A politico's golden parachute? Forced electrification by a thousand code regs. Out of the loop?

A politico's golden parachute?

Right in the middle of the legislative session a story flared about Donald Trump and how he hated his official Colorado State Capitol portrait. If you didn't catch that story at the time, you'll find one linked first below.

An offshoot of that story, not really updated in all the coverage of Trump, was something that happened in the first Trump administration. Quoting the article (with link intact):

"In 2018, an adviser to Colorado’s Democratic House Speaker Crisanta Duran snuck a political activist into the state Capitol who placed a large portrait of Russian President Vladimir Putin into the spot where Trump’s portrait was meant to be. It came after Republicans reportedly were not able to raise the funds needed to paint the picture of Trump, 9News in Denver reported."

Get it? Trump, Putin same same.

I was curious to see what happened with this story, curious for a "Where are they now?" kind of update.

Before we get to that, let's go look back in a little more detail. Per the 2018 article linked second below, the Democrat staffer, Katie March, snuck the then-director of ProgressNow Colorado Alan Franklin into the Capitol past security so he could put up the picture of Putin where Trump's portrait should have been.

Fun was had by all, the story got the Democrats the national attention they likely were hoping for. But what happened with the Democrat staffer March?

March issued an apology for her actions (ProgressNow of course didn't feel they did wrong), and the Colorado State Patrol which handles security for the capitol pulled March's security badge. March wasn't fired by the Democrats, and still had access to the capitol. She just had to go through security like everyone else.

Fast forward a few years (it probably won't be a surprise that Alan Franklin still works with ProgressNow, you can see his Twitter linked third below if you want), but I got curious at what happened with Ms. March.

When I went looking, I found what I believe is her LinkedIn profile. It's linked fourth below. In case you have trouble seeing it, screenshots 1 and 2 attached are from her page.

She's working now as a lobbyist for credit unions (after a failed bid at a political career of her own).

That brings me to my point. It isn't just CEO's that get golden parachutes. Politicos often do too.

In the case of politicos it may not necessarily be sacks of money upon leaving, but I mean golden parachute more in the metaphorical sense. That those working in and around government tend to stay in that industry and perhaps not really have their actions diminish their opportunities.

Does March deserve to go around wearing sack cloth with a scarlet T printed on her clothing for the rest of her life based on this? No, but should a (theoretically) values-neutral organization like a Credit Union Association involve themselves with someone so nakedly partisan, someone whose actions betray a lack of concern over the thoughts of probably half their customers?

I did reach out to the Credit Union Association** to make 110% sure I had the right March as well as to see if they knew of her history and/or had concerns. I spoke to their PR person who declined to answer any questions.

That left one final (in my view) loose end to tie up here. I was curious to note if something like this could happen again: whether or not there were new policies and/or procedures to make it harder for staffers to sneak someone in.

The Putin portrait was pretty harmless, but sneaking people in carries the risk that the next one won't be harmless after all.

I emailed with the Colorado State Patrol's Public Information Officer, which I put below as "CSP PIO". Quoting from that email (there is a statement, then a follow up question from me, and then his answer all put below and they're all quoted from my email):


From CSP PIO:

Every building, including buildings with security access protocols, has occasional events where staff may aid in unauthorized building access. The Patrol takes this very seriously and responds accordingly. We continuously evaluate our security protocols and adapt them as needed. We provide annual training on our security and building access protocols and discuss the consequences of violating those protocols with staff members. There have been no events since the incident you described.

There is a vetting process in place for different departments that operate within the Capitol. However, we are not able to share the specific guidelines due to security and safety reasons. There are security protocols that all people who enter the Capitol are required to follow.

My followup:

I understand about not sharing security protocols. No worries.

Just to be clear, your last sentence there (There are security protocols that all people who enter the Capitol are required to follow.), can I take that to mean everyone that enters goes through some kind of security? That no one can bypass security or let others in?

CSP PIO Reply:

That is correct.

**The reaching out and quotes were done quite a bit prior to now, back in March, it's just that I have chosen to put legislative business ahead of this.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5210127-trump-demands-colorado-take-down-purposefully-distorted-painting/

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/hot-sheet/colo-legislative-aide-disciplined-for-putin-portrait-prank/article_3c5ae20e-23ae-5b65-8f54-de0a48834b22.html

https://x.com/alanfranklin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-march-a81901201

---

Forced electrification by a thousand code regs

It's been a while since I wrote about Colorado's energy codes. If you weren't aware, or need a refresher, Colorado has (yet another) unelected board housed in the Colorado Energy Office that was created by a 2022 law tasked with creating energy efficiency building codes. That bill is linked first below if you'd like to read through it.

Energy codes do many things. For example, they might require new construction to have a certain R value of insulation, and/or certain efficiency ratings of appliances. Our new mandated codes do this, but since it's Colorado, they do more. There are provisions about wiring for EV's, solar, etc. Oh, and there are also provisions about carbon emissions.
The board has been slowly writing new codes over time and, per the bill, they will be phased in over time.

There's been enough time now that some places in the state are implementing the new energy codes. The second link below is to a Chaffee County Times article that looks in on this a little while also demonstrating some of the themes in this process I wanted to point out to you.

There isn't much new. The state is once again tasking faraway, unelected people with power to impose their will on us all as opposed to leaving that decision to locals, and the policy thus decided is being pushed as incentives, as participatory rather than compelled.

