A Land Use 3-fer: the Colorado Energy Office study on our grid, then their revised policy on where to site renewables, and the Democrat's effort to define wetlands and give CDPHE the decision.
First, CEO's report on switching to renewables and a quick discussion of their land use.
A reader recently sent me the Big Pivots* story linked below. I wanted to share with you because it provides a pretty layperson-friendly rundown of the state's energy report.
It delves some details about what is in the state-commissioned report, and, just as importantly, what's not.
Two wit, I want to highlight a few things.
1. Carbon capture. I have written in the past about carbon capture providing something of a "sanity check" on environmentalist's plans. Said another way, if the concern is in fact how much a carbon we emit (and not a complete rewriting and reorienting of society), then carbon capture provides a way for us to lower emissions and still recognize the reality that storage technology ain't there yet and we will need higher energy density sources to keep our grid alive (and affordable). The state's report, however, seems to completely sidestep this.
2. Who gets to host these renewables and who gets to control how that's done? This is a big one for me because as someone who lives in a part of the state that the Front Range seems to categorize as "over there" in the sense of "yes, we want renewables ... as long as they're over there". And the state doesn't seem inclined to want to let us have full control over the details. The author talks in a little detail there and mentions the same issues.
3. Relatedly, the article touches briefly on something that's been on my mind lately due to some outside reading on climate change. Renewables are quite low in terms of their energy density (the amount of energy we get per unit of land area needed). Think about it: how many turbines and panels would be needed and how much space is that in order to equal one coal plant? One natural gas turbine? One reactor? The state's report doesn't go into much detail but we have yet to even scratch the surface at the amount of land area we will need for both renewables and the infrastructure needed to move that power around. Barely scratched the surface.
I want to end with a quote from the article.
"Again, this is all modeling [the report commissioned by the state], and the models seem to be rife with assumptions – how could they not be? Consider hydrogen. Who really knows the cost? And batteries. Right now, the 100-hour-battery that would solve so many problems when renewables are at center stage is very expensive, as the report notes. It notes that several companies are pursuing long-duration storage, including the 100-hour iron-air storage that will be the basis of a pilot project in Xcel."
Yep. So much of what we're seeing right now is speculative. You know what would be nice? I would love to have a plan for this state that makes tiny, sequential steps into the future using technology that didn't require a series of events to all line up perfectly for me to be able to afford to heat my home, cook my food, and operate my appliances.
I would like to not have my standard of living dependent on things I can't hold in my hand right now.
*A newsletter that frequently tackles topics relating to energy and renewables. Worth a subscription if this is a topic of interest for you.
https://bigpivots.com/natural-gas-bridge-2/
Related:
an update on Xcel mixing hydrogen into natural gas lines.
I posted earlier about Xcel trying to mix some hydrogen into the natural gas supply in a small neighborhood as a test.
The idea is to mix in some hydrogen as a way to still have combustion appliances in homes without as much carbon emissions (combusting hydrogen just results in water vapor unlike combusting methane which is both water vapor and CO2).
Xcel is backing off from the plan and not saying when or if they will attempt this again. More in the link below.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/05/xcel-energy-pauses-plan-to-blend-hydrogen-into-natural-gas-system-near-hudson/
Next, CEO's draft renewables land use bill has been edited.
And it's not much of an improvement over the first one. Especially if you like local control.
I posted a little bit back about the Colorado Energy Office's (and thus Polis') draft land use bill on renewables. I linked back to it first below.
That effort, went over like a turd in the punchbowl and got yanked for a reworking thanks to the efforts of several legislators, my own state senator (Byron Pelton) among them.
I asked Sen Pelton to update me when there was news, and he did recently. The second link below is the new version of the land use bill for renewables. It's not as bad as the first look, but let's not kid ourselves and say it's a huge improvement.
Let me give you an example. Quoting from the proposed policy:
"The Colorado Energy Office (the Office), in cooperation with the Department of Local Affairs and the Department Of Natural Resources, will develop a Model Ordinance for commercial wind, solar, and lithium battery energy storage projects. The model language provides a conceptual framework that local governments may adapt to suit local circumstances and to address local energy resources."
