running in Colorado’s conservative 3rd Congressional District. Nonetheless, J. Miles Coleman, an election analyst for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, believes that the June 28 primary is the best chance to get Boebert out of Congress.

Coleman predicts that if Boebert wins the primary, she will also win the general election. And Coleman doesn’t think that any of the Democratic primary candidates — who include Alex Walker, Sol Sandoval and Adam Frisch — would be able to defeat her.

Coleman told The Guardian, “It’s a conservative seat with a libertarian streak, especially on guns, taxes and government regulation. Boebert checks a lot of those boxes.”

---

worst is props?!

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-green-ballot-measures-fossil-fuel/

intercept

no lnx

tHE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SPENT $100 MILLION TO KILL GREEN BALLOT MEASURES IN THREE STATES — AND WON

One clear takeaway from the ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington state is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.

Kate Aronoff

November 7 2018,

PATRICIA NELSON WAS eager for a fresh start when she moved her family from Louisiana back home to Weld County, Colorado, in 2016. Soon after, Nelson’s friend encouraged her to come out to a meeting where Lisa McKenzie, an environmental chemist and epidemiologist at the Colorado School of Public Health, was presenting her research on the health impacts of oil and natural gas drilling.

Weld County has one of the highest concentrations of oil and gas wells in the country — 23,000 within county limits. Its air quality carries an “F” rating from the American Lung Association, with infant mortality rates twice as high as those in surrounding counties. With around 50,000 active wells overall, Colorado just surpassed California to become America’s third-largest oil and gas producer after Texas and North Dakota.

“It was a crash course in fracking,” Nelson told me by phone. Colorado law, she learned, states that drilling operations have to be 1,000 feet away from school buildings, but that ordinance — known as a setback — doesn’t include surrounding school properties, like playgrounds or soccer fields. There, as McKenzie would explain, kids playing and running around breathe harder and heavier, increasing the amount of poisoned air that enters their lungs and bloodstream.

All of this hit too close to home: As she also learned, oil companies had just been approved to open 24 new drill sites near her then-4-year-old son Diego’s school, the kindergarten through third grade campus of Bella Romero Academy; the drilling would take place just behind the fourth through eighth grade campus, where her niece and nephew were students. The decision to drill near Bella Romero at all — where 87 percent of attendees are students of color, and 90 percent fall below the poverty line — was made after parents at an overwhelmingly white school refused to have the same rigs in their kids’ backyards.

Shocked by what she discovered, Nelson joined a coalition that would later become known as Colorado Rising and traveled around the state, telling people about the stakes at her son’s school. Colorado Rising’s work included a push for Proposition 112, a ballot measure to mandate a 2,500-foot setback zone between drill sites and homes, schools, and other vulnerable areas. That measure was defeated 57 to 43 on Tuesday night, in large part thanks to a full-fledged freakout by the fossil fuel industry, which, with $40 million, outspent Prop 112 proponents by at least 40 to 1.

“I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

“This is much farther than we’ve gotten before, and we’re no longer going to accept this industry bullying us,” Nelson told me last night, celebrating the fact that Prop 112 even made it on the ballot. “We had a pretty good shot, but they definitely had way more resources than we did. I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

Environmental initiatives on the ballot elsewhere in the country, vehemently opposed by industry groups, also flopped. A ballot initiative in Washington state to levy a $15 per ton carbon fee on polluters and invest the revenue in job creation, green infrastructure, and more was defeated 56 to 44 thanks to over $30 million from the oil and gas industry.

In Arizona, electric utilities spent $31 million against Prop 127, which would have upped the state’s renewable portfolio standard, requiring the power sector to generate at least half its power from renewables by 2030. The proposition was largely bankrolled by liberal donor Tom Steyer via NextGen America, which poured $24 million in support, but it failed resoundingly, garnering just 30 percent of the vote....[more]

tUESDAY WASN’T AN unambiguous win for the industry, though — even in Colorado. Amendment 74 — polling high before the election and far better than Prop 112 — would have allowed property owners to sue local governments and the state for any infringement on their profits, but fell short of the 55 percent of votes needed to be grafted into Colorado’s constitution. The campaign for Amendment 74 was small compared to the fight against Prop 112 but still sizable, with $11.2 million raised by backers — about $10 million from oil and gas — and $6.3 by opponents under the banner Save Our Neighborhoods.