This is reflected even down to the level of the words used. Chaffee County's adoption of the state code comes with the name "Electric Preferred". Other codes mentioned in the article have the names "electric-ready" and "solar-ready".

As explained in the article with a couple of non-contiguous quotes:

"The 2021 energy code requires new construction to be “electric-ready,” meaning that while natural gas appliances may be installed, the home must also be built with the necessary wiring and panel capacity to accept the installation of electric appliances in the future without retrofitting. The “Solar Ready” component of the code requires that roofs be designed to accommodate the installation of solar panels."

"The Electric Preferred amendment adds further incentives to build all-electric homes by requiring mixed-fuel homes to make up for the use of natural gas – 'combustion equipment,' in the language of the code – with increased energy efficiency measures in other aspects of construction."

Behind the friendly jargon and names, what we have here is more construction cost, and, while not necessarily a ban on gas appliances, an effort to raise the price of poker if you want that gas water heater, furnace, stove, or dryer: if you want that gas stove, you'd better still run wire for electric and you'd better pony up with better windows or perhaps thicker walls with more insulation.

A quote from Matt Nyckiel, an environmental lawyer from Salida who came to Buena Vista to encourage the town trustees to drink the Kool Aid gets us a little closer to reality. From the article:

“'One reason why it’s important that we consider and adopt these amendments is that the state is progressing in terms of electrification, and part of the reason that the county adopted the 2021 energy code, where we’re at right now, is that it was required by state law. And state law is going to require us to make another upgrade by July 1, 2026, to a low-carbon, low energy use model code that’s being developed by the Colorado Energy Office. The more we lead by example and get ahead of this, the bigger advantage we give homeowners, businesses and developers,' Nyckiel said"

Nyckiel is saying above that Buena Vista will have to do all this eventually, and so why not just go ahead and start using these new codes now instead of waiting until the state forces their adoption., a kind of a "let's take the band aid off in one pull".

You see, despite lots of friendly names and "voluntary" appearing all over the law, the reality is that, per the bill, after 2023 any municipality that updates its codes must then either go as strict or stricter than the state. If you've ever done any construction or remodeling on an older home, this will sound familiar.** Open a wall and rewire = open your codes and rewrite.

One size fits all changes made at the state, not the local, level. Added costs on new construction so that we can prepare for a glorious carbon-righteous future.

Time will tell I suppose, but these energy codes carry all the savor of forced electrification, especially for homes at the lower end of the market. The writers will claim (as was repeated multiple times in the article) that this isn't about raising costs or limiting options. No, it's about adding options so the costs can go down!

But most homes built for the regular market are built according to a limited set of plans. They're NOT custom. Keeping the prices low is anathema to options; they're not going to run gas lines to things if it means having to also run electric AND changes other parts of the plan. They'll run wires, have one kind of insulation and windows, and move on. Maybe if you're resourced and hardheaded enough, you can buy your way out of the game, but otherwise, you'll get what's on offer.

And what's on offer will likely be what those writing the code and making the laws in this state wanted (without having to say so outright): no more natural gas.

**The exactly language is, to quote from the bill's fiscal note, "Boards of county commissioners and governing bodies of municipalities are required to adopt and enforce an energy code that achieves equivalent or better energy and carbon emissions performance than the model codes when updating building codes on or after July 1, 2023."

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1362

https://www.chaffeecountytimes.com/news/trustees-wary-of-proposed-electric-preferred-code-amendment/article_d7519e8e-49f7-49f1-bdfe-c0013ff67e6f.html

Related:

More context on the Energy Code Board mentioned above and some weighty (and likely expensive) decisions they'll be making soon.


https://tsscolorado.com/board-will-consider-sweeping-and-potentially-costly-homebuilding-mandates/

---

Out of the loop...

The Colorado Politics article linked first below brought an interesting project to my attention and so I wanted to share.

A group of four (now three--more in a sec) of governmental bodies in El Paso County all signed on to an intergovernmental agreement to form the Loop Water Authority. That group's website is linked second below, but I'll warn you ahead of time there's not much there.

The idea for the Loop here is one that I have seen up in the Denver Metro Area. The details differ but the idea's always the same: take wastewater that normally would have went downstream and repurpose it for use in the area that made it. For example, there are pipe networks in and around Denver that are wholly separate from regular domestic water piping which carry treated (though not yet fully potable) water for uses like lawn irrigation.

The Loop Project is similar. It would take water out of Fountain and Monument Creeks (the article uses the verb "recycle" but I'm not so sure that's an apt one in my view) treat it, and then pipe it back up for use in the Town of Monument, the Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District, the Donala Water and Sanitation District, and the Cherokee Metropolitan District.

Except that the last one there, Cherokee, has decided to leave the agreement citing the costs involved in removing the "Forever Chemicals"** in the runoff down Fountain and Monument Creeks (due to the firefighting chemicals used in nearby military bases).

The lack of supply from the Loop Project doesn't mean that Cherokee won't need water. It just means they won't get it from the Loop. Following the pattern of many communities that need water, they'll take it from higher in the watershed to avoid higher treatment costs. Quoting the article:

"Instead, Cherokee has worked to securing water rights in the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Basin. Brown said the district was about 90% toward the goal of setting up water infrastructure on that project."

Makes me wonder who in that basin is losing water rights.

**Some minor context in the article if you want it.

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/local-government/metro-district-pulls-out-of-major-water-access-project-in-el-paso-county/article_e979cc09-de65-5175-868d-7d1f890296af.html#google_vignette

https://www.loopwater.org/