Ritter, energy industry part on regulatory path

Governor claims he's after balance; GOP critics cringe

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Monday, April 7, 2008

Matt Baker

Tresi Haupt

Gov. Bill Ritter inserted himself squarely in the middle of the debate over two issues vital to Colorado's future: jobs and the environment.

He did so through appointments to two commissions that have a huge impact on the energy sector, a $23 billion-a-year player in the state's economy and a generator of jobs with average salaries of $60,000.

Republicans say his picks harbor a radical environmentalist agenda. The GOP intends to make that a wedge issue in its efforts to take back control of the legislature.

"Certainly, elections have consequences," said Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch. "What we're seeing now is literally the regulatory environment in Colorado moving in a radically different direction. To some that's a good thing. To me, I think it will end up costing Colorado consumers, particularly on the energy side."

Ritter and many Democratic lawmakers point out that Colorado is facing a demand on its natural resources not seen since the Gold Rush. They also reject the notion that the state must choose between supporting the energy industry and protecting the environment.

"We need to understand in this state, this is a new day," Ritter said.

Owens was a friend

For eight years before Ritter took office, the oil and gas industry had a friend in the Governor's Mansion. Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican who had been a lobbyist for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, mostly kept his regulatory mitts off the energy sector.

Toward the end of Owens' term, the oil and gas industry began booming, as evidenced by a threefold increase in permits to drill on the Western Slope.

Ritter said he heard "again and again" as he campaigned in 2006 from people begging him to put checks and balances on what they considered a runaway industry. Ritter was in a unique position to do that once elected, with Democrats in charge of both houses of the General Assembly.

Last year, during his first legislative session as governor, Ritter signed a bill overhauling the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which previously was composed solely of industry representatives.

During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Republicans strongly objected to Ritter's appointment of Garfield County Commissioner Tresi Haupt to the commission.

They characterized her and fellow Democratic appointee Richard Alward, a Grand Junction environmental consultant and ecologist, as hostile to the oil and gas industry.

"If we're going to put a person who's extremely controversial, is extremely outspoken against the industry in the catbird seat, what's next?" Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said of Haupt at the hearing.

He and others said Haupt had interfered with almost every reasonable attempt to drill in her county, which is at the center of the state's oil and gas boom.

"I think it's a critical time to make sure we are regulating the industry in a balanced manner," Haupt said in an interview. "If we don't make sure we have protections in place, by the time we're finished with the extraction of a finite resource, we may not be the state that people come to and enjoy because we have damaged the surface to the point it can't be reclaimed."

Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, said Ritter was smart to appoint Haupt. In doing so, he said, the governor headed off a growing threat by environmental coalitions to put citizens initiatives on the November ballot that would have driven the industry out of the state.

"Sometimes, that's what governors do - bring opposition to the table to avoid a worse outcome - and that's what he's done," said Romer. "I don't necessarily agree with Tresi, but I'd rather have her in the tent."

Haupt will soon be called upon to vote on overhauled rules governing the industry that are aimed at blunting drilling's impacts on the environment and wildlife. Her board's authority to do that came under another bill that Ritter signed last year.

"You can't see the kind of growth we've seen in permitting over the last five years and think that rules that were put in place over the last 30 years shouldn't be looked at again and, when necessary, completely redone," Ritter said. "It's absolutely necessary."

Ritter's political opponents and industry representatives say environmental protections are already built into existing regulations. They complain that the state is overstepping its authority and paying more attention to the environment than the health of the industry.

But Ritter argues that those concerns were heard, and he offers the draft rules announced last week as proof.

Changed the lineup

Ritter also changed the lineup of the three-member Public Utilities Commission, another powerful body with big impact on the energy industry. He appointed environmentalist Matt Baker to the PUC over objections that Baker was anti-coal and lacked experience.

Sen. Jack Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, said Baker, who was stepping down as executive director of Environment Colorado, could make decisions on the commission that could force the closure of the two coal-fired power plants in Taylor's district.

Baker told senators during his confirmation hearing that the new energy economy is different from the old one, and that his experience working on renewable energy policies combined with work as a consumer advocate qualified him to serve on the board.

Ritter pointed out that another of his PUC appointees, consumer advocate Ron Binz, was rejected by the Senate when Gov. Dick Lamm tried to appoint him 20 years ago.

"And yet he's viewed as a centrist now," Ritter said. "That's the evolution that has happened in this state."

