Ah, Boulder Colorado. An oversight (and some plumber union featherbedding) which needs to be fixed. Is Polis sending homeless people to my hometown?
Good old Boulder Colorado.
I got a story link from a friend recently and I thought I'd share. Then I saw another one that is related, so I'm tossing them both up. They are just so ... Boulder.
The first details some new changes to Boulder's Energy Code.** Boulder is now allowing developers to get credit for buying materials which have lower "embodied carbon".
Embodied carbon is the greenhouse gas emissions that are involved in producing the materials that go into constructing buildings (as opposed to those generated to, say, heat the water in said buildings).
Quoting the first article below:
"Traditional building materials, like concrete and steel, have a hefty carbon pollution footprint. The global warming emissions released while extracting, producing and transporting these materials are greater than those for alternatives like cross-laminated timber and recycled materials. By pushing climate-friendlier options, Boulder hopes to reduce its overall carbon footprint."
The article goes on to say that "[b]ecause of the novelty of embodied carbon in its energy code, city staff included it as incentives rather than regulation."
A quick point before moving on, "incentives" here, at least when you consider the common usage of the word, is a bit of a misnomer.
I did some research on the way that Boulder's energy code works (see the second link below -- it's a commercial source but it gave a pretty non-technical explanation so I used it). They run on a points system. Meaning that you need to accumulate a certain number of points to have your project approved. You gain points by doing things like, for example, adding solar to your building.
Boulder's not giving money, they're not doing tax credits, they're not going below their basic level of energy code requirements, they are just allowing you to gain extra points by using, say, laminated wood beams in your building as opposed to steel. I'll leave it to you to say whether this is incentive or regulation. I am also taking donations to build a coal-heated (using the dirtiest of burners), single-paned-windowed building out of reclaimed cardboard up in Boulder. If you're interested in donating contact me through this site.
The second story, linked third below, updates a lawsuit filed by Boulder City, Boulder County, and San Miguel County which, according to the story, seeks "...to hold Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy accountable for damages caused by climate change." Specifically, the suit (similar to ones in other states) seeks to somehow pin responsibility for things like wildfires and floods on the oil companies.
And it's no surprise that it's being brought in Boulder (and other liberal jurisdictions): the Boulder judge recently allowed the case to proceed against a motion to dismiss by the defendants because this is Boulder and of course he would.
If the first story is dumb--I mean, if you want to live in Boulder and deal with things like their energy code, go join their ranks with God's blessing--the second story frightens me.
If they have the trial in Boulder, they're going to win. Despite jurors and the judge being clothed, transported, and fed by fossil fuel products, someone has to pay for the existential angst and guilt Boulderites feel. Someone has to pay for the acts of God.
And we will inch one step closer to yet another case of radical environmentalists accomplishing in friendly courts what they know they cannot do by persuasion alone.
**Quick FYI: an energy code is a building code that specifies things like how much insulation you should have, how well insulated your windows have to be, sometimes what you can use for heating/cooling, and, as in the case of our recent statewide energy code, things like solar panel and EV wiring.
https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/06/19/boulder-pioneers-colorados-first-energy-code-to-reduce-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/
https://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/380
https://www.cpr.org/2024/06/24/boulder-exxon-mobil-suncor-energy-climate-change-lawsuit/
Related:
Yet another group (there is already one group that sued back in April 2024) is considering legal action over Denver's building codes for big buildings.
According to Sam Brasch's "article" linked below, the controversy stems over codes which
" ... banned gas furnaces and water heaters in new commercial and multifamily buildings starting in 2024."
and which require existing buildings to
"... install electric systems whenever replacing gas equipment in 2025. While those regulations don’t prohibit natural gas equipment, any remaining gas-powered furnaces or boilers can only support a primary electric heating system."
The lawsuits apparently follow on the mode of (surprisingly successful given that it's the 9th circuit court) suits out of California.
Good luck to the lawsuits!
https://www.cpr.org/2024/07/01/fossil-fuel-lawsuit-denver-climate-minding-building-gas-limiting-policies/
An oversight (and some plumber union featherbedding) which needs to be fixed.
The Colorado State Plumbing Board was up for its sunset hearing this last legislative session and we're just now learning of a delightful mistake that was put into law.
Before we get too deep into the details, let's back up and talk about what sunset hearings are. As you can see in screenshots 1 and 2 attached (from the first link below), sunset hearings are a feature of regulatory legislation that largely started here in Colorado in the 1970's.
The sunset process allows the legislature to revisit the legislation that authorizes regulatory boards: they can change up the regulatory agency, add things to regulate, they can eliminate it, etc. A sunset hearing is a check on the growth of regulatory arm of the state and allows for flexibility that we otherwise wouldn't have. When done right, that is.
Among the regulatory agencies up for sunset review this last legislative session was the Plumbing Board, a board that decides on regulations for plumbers and plumbing.