Still, one clear takeaway from the midterms ballot initiatives is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.Apparently, $100 million can buy four of them. “They’re putting up big numbers,” said Edgar Franks, a Bellingham-based labor organizer who helped draft and campaign for I-1631 with the environmental justice group Front and Centered. “You can tell that where this is actually a threat to the way that they do business, because they know it’s going to work.”

While Washington Gov. Jay Inslee backed I-1631 — having failed to get his own carbon fee through the legislature this spring — his Colorado counterpart was on the opposite side of the fight in his state.Prop 112 failed amid opposition not just from the oil and gas industry, but also from now-outgoing Colorado governor and former oil industry geologist John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, along with governor-elect Jared Polis and his Republican opponent. The Colorado Democratic Party, however, supported it. Polis’s opposition was ironic, given that he himself had spearheaded the push for a 2,000-foot setback rule several years ago before eventually withdrawing it from the ballot.

Despite Polis’s opposition to Prop 112, Colorado Rising is cautiously optimistic about working with his administration, a position bolstered by the fact that Democrats managed to flip the state legislature last night. “Polis clearly understands that fracking is dangerous near communities,” said Micah Parkin, a board member of Colorado Rising and executive director of 350 Colorado. “He may not agree with us on 2,500 feet, but he clearly gets that it doesn’t belong near our children’s schools and homes and water sources.”

The bar for improving Hickenlooper’s record on extraction has been set pretty low. The outgoing governor had threatened to call a special lame duck session of the state legislature in the event of Prop 112’s passage.“ It’s incredibly undemocratic,” said Parkin in advance of the vote. “The very idea that he would think it’s OK to turn around and ignore the will of the people, when thousands of his own constituents have worked so hard.”

The statement wasn’t unprecedented for Hickenlooper. In 2013, he openly threatened to sue any city that banned fracking within its borders and in fact, did sue Longmont and Fort Collins after they implemented restrictions on fracking. The state’s suit also undermined the legal standing of three other bans and moratoria. “Topics like these,” Nelson told me, “are the ones that enable the true colors of our representatives to come out. It just shows that he’s never been on the side of the people, he’s been on the side of industry.”

Predictably, then, the fight over Proposition 112 got ugly. Oil and gas interests painted the measure as an attempt to ban fracking in the state, though it in fact only added on to policies that already exist, which require a 500-foot setback from homes and 1,000-foot setback from schools.In collecting signatures this summer to get Prop 112 on the ballot, canvassers were followed and surrounded by paid protesters. “It would be between two and four of us who would plan out where to collect signatures,” Nelson said. “We would get there and 15 or 20 minutes later, these kids would show up with their signs. Unless they were following us, how would they know where we were?” She suspects at least some of them were University of Colorado students and had awkward encounters with them around town after encountering them while petitioning.

A political consultant hired by Colorado Rising this summer to help collect signatures also walked out of the state with 15,000 signatures, which were only retrieved after the group filed a lawsuit to have them returned.

The industry also publicly — and knowingly — overstated the impact of the measure. As Denver’s 9News found from a leaked report that industry groups had seen a report from the consultancy RS Energy stating that their losses would be far less than what they projected out over airwaves. The industry-friendly state regulator, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, had instead claimed in July that some 80 percent of non-federal land in Colorado — the only land covered by Prop 112 — would be off-limits to drilling. Yet the RS Energy report shows that companies would maintain access to 61 percent of the state’s oil and gas reserves. That’s partially because although companies would be barred from drilling within setback zones, horizontal drilling techniques — where the well mouth is within permitted drilling areas — could still access minerals under off-limits areas from up to a mile away.

“People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years, and this was the last recourse.”

While it would have been the country’s most ambitious regulatory check on the fossil fuel industry, Parkin and Nelson both emphasized that Prop 112 was a kind of method of last resort. Those looking to place more regulations on the oil and gas industry had tried to get bills passed through the legislature and appealed to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — all to no avail. “People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years,” Parkin said, “and this was the last recourse.”