The Binz appointment sent the message that the state will remain focused on keeping energy prices low, Ritter said.

The governor's reconstituted PUC probably will have revised bylaws soon, thanks to a bill working its way through the Democratic-controlled legislature this session. HB 1227 also will keep the commission operating for 11 more years.

The PUC was created in 1913 to protect consumers from the high prices charged by the monopolies of the day, such as railroads, other common carriers and fixed utilities.

But the protection was deemed inadequate. To give residential, small business and agricultural consumers a stronger voice in PUC rate- and rule-making cases, the legislature established the Office of Consumer Counsel in 1984.

HB 1227 expands the mission of the consumer counsel office to require the equal consideration of environmental interests in dealings with the PUC.

Critics charge that this invites the consumer counsel to become another advocate for renewable energy, even when that energy isn't cost-competitive.

Ritter and Democratic lawmakers are "building their policy initiatives into a bureaucracy," said House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker. "An 11-year change of direction is hard to undo."

May called the PUC bill "the worst piece of legislation this year for its long-term impact on Colorado."

Ritter, however, said such initiatives won't hurt consumers. As examples, he points to a state program providing energy assistance to low-income people and rate caps preventing utilities from passing on the startup costs of renewable energy to ratepayers.

"I really reject that criticism and don't believe it's appropriate," Ritter said. "People who are saying that are really not paying attention to all the things we're doing that really are about protecting the ratepayer."

But May argues that Ritter's actions in favor of environmental protection during his first 16 months in office have collectively amounted to pouring regulatory sand into the state's most important jobs engine.

"Some folks say the governor doesn't have a plan," May said. "But certainly there is a long- term agenda, and that is to restructure the regulatory institutions of Colorado, and that creates a life of its own well beyond the legislature."

This trend will be reversed only after Republicans are in charge again, May said.

Ongoing energy debate

This summer and into the fall, Ritter will find himself in the midst of a debate over how to keep the state's energy sector booming while protecting the environment.

The debate will center on whether to increase severance taxes on the oil and gas industry to provide more money for higher education and to soften the impacts of the boom on the environment, wildlife and Western Slope towns.

"Everyone who has heard me speak about this has heard me say the oil and gas industry is tremendously important to our state," Ritter said. "They were a $23 billion industry last year, and we want to see that industry thrive. But at the same time, we believe it's important to really account for impacts."

New appointees, new direction

Gov. Bill Ritter has drawn fire from some Republican lawmakers and energy industry representatives for appointing Matt Baker to the Public Utilities Commission and Tresi Haupt to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Both advocate for environmental protections and tighter regulations on the industry.

MATT BAKER

Age: 43

Education: Penn State, bachelor's degree, history, 1987

Occupation: Executive director, Environment Colorado, an activist organization, since 2003

Past employment: Colorado Public Interest Research Group, executive director, 2001-03; staff recruitment director, Fund for Public Interest Research, Boston, 1998-2000; New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, organizing director, 1991-98

Expertise: Energy policy, renewable energy, air pollution, land use, transportation, wilderness, forests

Notable: Campaign director, Amendment 37, the 2004 voter-approved program that set a statewide renewable energy standard; finance committee member for passage of FasTracks, the successful ballot proposal to build the metro area's rapid-transit system; director of Colorado Climate Panel, a coalition organized in 2007 that includes businesses, water providers, scientists and local governments examining how Colorado can confront climate change

TRESI HAUPT

Age: 51

Education: Lewis & Clark College, bachelor's degree, political science and sociology, 1979

Occupation: Chair pro-tem, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, since 2003

Past employment: Valley Resource Management, executive director, coordinating waste management planning in the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys, 1996-2003; Roaring Fork School District Board of Education, director, 1997-2003

Expertise: Local government's interaction with the oil and gas industry, housing, transportation

Notable: Past chair of the I-70 Mountain Corridor Coalition, which determined a preferred alternative for how to relieve the highway's congestion; now a member of the governor's panel working to finalize that I-70 plan; vice chair of Water Quality Steering Committee for the National Association of Counties; past president of Colorado Counties Inc., Western District

bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059

• April 7, 2008

  6:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Earl writes:

  well there goes the industry. if ditters blue ribbon commission shuts down just a couple of plants how many of those jobs paying 60 k will stll be around? who will have to pay for the bird killing wind turbines or those extra lovely solar panels? no wonder ditter keeps asking california for advise on how to ruin a state. from the king of plea deals and parole for illegals to now have a 'blue ribbon' commission to destroy the states economy.
  I guess you get what you vote for.

