Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Climate activists eye ballot

Fee proposed on home emissions

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News

Published January 31, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

Colorado homeowners and businesses would pay a fee on global warming emissions - with the money set aside for renewable-energy projects - under a proposal that may go before voters in November.

Clean Energy Progress, an activist group, unveiled its proposed ballot language Wednesday. Under its plan, a Colorado household with average energy use would pay about $2.50 more a month on its bill. A big- box retailer would pay roughly $1,300 a month more.

The fee would raise an estimated $180 million a year to be invested in various energy-efficiency and renewable projects, as well as those designed to capture and store carbon emissions, the group said.

"Colorado voters understand that renewable energy is key to our state's economic future and our energy security," said Tom McKinnon, a Colorado School of Mines professor with Clean Energy Progress, in a statement.

The program is similar to one approved by voters in Boulder in 2006. A tax on electricity, but not natural gas consumption, added roughly $16 a year to a homeowner's power bill and $46 for businesses.

At its Web site, CleanEnergy Progress.org, the group said the statewide program would result in a "net savings" of about $600 million a year because of the cut in energy consumption from efficiency investments.

Homeowners could benefit by availing themselves of a home energy audit, subsidized or paid for in full by the program, McKinnon said. Such an audit would find easy savings of $10 a month, far more than the $2.50 fee, he added.

Republican Sen. Steve Johnson, of Fort Collins, predicted his constituents would be wary of paying any additional fees or taxes right now.

"I do think there's a lot of interest among citizens in doing these responsible environmental programs, but I think we have to be careful," Johnson said. "We've got to make sure whatever we do is going to pay off, and make sure we're not throwing money behind a popular, politically correct program . . . that doesn't help the environment."

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048

Comments

  • January 31, 2008

    9:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Chal writes:

    Oh great, another "fee." Good way to get around TABOR, isn't it. Who will decide what your global warming emmissions are, who's going to get the money, who will decide where it's spent, who will they be accountable to.

    Another boondoggle rip-off for the consumer.

  • January 31, 2008

    9:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sradford writes:

    OK, Senator Johnson, do your homework. Upgrading our energy infrastructure and our buildings will create thousands of new jobs that can't be outsourced. Making this investment now will give us a competitive advantage later, when the cost of using fossil fuels goes even higher. Putting a price on the damage done by greenhouse gas emissions is the most democratic, most cost effective, most business-friendly way to reduce those emissions. It's time to move faster in the right direction.

  • January 31, 2008

    10:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sradford writes:

    In response to the comment by Chal, technically, this really is a fee. It's a charge for a specific activity with revenue dedicated to a specific purpose, like a fishing license. The amount charged for each energy purchase would be directly proportional to how much pollution was released to provide the energy.

    And there's no attempt to get around TABOR here. This is going to the voters.