A supporter of Initiative 1631 holds a sign referencing the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2018, during a rally supporting I-1631, a November ballot measure in Washington state that would charge a fee on carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The rally was organized by tribal and environmental leaders, and took place near the offices of the Western States Petroleum Associationin Lacey, Wash. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

IT WAS A similar story in Washington, where the legislature failed earlier this year to get a somewhat similar carbon tax measure through the legislature, falling short by “one or two votes.” A 2016 ballot initiative had failed to — by a margin of 20 percent — after drawing fire from the same groups now pushing for I-1631 over its lack of both investment in green projects and attention to the demands of climate and environmental justice groups. The campaign this time around was comparatively massive, drawing in a huge coalition of labor groups, indigenous communities, climate nonprofits, and more.

The biggest limiting factor to commonsense climate policies like Prop 112 and I-1631 isn’t either old school climate denial or bad design, but the sheer force of the fossil fuel industry’s seemingly endless capacity to pour money into elections. While theoretically supportive of carbon pricing and some vague sense of climate action, fossil fuel interests this cycle showed their cards: If it poses a threat to their profits, it’s going down. Fightbacks like the one posed to Amendment 74 are possible. Yet with Democrats taking the House — with several climate hawks now in their ranks — any push on climate there will have to reckon with the colossal funding might of the industry, and the kind of opposition Prop 112 faced from members of their own party sponsored by them.

On the heels of the latest IPCC report — which makes the need to decarbonize every sector of the economy painfully clear — there isn’t really an alternative to going toe to toe with those companies, no matter how much of a David and Goliath fight it might be.

“This isn’t over for me, personally. We have had a warning,” Nelson said, referencing that report, “that we either end our dependence on fossil fuels or things are going to get extremely rough for mankind. For me, it shows that it’s just about greed and money for this industry.”

---

db https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-jan-6-phone-logs-7-hour-gap-might-have-a-stupid-explanation

no lnx

There Might Be a Stupid Explanation for the 7-Hour Gap in Trump’s Phone Logs

THE NEW ABNORMAL

That, plus: Why Colorado’s secretary of state is being forced to take an opponent indicted for compromising voting equipment seriously. (Hint: It has to do with the MyPillow guy.)

The Daily Beast

Published Apr. 01, 2022

The New Abnormal really made it 201 episodes without anyone on the team asking, “Do we need to slap a content warning label on this?” But then Madison Cawthorn had to go and start flapping his gums about orgies.

The freshman Republican congressman has earned the ire of his colleagues after letting slip that he’s borne witness to their sexual bacchanalia, complete with—and why not—“key bumps of cocaine.” That key feature (pun noted) is exactly why New Abnormal co-host Andy Levy takes umbrage with co-host Molly Jong-Fast’s preferred term for the whole debacle: “Orgygate.” Levy simply will not stand for this erasure of the copious amounts of drugs allegedly consumed by the nation’s leaders!

Somebody else probably thinking too hard about this nightmare affair is GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy. As Levy puts it, “This is ‘unacceptable’ to Kevin McCarthy because he’s afraid that people in his district are going to be going around saying, ‘Is Kevin McCarthy participating in orgies and doing key bumps?’ So this directly has the possibility of affecting him—and that’s all he cares about.”

Jong-Fast, meanwhile, is doing her damnedest not to picture the possibility of a raunchy Louie Gohmert getting it on with a debauched Newt Gingrich.

Thankfully, relief descends upon the pod in the form of George Conway, a lawyer and Washington Post contributor. What he offers up is one potential explanation for the suspicious 7-hour-37-minute-sized hole in former President Donald J. Trump’s phone logs: that it wasn’t so much a document destruction conspiracy as it was good old-fashioned incompetence.

“I don’t defend Donald Trump,” Conway says—always a good start. “But I think people may be getting a little ahead of themselves about this story… I think there’s a lot of suggestion out there that there was essentially an erasure or alteration of records. I would not make that accusation at this point. We simply don’t know. And not that Donald Trump would have any moral compunction about it. It’s just that these people were not sufficiently organized or competent to conduct a cover-up that would require that level of concentration and competence.”

Instead, Conway posits, what he thinks Jan. 6 investigators will find is that Trump was sitting in a room, “transfixed,” watching the riot at the Capitol. “He’s sitting there, watching an insurrection. He’s president of the United States and he fomented the insurrection, and he’s sitting there watching gleefully, too busy to talk on the phone using the switchboard at the White House to create a record,” the lawyer theorizes. If the then-president was making calls in a way that didn’t leave a paper trail, it wasn’t deliberate.