• April 7, 2008

  7:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Years ago my dentist used equipment with a name "Ritter" emblazoned all over it when he was in the process of drilling and generally causing pain in my mouth. Now every time I read the newspaper I get the same feeling with Gov. "Ritter" going after the energy industry and my pocketbook and another part of my body.

• April 7, 2008

  7:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  masondav2004 writes:

  Record permits issued, industry booming, etc., etc.

  So how is the sky falling, again?

  There is so much BS coming out of Penry, May, etc., here I can barely wade through it... Face it, guys, the "Rape and pillage" days are OVER in Colorado, and we're going to be doing development the responsible way from now on... And industry isn't going to flee as a result- we've got the minerals, so they aren't going nowhere...

• April 7, 2008

  7:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  "We need to understand in this state, this is a new day," Ritter said."

  It sure is a new day; and we all understand that. The question is, do you know? $110 crude, pushing $4 at the pump, monthly natural gas heating bills that's crowding-out the skyrocketing food budget, partly caused by surging corn prices. And our national security is increasingly comprised with every passing day that we refuse to deal with reality.

  Yep, its a new day all right, but does Ritter have any clue what new day it is? He's pushed a lot of very proven and reliable energy sources out of bounds and offers recycled solutions from the Jimmie Carter era including unreliable and very expensive windmill power, biofuels, solar and million-hamster treadmills. Meanwhile inflation is skyrocketing.

  Does Ritter understand what year it is? Does America have enough time for the Ritter's of the world to figure things out?

• April 7, 2008

  8:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Logical writes:

  masondav,

  "Record permits issued" because the industry submitted many more permits than normal to get them in before the regs change. Just like buying commodity futures when you know the price is going up.

  The additional regs will add time (money) and paperwork (money) to the process. Permitting won't be completed faster; only the time the permit is actually in the COGCC office may decrease. The time it will take to do the paperwork for each permit prior to submission will increase drastically due to the environmental surveys that will be required. When you have to physically survey a square mile around each drillsite, looking for signs of certain species of flora and fauna, that adds time. The survey can't be done in a day, and it costs money.

  Speaking of costing money, who will pay for the added costs? YOU, the consumer. Higher heating & electric bills (since some of our electricity is generated with natural gas), all the time. And, when the pipelines to the east are completed, the added competition for our gas will increase the cost of our gas, also.

  Go ahead and support Ritter and his regs; just be ready to pay more, much more, to heat and light your home.

• April 7, 2008

  8:31 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  masondav2004 writes:

  Yeah, well, I for one am willing to pay a few extra bucks a month on my electric and heating bills to ensure my kids have pristine mountains, clean air, and clean water to enjoy when they're caring for THEIR grandchildren...

  I think there's a serious failure of political leadership going on here, but it's not Ritter who's the disappointment- it's guys like May, etc., who refuse to face facts- if we do this new wave of energy development in a haphazard, devil-may-care fashion, our kids and grandkids will be the ones who pay- and their bills will make our slightly larger electric and heating bills seem like free samples at the grocery store!

  And anyone who thinks that adding environmental protections to the permitting process "threatens our energy independence" ought to audition for Last Comic Standing!

• April 7, 2008

  8:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  LOOK AT THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS OF HAUPT AND BAKER--History, political science and sociology and no advanced degrees. There is no indication that they know anything about energy; but plenty of indication that they have been liberal political activists and enviroweenies.

  Ritter is playing cheap politics with the well being, national security and economic strength of both Colorado and America. He not only surrounds himself with folks who don't have a clue about energy, inflation or the environment; Ritter also embraces policies that are hostile to attracting capital, new jobs, incomes, prosperity, wealth creation, global competitiveness, national security and are highly inflationary.

  Its a "new day" alright, Ritter...but unfortunately YESTERDAY has very few answers for today and tomorrow.