The key phrase there is "may adapt" not "shall". This is an important distinction because it says that the state will suggest, but not require the adoption of their preferred model. That's a good thing.
Still, further down we see something more important:
"A county may not adopt zoning regulations that disallow, permanently or temporarily, commercial wind or solar energy facilities, or commercial energy storage facilities from being developed or operated in any district zoned to allow agricultural or industrial uses, or any district zoned as Open Space."
So, if you live in an area zoned for Ag (and that's the vast majority of places where I live), and you and your neighbors don't want renewables, sorry. The state says you can't make that decision.
This gets back to the nub of my problems with this land use policy from the first go 'round. This ought to be a local decision. This shouldn't be the Front Range getting to tell us all out here in rural areas what we need to live with so they can feel good about having renewable electricity.
I will keep my ears open and Sen Pelton has been good about updating, so when and if a bill comes out, I'll update.
In the meantime, I"ll leave you with this. Lest you think this is about counties denying renewables just to be difficult, I would point you to the screenshot at the top of this post and the third link below.
This came to me from Sen Pelton via Colorado Counties Inc, a county gov't advocacy group. Look through the stats. Look at the LENGTHY list of projects. Opposition here is not opposition to renewables, it's about local control.
Plain and simple.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/land-use-bill-for-renewables-you?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XyKXh3W1jmvP49kpA0jXaMkPSYfp2X4r/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105405937749106967542&rtpof=true&sd=true
Lastly, the Democrats' effort at defining wetlands and giving CDPHE the decision.
Are you a landowner? Do you know one? How this state defines and regulates wetlands will affect your life greatly and a new bill is starting its legislative journey.
I've touched on the topic of defining wetlands in Colorado after a US Supreme Court decision struck down the former Federal rule. I put a link to my earlier post first below for some context (and you'll also find some in the Sun article linked second--the author does a nice job of talking about the new while backing up to give context), but the essence is that, in the absence of a national rule, and one made by an actual elected body, states are now defining what wetlands are and how to protect them.
In my earlier post I also touched on one proposed effort by Republican Sen Kirkmeyer which felt reasonable to me. I want to protect wetlands obviously, but I want to avoid the sorts of nonsense that motivated the court case. I want to have a balance between wetlands and economic activity. I felt her bill was a decent (albeit not perfect) approach.
In the intervening time between my earlier post and now, we have a Democratic effort which will, by virtue of the party makeup in this state, almost certainly be the direction the legislature goes in. And it doesn't strike me as being as reasonable.
A quote from the Sun article linked below which compares/contrasts the two can illuminate why (link left intact):
""Among the key differences between the two measures is that Kirkmeyer’s proposal states that any new rules can’t be more restrictive than those in place prior to the Sackett decision [the court case that went before the US Supreme Court], while McCluskie’s says protections should be 'at least as protective' as those in place at that time, according to Jarrett Freedman, spokesman for the House Democrats. Another difference is that Kirkmeyer’s bill would place the new oversight program within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources instead of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Kirkmeyer said a huge permitting backlog at CDPHE shows the agency would be unable to handle dredge-and-fill permitting required under her proposal."
Saying that we need to use the regulations that existed prior to the Supreme Court decision as a lower bound instead of making hem an upper bound is worrisome. Knowing how this state goes, knowing the rabid environmentalists that have the ear of so many in power tells me that before long we'll have a list of onerous regulations on landowners longer than my arm. Regulations that don't make much sense in the local context, they just interfere with one's ability to use their land in reasonable ways.
Putting this decision in CDPHE is also a non starter. I'm not saying the Dept of Natural Resources is problem-free, but I am saying CDPHE is NOT the place to do this. Think of how poorly they have balanced economic concerns with environmental lately. Think you as a landowner will get a fair shake? Exactly.
The Democrat bill has a committee hearing on Mon 4/8 and I hope to testify against it. I have also sent an email to the sponsors and committee saying essentially what I said above.
If you'd like to join me, the bill link is third below.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/government-transparency-isnt-that?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/28/new-wetlands-stream-proposal-at-colorado-capitol/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1379