“He’s malicious and insidious,” Conway says, “but he’s not that competent.”

[Trump Asked Kid Rock About North Korea & There Is No Bottom]

Later in the episode, the co-hosts call up Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who kindly outlines what it is a secretary of state does all day. (Oversee elections for states, as it turns out.) But that’s not all. Though Griswold has been leading a vanguard to strengthen election security in Colorado, the threat of voter fraud remains terrifyingly real—all the more so because the call is coming from inside the house.

One of Griswold’s more unusual opponents for the secretary of state seat this election cycle is a Mesa County clerk named Tina Peters, who was recently indicted for an election-tampering scheme aided by none other than the MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Why is someone who’s been indicted allowed to run for government office? That’s just the Colorado way, Griswold says. “Colorado is the nation’s gold standard for election access and security,” she explains, “but we’ve also become ground zero for these insider threats and conspiracies.”

To fight that, Griswold is working to tighten election infrastructure. Her first legislative priority, prohibiting open-carry within 100 feet of an election site, was signed into law earlier this week. Now the focus is on a landmark bill to disincentivize bad actors like Peters from compromising or illegally accessing voting equipment. If you do, Griswold says, “you’re going to go to jail. It’s going to be a felony.”

But despite all the optimism, there’s still room for a healthy dose of concern. “I think we’re seeing the groundwork so that the next time an extreme elected official or candidate does not want to accept the results of a free and fair election, it will be easier for them to try to take their seats, no matter the results,” Griswold says, “which is very frightening for the future of this country. And it underscores the need to make sure that election-deniers do not become secretaries of state, in that we continue to have free and fair elections for all Republican, independent, and Democratic voters in this country.”

an 1 22 no lnx

https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/tina-peters/

Colorado, a state that President Joe Biden won by 14% in 2020, Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters is among the far-right MAGA Republicans who has promoted the Big Lie and false claims that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump — a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked. Now, according to the Colorado Sun, a grand jury in Mesa County is investigating allegations that Peters tampered with election equipment.

The grand jury, according to Sun reporter Thy Vo, “accepted the case” on January 12.

“Peters, a Republican who was barred from overseeing the 2021 election by the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, has been under criminal investigation by local, state and federal authorities for months,” Vo reports. “Peters has spread baseless claims about the 2020 presidential election being stolen and has been facing scrutiny since she allegedly allowed an unauthorized person to attend a sensitive Dominion Voting Systems software update in May. Photos of passwords taken during the update were then posted online.”

Peters was among the speakers at MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s “Cyber Symposium” event in South Dakota in August. Lindell, a leading promoter of the Big Lie, is being sued for defamation by Dominion for making the false claim that its equipment was used to help Biden and his Democratic allies steal the election.

On Thursday morning, January 13, Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubenstein and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued an official statement on the case.

“Over the past few months,” Rubenstein and Weiser explained, “we have made progress in the multi-agency investigation. This investigation will be thorough and guided by the facts and the law. More information will be made available when the prosecutors are ethically and legally permitted to provide additional details. To maintain the impartiality of the investigation, we have no further comment at this time.”

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

FBI probes another attempted election data breach linked to ... ›

FBI raids homes of Colorado MAGA county clerk and Lauren ... ›

Mike Lindell associates linked to another attempted election breach ... ›

Colorado Trump supporter accused of murdering his wife and voter fraud in her name: report

Alex Henderson

May 14, 2021

Right-wing media outlets have been full of debunked conspiracy theories falsely claiming that widespread voter fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election, and those outlets typically point the finger at...

https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2018/12/kroenke-executive-paid-russian-spy-maria-butina-to-create-pro-putin-tv-show/12512/

head of a majorColorado media company hired now admitted Russian spy Maria Butina to help him create a television show starring Vladimir Putin as a conservation-minded outdoorsman.

With Butina changing her plea to guilty last week, it’s now official: a Kroenke executive hired a Russian spy to help him pitch a pro-Putin television show starring the Russian President himself.

Jim Liberatore, CEO of Outdoor Sportsman Group (OSG), a :{division:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: of Kroenke Sports and Entertainment (KSE), met Butina through their shared ties to the National Rifle Association. KSE purchased the Outdoor Channel, with Liberatore at its head, in 2013. He was promoted to CEO of OSG in 2017.