• April 7, 2008

  9:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  soccermom writes:

  I attended the COGCC Wildlife Stakeholder Group meetings and am dismayed at the number of recommendations that were deleted from this draft plan. This industry needs more regulations than say, a housewife sewing neckties in her basement. This plan gives more protections to landowners that are impacted by oil and gas drilling. It will give more opportunities for people to voice their concerns when drilling could impact their community's air and water quality. It does nothing for rare plants, many wildlife species and rare plant communities in Colorado. The Colorado Budget in Brief states that there were 6780 drilling permits issued in the fiscal Year 2007-2008. There are an estimated 35,000 active oil and gas wells in Colorado. Last year Exxon began to drill an estimated 5,000 wells on roughly 300,000 acres it has leased in the Piceance Basin, making its first major new onshore energy -production project in the contiguous U.S. since the former Exxon Corp. and Mobil Oil Co. merged in 1999. A few weeks ago Houston-based Schulmbeger Limited, one of the world's largest oil-field services companies, announced that it wants to establish a hub to serve the growing energy industry in Western Colorado. They are buying a 375-acre parcel near De Beque and two months ago they purchased technology for extracting heavy oil and oil shale from defense contractor Raytheon. The West-Wide Energy Corridor, which was mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, will be 6,055 miles long and 2.9 million acres in size. Averaging six -tenths of a mile wide and creating a network within 11 Western states, it will severely fragment wildlife habitat. Don't let the oil and gas industry fool you into thinking they're going anywhere if we put some regs in to protect our state's interests. Sorry guys, scare tactics don't work anymore.

• April 7, 2008

  9:15 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Keno33 writes:

  Ritter is a socialist and a true danger to our state. As a business owner that pays good salaries to 24 engineers I am really considering moving out of this state and taking these high paying jobs with me.

• April 7, 2008

  9:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  enlightener writes:

  From a person engulfed in the U.S. energy and mining industry, I want to say how encouraged I am to see so many clear minded thinkers reading this paper.

  I figured all of those people had vanished from Colorado.

  Masondav,

  When looking into the future try looking a few inches past your nose. YES, the increasing additions of regulatory hoop-jumping IS chasing out industry and YES it is threatening our energy independence. Believe me, 3 years ago my company was very excited to get involved with several mining and exploration projects in the U.S. Southwest. After a few meetings with the State, BLM, and USFS, we have changed our approach... no Colorado projects. All of my company’s finances, jobs, and future in the U.S. will be limited to Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming because of people like you, and the rest of the clear-headed Colorado people will suffer the consequences of your short-sightedness.

• April 7, 2008

  9:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jackstraw42 writes:

  Let me get this straight, we've got a History major from an eastern university on the Public Utilities Commission, and a political science and sociology major on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Matt Baker and Tresi Haupt are flatly unqualified to be in these positions. Two of Baker's previous positions were in New Jersy and Boston, just what we need, another eastern liberal telling us how to run our state. Haupt at least worked in Colorado, but the last time I checked, Geoscience and engineering were not required courses to get a Sociology degree.

  We need qualified people in these positions who know what they are talking about. Ritter needs to be called on these rank political appointments.

• April 7, 2008

  9:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JSeifert writes:

  There go more Jobs in Colorado soon the only ones left will be criminals and voted in criminals and most are the same. Soon it will be time to take our state back and kick out all the East and west coasters. I am warming up the Tar right now. Its time to make it clear that they are not welcome here. They have done more harm to our state then God I can not think of anyone thats done more harm to this state then Democrat's. Criminals run rampant in our cities, the police hands are tied we have Eviromental nuts jobs now running our Government what next turning our jobs over to Illegals OH thats right Ritter has done that too. We are screwed.

• April 7, 2008

  9:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ParkHillPosse writes:

  Sasquatch: I think we've seen enough from you to know that you have little understanding of the potential for renewable energy technologies. While you (i.e. Sasquatch) whine about the academic backgrounds of people, you seem never to have looked at the development of Colorado as a renewable energy economy (you don't seem like a terribly smart man, Sasquatch, in general I mean). Ritter is not "playing politics," he's delivering what the populace of Colorado elected him to do: to take a reasonable yet firm perspective on the activities of the extraction firms. Sasquatch, I think that you are the only person on this forum playing politics, because if you understood anything about Colorado at all, you'd realize this state has more to gain from environmentally sustainable technologies than from conventional oil or coal extraction. The conventional oil/coal companies would have us believe that hands-off regulation (i.e. allowing them to extract and pollute with little oversight) would be a cure for the presently tight oil market. REMEMBER PEOPLE: the constraint in the US energy market is oil refining capacity, NOT coal or oil extraction. The oil/coal companies do not deserve to maintain their tax advantages, nor should they receive carte blanche in terms of hands-off regulation. As a society we need to recognize the inherent geopolitical, economic, and environmental costs of oil and coal, and focus our efforts on achieving cost-parity for sustainable fuels.