Butina invited Liberatore and his wife to Moscow in 2015 as part of a National Rifle Association delegation she organized along with her Russian handler Alexander Torshin.

Butina’s goal, which has since been detailed by federal prosecutors and in numerous media reports, was establishing a back-channel means of communication to the Trump campaign (and subsequently the administration) via the NRA....

big intercept:

...Who exactly are these eco-extremists? Under a section titled “environmental rights extremism,” a November 2019reference guide to “violent extremism” published by the Colorado Information Analysis Center, a fusion center, and other state security agencies, which was released as part of BlueLeaks, lists a range of groups. Among others, they listed the animal liberation group Direct Action Everywhere, which has removed animals from factory farms in rescue actions, and the Earth Liberation Front, which had its heyday committing arsons in the ’90s. Also listed were East Boulder County United, a grassroots organization that promotes community consultation on oil and gas development; and 350 Colorado, the local chapter of a well-known national climate organization. Both groups have participated in and promoted nonviolent civil disobedience as a tactic to force public officials to appropriately address the climate crisis...

Dempsey, a Managing Director at FTI, manages Energy in Depth and lists himself as an editorial editor WesternWire, another front group run for Western Energy Alliance, another oil trade association like IPAA. Dempsey and a colleague were recently recorded by a lawyer for EarthRights International who called them out for being agents of Exxon, and pretending to be journalists. Exxon is a defendant in the Boulder Colorado lawsuit that EID and WesternWire have tried hard to malign. Dempsey used to work for Senator James Inhofe

ref

https://earthrights.org/media/exxon-sends-undisclosed-agents-to-question-opposing-counsel-about-colorado-climate-litigation/

[audio]

:{Valentina Stackl

valentina@earthrights.org

}:(202) 466 5188 x100

January 15, 2019. Washington, D.C. — Exxon-sponsored consultants posing as journalists attempted to question EarthRights International (ERI) General Counsel Marco Simons, who represents three Colorado communities in climate change litigation against the oil giant, over email and in a recorded phone call yesterday.

[transcript]

“Western Wire” describes itself as “the go-to source for news, commentary and analysis on pro-growth, pro-development policies across the West,” but is staffed by a public relations firm under a contract to the Western Energy Alliance (WEA), a secretive oil and gas association. They were established in 2017 and publish stories that portray the climate lawsuits as a “conspiracy.” WEA does not disclose its members – but its board includes an Exxon executive, Greg Pulliam.

Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder sued Exxon and Suncor last year for their role in contributing to climate change harms, and ERI represents the communities in court. Because legal ethics rules prohibit attorneys from talking with agents of opposing parties without their attorneys present, Simons refused to talk with the Western Wire staff “if you’re representatives of Exxon in any way.” While the Western Wire staff said they did not know the members of WEA – the organization that sponsors them – they did not dispute that they were representatives of Exxon.

The Western Wire staff involved are Michael Sandoval and Matt Dempsey, listed as Western Wire’s “Managing Editor” and “Opinion Editor,” respectively. Neither, however, is a journalist. Dempsey is listed on the website of FTI Consulting as a Managing Director of Strategic Communications. Sandoval’s name is not listed on FTI’s website, but his LinkedIn page lists him as a Director of Strategic Communications at FTI, and he was reached through FTI’s general phone number. In fact, Sandoval confirmed that Western Wire was staffed by employees of FTI Consulting under a contract to WEA.

The call was recorded with the consent of both sides; here is a full transcript and a recording.

Western Wire is not the only fossil fuel company front group. ERI has produced a fact sheet on several industry initiatives to present misleading information.

The Colorado climate litigation is still in the early stages. Suncor and Exxon moved the case to federal court, and the plaintiffs are now seeking to return the case to Colorado state court, where it was initially filed. Several other cities, counties and states across the country have filed similar climate accountability lawsuits in the past year and a half. ERI is joined in representing the plaintiffs by David Bookbinder, Chief Legal Counsel of the Niskanen Center, and Kevin Hannon of the Hannon Law Firm LLC.