• April 7, 2008

  9:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  DHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU:

  BBC/DAILY MAIL:

  "The world will experience global cooling this year, according a leading climate scientist.

  The head of the World Meteorological Organisation said La Nina - the weather phenomenon which is cooling the Pacific - is likely to trigger a drop in average global temperatures compared with last year.

  The prediction - which follows a bitterly cold winter in China and the Arctic - is prompting many sceptics to question the theory of climate change."
  ---------
  Hmmmmmmmmmmm....looks like the same old "consensus" is flip/flopping to Ice Age II; and I have yet to recover from Ice Age I.

• April 7, 2008

  9:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  enlightener writes:

  ParkHill,

  Please, enlighten us with your ingenious renewable energy plans. When, where, what, how, etc. Oh, and the big question, who's $...

• April 7, 2008

  10:17 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  The National Weather Service in Duluth reports Cass Lake received 27 inches of snow as of Sunday evening. Chisholm had 24 1/2, inches, Babbitt, 22, and Tower, 19. Grand Rapids reported 25 inches, Wirt, 22 , and Cohasset 23.5. Lake Bemidji reported 13 inches, Wilton, 12.5, Zerkel, 18, and New York Mills, 13 inches.

  Snow was coming down at the rate of 1 to 2 inches per hour on Sunday afternoon.

  ------------------------

  Alternative Energy: Snow storm blocking the sun from reaching solar pannels, windmills frozen stuck and not rotating, biofuels turned into ice...and 1 million hamsters frozen stuck onto their treadmills. Now what, Haupt? Baker, any ideas? Do we have any Ethnic Study majors ready to make any suggestions?

• April 7, 2008

  10:26 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DougH writes:

  It should be no surprise that Ritter has changed the make up of the regulatory agencies in Colorado. That is exactly what he was elected to do. The people of Colorado have grown tired of the Industry friendly , non-oversight, by the Owens administration.

  It is The Governor's job to see that the resources of the State are used in the best interests of the entire State, Not just the industry that is exploiting them for profit. I know this is a foreign concept to Republicans that have had their way far too long in this State, but it is only right that all interests are represented in the oversight of our State resources.

• April 7, 2008

  10:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ParkHillPosse writes:

  Enlightener:

  Having worked on Wall St in the field of technology and energy, it's not that difficult to set up a structure to encourage the development of sustainable resource generation areas. The projects, whether solar/wind/biomass, will be privately-funded and executed. But, you need to set up a regulatory environment (in terms of regulating Xcel and the mandated contribution from sustainable resources as a % of their energy portfolio) that is forward-thinking, as well as an economic framework for appropriate incentives (for example, one that sets up the right kind of production/technology incentives that would allow small-scale rural projects to compete for wind turbine technology). Really, this is not that complicated, you just have to create the political will to establish a forward-thinking energy policy, and stop treating the oil/coal companies with much greater tax advantages and subsidies. I'm working on some things from the finance and regulatory angle (which I'm not going to discuss on this forum), but suffice to say, from my perspective (and from Wall St's perspective), it just takes creativity and will-power.

• April 7, 2008

  10:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  nowhearthis writes:

  Squatch, not that you could ever understand this, but the La Nina/El Nino phenomena is a cyclical climate model that has been observed in the Pacific for millions of years. The La Nina conditions we are currently observing was the reason for predictions of a dry winter, which we all know didn't occur for whatever reason. The heavy snow prompted your genius to declare an end to global warming. Now because you picked one phrase out of an article, you choose to believe that predictions of cooler temps based on the same model (just a reminder, predictions from this model were already not experienced) will most definitely occur because now they suit your agenda, and again call an end to global warming? Well which is it? Please don't pretend to understand what the adults are discussing.

• April 7, 2008

  10:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  Thank you Gov Ritter!!! Its about damn time the oil/gas industries start having to pay their fare share. Possibly if the current corporate welfare system were to be redirected at renewable and cleaner sources of power we could clean up our environment. the oil and gas industries proclaim to be interested in less expensive energy but to whom? they like cheaper drilling and their welfare check while passing higher prices to the consumer.

• April 7, 2008

  11:07 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Spencer writes:

  hmmm Lets see, the hairy ass hillbilly doubts that there is global warming or that pollution has any detrimental effect. Why should I pay attention to the scientists?

• April 7, 2008

  11:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BigHorn418 writes:

  Let me get this straight - we can have an oil & gas lobbyist in the Gov. office for 8 years (Owens), who when he wasn't cheating on his wife was bending over backwards to give industry whatever it wanted. And now that that there are people who will actually advocate on behalf of Colorado citizens on these PUBLIC commisions the sky will come crashing down?!?!?! We have limited resources that should be used as such - LIMITED resources - racing up to the energy "trough" to continue gorging ourselves on every last mineral left will not leave our children much of state to live in.

  Is this the kind of behavior we use to run our families, spend & use every last cent and then leave our children holding the past due notice while standing in a barren wasteland? I think we can do better!

• April 7, 2008

  11:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  soccermom writes:

  Gee, have some of you even read HB 1298 and the management plans that are addressed in the article?
  
  Part lV under section 1 of the bill states, 'Plan and manage oil and gas operations in a manner that balances development with wildlife conservation in recognition of the state's obligation to protect wildlife resources and the hunting, fishing and recreation traditions that they support, which are an important part of Colorado's economy and culture.'
  
  In 2006 our state had 26.9 million overnight visitors. Our 43 State Parks had 11,272,418 visitations, that doesn't include the rest of the visitors to other natural areas in our state. That is a renewable source of income for Colorado unless we allow the oil and gas industry to impact those natural areas to the extent that it discourages tourism. There is increasing pressure to drill in our State Wildlife Areas and the BLM is having a hard time keeping up with its own leases. The main source of income for the Division of Wildlife comes from the 1,545,659 (last year's number) hunting and fishing licenses.
  
  To level the playing field for all the industry players helps the companies that voluntarily reduce impacts. It gives the landowner some say in when and where drilling should occur on their property. It protects wells and other sources of a community's water supplies. Curiously, the oil and gas industry had far more representation at the stakeholder meetings because none of them would allow another company to represent their interests. There was little representation from county governments. Not a hair of some of the most outspoken politicians were seen in the 32 hours of meetings that I attended.
  
  Wildlife issues are addressed in 4 1/2 pages at the end of the plan. That is far from adequate.
  
  Renewable and sustainable energy sources and renewable sources of income are the future of Colorado. It is not unreasonable to ask industry to do the right thing. They already have the leases, they need to be held accountable for what they do with those leases and our natural heritage.

• April 7, 2008

  12:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  BIG LIB, PAUL KRUGMAN, CALLS BIOFUELS A DISASTER:

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opi...

  This is the future of Colorado? Excuse me while I laugh my hairyass off.

  Bwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

• April 7, 2008

  12:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  DavidG writes:

  Way to go soccermom! Having grown up in the coal region of Pennsylvania, and not too far from Penn State (where Matt went to school), I'm well aware of the ravages of uncontrolled mining and what it really does to our environment in the long run. Think about an oil spill upstream from a tributary of the Colorado. It is sure nice to now live in a state that has leadership and the guts to give the environment a chance. This area is going to face a monumental problem when the trees are gone. Lets not have the rest of the state full of holes. If Wyoming and Utah want the oil and gas business at the expense of clean water, let them have it. By the way, Max Dercum, the visionary who built A-Basin and Keystone, taught forestry at Penn State, so us easterners are not all bad.

• April 7, 2008

  12:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  KRUGMAN ON THE BIOFUELS "DOOMSDAY" DISASTER (COLORADO'S FUTURE):

  "....Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.

  The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”

  This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

  And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.

  One more thing: one reason the food crisis has gotten so severe, so fast, is that major players in the grain market grew complacent.

  Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.

  This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once — in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock.
  ----------
  Colorado's future? We better start praying now that Big-Lib Krugman's alternative renewable DOOMSDAY scenario never happens.

• April 7, 2008

  12:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  titancain writes:

  We should let them pollute Colorado because they're providing 60k jobs.

• April 7, 2008

  12:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  hikingartist writes:

  Thank you soccermom, for your informative posts.

• April 7, 2008

  12:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  JSeifert writes:

  Renewable energy? Like wood? Burn wood grow more trees. Solar only works if the sun is out. Wind only works if the wind is blowing. Batteries do not last long enough. Enviromental nut jobs will not allow Nuclear. So someone explain to me this wonderful renewable energy. My house would cost a million dollars just to run my toaster and I could only do it on a sunny windy day during the day.
  Every time some nut job thinks they know better we take it in the shorts. I say fine you want to live in the dark ages go for it leave us out of it. I like living in this age. GO chew a pine cone you nut jobs.