For more information about the Colorado climate accountability lawsuit and these communities’ efforts to fight climate change, please see:

From ERI: :{https://earthrights.org/case/climate-change-litigation-colorado/:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;border:0px;font-weight:400"):}:

From Boulder County: :{https://www.bouldercounty.org/environment/sustainability/climate-change-2/climate-accountability/:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;border:0px;font-weight:400"):}:

From San Miguel County: :{https://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov/514/Climate-Accountability:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;border:0px;font-weight:400"):}:

From the City of Boulder: :{https://bouldercolorado.gov/climate:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;border:0px;font-weight:400"):}:

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/a-qanon-supporter-just-ousted-a-congressman-in-a-massive-upset-creating-an-enormous-headache-for-the-gop/

businesswoman Lauren Boebert, who runs a gun-themed restaurant where servers openly carry firearms, has defeated Colorado Rep. Scott Tipton in a stunning upset in Tuesday’s Republican primary. With most votes counted, Boebert was leading 54-46, prompting Tipton to concede.

There was no reason to think the ultra-conservative congressman would have any issues winning renomination: Shortly after Boebert launched her campaign in December, Tipton earned a coveted Trump endorsement tweet—usually more than enough to ward off any trouble. Like a classic Republican outsider, Boebert attacked the incumbent for his supposed eagerness to compromise with Democrats and his allegedly insufficient loyalty to Trump, despite that tweet. And like a classic Republican outsider, she raised almost no money, just $133,000 to Tipton’s $1.1 million.

But Boebert had a flare for capturing the attention of the media. Last year, she confronted Beto O’Rourke at an event in Colorado during the former Texas congressman’s short-lived presidential bid. Challenging O’Rourke’s plan for a mandatory buyback of high-powered rifles, Boebert declared, “I was one of the gun owning Americans who heard you speak regarding your ‘Hell yes I’m going to take your AR-15s and AK-47s.’ Well, I’m here to say ‘Hell no you’re not.’” The encounter predictably garnered her an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”

More recently, Boebert defied local and state health ordinances aimed at mitigating the spread of the coronavirus to re-open her restaurant, Shooters Grill, which is located in a town named Rifle (yes, really). The authorities shut down the establishment, prompting a court fight that led to more headlines. Unsurprisingly, Boebert’s campaign was the only one in the state to tell the Colorado Sun that it would be hosting an in-person party on election night

tipton had always presented himself as a fairly typical Republican and had never so much as struggled in a previous primary. Boebert’s promise to provide a purer strain of extremism—she’s even embraced the bonkers QAnon conspiracy theory—isn’t anything unusual. What stands out is that she was able to communicate her grievances with a large enough proportion of the primary electorate to actually get heard.

In that she may have been helped by Tipton’s apparent complacency: According to a Republican media buying firm, he didn’t spend a penny on the airwaves ahead of the primary and only resumed advertising on Facebook after a long hiatus a week before the primary. Tipton’s largest expense, in fact, was for fundraising consultants. Boebert, meanwhile, aired a TV ad that accused Tipton of “teaming up with AOC and her squad to give Boulder a bailout” and siding with Nancy Pelosi “to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.”

It’s a dispiriting end for Tipton, who arrived in Congress after an upset win of his own during the 2010 Republican wave. Tipton had challenged Democratic Rep. John Salazar four years earlier but was crushed 62-38. Though he won a seat in the state House seat two years later, Tipton looked like he’d be the underdog against Salazar during their rematch. But 2010 was a very different year, and Tipton unseated Salazar 50-46. Democrats made several attempts to defeat him over the following decade, but Tipton always decisively won.

Yet while Boebert celebrates tonight (and helps spread the coronavirus), Republicans in D.C. will be shaking their heads in distress. Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, covering a huge swath of the state from Pueblo to the Western Slope, is red but not implacably so: After voting for Mitt Romney by a 52-46 margin, it moved to the right four years ago, handing Trump a wider 52-40 win. But in 2018’s race for governor, it snapped back a considerable distance, giving the Republican candidate just a 50-46 edge.

Despite that contraction, Tipton managed to fend off Democrat Diane Mitsch Bush, a former state representative, by a slightly larger 52-44 spread that same year. But Mitsch Bush, who earned the Democratic nomination again on Tuesday by decisively winning her own primary, will now see increased interest in her candidacy, and with almost $1 million raised so far this cycle, she’s already proven herself a vastly superior fundraiser to Boebert. With Republicans already facing long odds to retake the House, Lauren Boebert just made them longer.

5/20

desmog

olorado 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

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 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:

endit