• April 7, 2008

  12:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  DisplacedColoradoan writes:

  In the end higher energy prices are good for the economy... they force wasteful businesses with bad business models out of the marketplace, and many high-paying technology-related jobs are created in an effort to make businesses and consumers more energy efficient.

  Sure, consumers often bear the brunt of high energy prices due to higher gas, heating, and grocery prices, but reasonable people adapt their behavior to these realities. They get rid of second and third cars, buy more fuel efficient cars, alter their travel habits, remodel their houses, cut back on the amount of food they buy, etc., etc., etc.

  The energy industry in Colorado will be fine. In an environment of high energy costs, Colorado can afford to be picky with their permitting. Colorado has mineral resources that are fetching record prices on the open market, and a lot of Colorado's oil patches are only profitable with energy prices where they are.

  The amount of oil and gas that Colorado could inject into the global energy market wouldn't appreciably affect global supply, which is half of what sets energy prices. So the belief that Colorado's state government is somehow preventing oil companies from infusing more supply into the market to reduce prices and rescue consumers is naive.

  Further, investing in renewables makes sense. On a clear day in Colorado, the Sun dumps approximately 1000 W/m^2 of energy onto the land surface. Even at a conversion efficiency of 10%, a single square meter is enough to power one 100W light bulb. Semi-conductor companies are rapidly seeking to improve this efficiency and have moved heavily into the solar arena (creating many new jobs in the process).

  Seems like the chicken little republicans on this forum need to take some of their own medicine trust the free market a little more.

• April 7, 2008

  1:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  PJM writes:

  When are they going to do something about the hundreds of thousands of new homes Colorado has built over the last couple decades? They're not!

  Never mind that all of these homes house people who drive cars, create trash that ends up buried in our landfills, waste our water to have green lawns, and overall pollute far more than the oil industry ever could.

  Drill an oil well and you're the devil, build a 2000 home subdivision and nobody cares about wildlife or pollution.

  I have three oil wells on my property and I live right in the heart of the booming DJ basin. I guarantee I have more wild life and less pollution than Denver, Aurora, Westminster, Arvada, Highlands Ranch, and any other city in Colorado.

  All this is, is another way for the government to steal more money. Rob from the rich and give to.....the government!!

• April 7, 2008

  1:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jackstraw42 writes:

  DavidG,
  Your ignorance on the subject you opine is absolutely stunning. First of all, the development in question here are Gas wells, there are no oil spills from gas wells. Secondly Natural gas is found in sedimentary basins, not in the Gore canyon. Thirdly there is not clear cutting of forest to develop gas wells. In fact if you had ever even visited the Piceance basin, there are no forests, only sparse pinions and sage.

  It takes about a month to drill and complete a well on the west slope of Colorado (much less time than it took to build your house). After that the only thing showing above the surface is a box (about the size of a small car). After about 20 or 30 years even this box will be removed and no one would know there was ever was a well there.

  Lets see DavidG, your an east coaster, you know nothing of what your talking about, if you only had a Sociology degree, you could qualify for one of Ritters political appointees.

• April 7, 2008

  1:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  Just think if all those new houses were solar... the drain on existing resources would be negligible. I am glad our Governor will stand up to those in the waste business. forcing them to take environment into account as well as push for sustainable resources.

  I acknowledge the use of fossil fuels will never be completely eliminated. however conservation and the current use of renewable resources would in fact, allow those fossil fuels to last longer than one or two generations.

• April 7, 2008

  1:41 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  junglegymco writes:

  Keno33 - Good riddance. Don't let I-70 hit you in the a** when you leave. Colorado doesn't need the 24 peeps in a company that doesn't give a cr*p about the enviroment.

  Sasquatch - Gee, ya think maybe the supply and demand curve has anything to do with the price of oil? If you can read your basic econ book, maybe you'll realize we've had BOTH a SHIFT in the demand curve (China other countries increasing indsutries and autos have caused this) AND a increase in demand with gluttonous Americans having to drive their monstrous SUVs. I say thank god that the RepubliCAN'TS are no longer in control of Colorado government. It's time the industry actually had voices other than "YES" men (and women) kissing their a**es and doing whatever ex-oil-industry-guv, "I-Owe-em" (Owens) wanted. Seems to be a theme amongst the republiCAN'Ts - they can't seem to hear any voices but their own. Bush does the same thing - it's the reason we're in the quagmire that is Iraq. It's time the RepubliCAN'Ts started being forced to hear voices and opinions other than their own.

  NICE JOB RITTER AND THE DEMOCRATS!!

• April 7, 2008

  1:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  PJM writes:

  Froward69 if all of those new houses were solar they would still be new houses that displace wildlife. They would still use resources to build them. They would still house people that consume energy and produce waste. They would still be bad for the environment but you won't rail against them being built since you probably live in one.

• April 7, 2008

  1:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Holohedral_Gumbo writes:

  While it sounds really nice to say things like, "Alternative energy is the future of Colorado." The evidence to support such claims is shaky at best. There currently is no alternative energy source that is either economically sustainable or self-sufficient. Futhermore, none of these fuel sources have shown any ability to accomodate a significant portion of our energy demand. The problems associated with peak oil, global population growth, and hydrocarbon consumption rates are truely sobering and represent a global problem.

  Solving for America's future energy needs will require national attention and funding. The petty amounts of money that a state like Colorado can tax out of it's resources and toss at the problem are somewhat insulting. We are funding projects that lose money, saying that we are planning for the future.

  The natural gas projects in this state are profittable. They fund entire communities and uphold our economic foundation during times of down turning economics. They pay for reclamation, community centers, schools, and roads. They do all this with marginal economic returns that represent the bottom threshold which companies will invest.

  By allowing our representatives to tax and restrict this industry without the input of industry experts will result in negative impacts for Colorado. Hundred million dollar investments will leave the state, budgets will see further short fall, the tax payers will pay for their uneconomic windmills, the diasterous biofuel will further drain our fresh water reservoirs, and the toxic waste created by solar panel production will pile up on the ground, and we will continue to deficit spend. And none of these sources will replace the coal and natural gas that heat our homes.

  Furthermore, if we didn't have a domestic supply for natural gas, gas prices would be following oil up the charts for record prices with no relief in sight.

  The world needs an alternative energy source, but burdoning our state and our resources with this quagmire seems somewhat rediculous.

• April 7, 2008

  2:34 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Temperatures have been globally cooling since 1998! Look it up!

  I am still looking for that renewable energy fix for all of society?

  When Ritter was elected, gas was $2.25 gallon and peoples heating bill was 40% less. Lots of people voted for "saving the plant".

  The Guv with his bi-partison buddies have proposed spending billions of dollars in EXTRA TAX revenue from oil and gas development. That money goes for Higher Ed. and local communties(check out articles from earlier in the week). The Guvs non-qualified tree-huggers who hate Big Oil have a history of trying to stop carbon companies. So on the one hand he wants the taxes and on the other hand he wants reduced production.

  What is the result of these policies? $5, $6, $10 a gallon gasoline and heating bills where everybody has to apply for a "heating subside".

  By the way under Guv Owens there was a 7 year process for coming up with good environmentally sound practices for extracting this natural gas. For those in Boulder, these were regulations, rules and protections. So you people who now want more rules and regs are really being dishonest. You really want Big Oil, Big Gas, and Big Coal gone, stopped, elimanted, terminated and removed.

• April 8, 2008

  10:30 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Strength4Him writes:

  Regarding Ron Binz: "And yet he's viewed as a centrist now," Ritter said. "That's the evolution that has happened in this state." The Binz appointment sent the message that the state will remain focused on keeping energy prices low, Ritter said.

  Wrong, wrong and wrong. Binz's focus is to carry forth Ritter's campaign promises. Binz has stated this repeatedly to his PUC Staff. Binz could care less about keeping energy prices low. He is every bit the radical "public interest" organizer he was back in the early 1980's but for the ponytail.

• April 12, 2008

  9:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

  Between the Ritter Administration making it tougher to obtain drilling permits and generally obfuscating the extraction of oil and gas and the Public Utilities Commission on a "green" jihad to force unreliable, intermittent and outrageously expensive renewable sources on Colorado consumers, look for our gas and electric bills to rocket skyward. I guess this will be one way to cut down on consumption and avoid building one more of those nasty coal plants.

  However, while we sit smugly in our satisfaction of having avoided building ONE more coal plant, China has finished putting into place yet another coal plant every 3 to 4 weeks. And so, my friends, what we do here in Colorado makes not one whit on GLOBAL warming. What it does do is drive more people into seeking low-income energy assistance and disposing what is left of our disposable income.