And here is where things go sideways. Apparently (see the 9News article linked second below for more context), somehow, some way, the rules about inspecting vacuum breakers got changed so now only state-licensed plumbers can inspect them. If you want to see the actual bill and actual language, I put a link to the bill third below.
Depending on where you've been and what you've seen, you may not know what a vacuum breaker is and why we have them. If you have a sprinkler system or a relatively new spigot on an outside wall, you'll notice a bell shaped thing on the top. That's the vacuum breaker. It is rate, but it has happened that water gets sucked back into the domestic water supply from sprinkler systems, big buildings, or hoses. A vacuum breaker prevents this backflow. It keeps the domestic water supply from being contaminated.
I hint at the issue above when I say that big buildings have them. They do, and not just that, the big buildings need to have their backflow preventers (vacuum breakers) inspected on a regular basis.
From the 9News article:
"...the prevention devices are also common on commercial buildings where they serve multiple purposes. Some water districts require commercial buildings to test their backflow preventers frequently."
If, as is now required by law, only licensed plumbers can do these inspections, you can imagine the backlog of inspections and the extra costs to building owners. We now have to have highly-paid and less-available plumbers inspecting these things instead of the technicians (just as competent and trained on backflow prevention testing) doing it.
The next question you might ask is how did such a dumb change happen? After all, technicians have been happily (and cheaply) inspecting these things for years without problem.
If you read the 9News article, you'll get a couple responses from the bill sponsors. You'll get puzzlement at its inclusion from the Democratic sponsor. From the Republican, you'll get the allegation that the plumbing union snuck it in.**
You want to know what I think the driving dynamic was here? I don't doubt there's some union featherbedding happening, but the reason it was able to occur in the first place was the thoughtless rush at the end of the last legislative session.
Even if it was unintentional (no reason to suspect anything else on the part of the legislators), they set themselves up for failure here. As I wrote back in early May (see the fourth link below for my earlier newsletter), our legislature is writing laws for complex things, laws that have lots of possible consequences, and they're doing it quicker than they should.
To see what I mean specifically in this case, look at screenshot 3 attached. The sunset bill sat, and sat, and sat in the state senate til near to the end of April (our legislature has to wrap up the first week in May) and then buzzed on through the Senate. If this was one of a few bills up for consideration at that time, it wouldn't be an issue.
But you must remember that in the background, literally hundreds of bills were being rushed through these last weeks. How could this have resulted in anything other than sloppy work with unintended consequences? When you rush, you screw up.
I wonder what other surprises await us.
**My state senator Byron Pelton.
https://coprrr.colorado.gov/how-reviews-work/sunset-reviews
https://www.9news.com/article/money/sentence-new-state-law-scrambled-plumbing-industry/73-6fd36f5f-3739-4566-ab4d-15ac35b06749
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1344
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/should-the-policymaking-process-be?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Is Polis sending homeless people to my hometown?
I was talking to a friend the other day and he remarked that his neighbor had told him that Governor Polis was sending homeless people out to Sterling, CO.
It got me curious. I do know that I've seen more homeless people out here than when I first moved out, but are there a ton more? Are they coming from Polis?
I'll get to the answer in a sec, but I wanted to take this as an opportunity to discuss (yet again) the importance of skepticism when you hear a claim. I wanted to take this as an opportunity to provide an example of some simple steps you can take to evaluate claims you hear.
The first thing you should do is the first thing I did when I started investigating: go to your favorite search engine and do some looking. Whatever the claim, is anyone else talking about it? Who? What are they saying?
All I could find after a couple quick searches that was even remotely close to the claim that Governor Polis was shipping homeless people out here was a post on a chat board claiming that he'd done the same to Fort Collins, CO.
After doing a quick google search, I next turned to the town authorities, and, perhaps most importantly, I asked more than one. I contacted the town manager, I contacted the Sterling Police Dept, my state senator, my county commissioner, the local charity, and lastly the the Logan County Sheriff.**
So far, I've heard from the Sterling PD, the local charity, the town manager, and my state senator, and county commissioner.
The answers I've had are all basically the same. Maybe noticed a few things here or there, but not any large-scale (or confirmed) movement. Meaning, we've all seen more homeless people, but not a surge. Meaning no one has been contacted by Denver or the state.
I think I am inclined to hew closest to what my town manager and the executive director of the local charity told me.
I think there are some people from the Front Range who are moving out here. Some coming on their way to places farther down the line, some coming because they feel there's less competition for services out here as compared to Denver. I do not think that there is a concerted effort afoot, however.
At least not yet. I want to counterbalance this with what I heard from my county commissioner: there has been some interest by nonprofits in purchasing hotels, presumably to house people, but again, no official moves and no actual purchases.
What to make of it all. Let me run back over the high spots.
I see nothing of value on the internet. In fact, what is there seems to point to a rumor where all one has to do is change the location name.
When I ask around to various people, all with various interests, I get basically the same answers. Scattered evidence of more homeless people, some interest perhaps in housing, but no large-scale, noticeable efforts. In weighing this it's important to note that there is no reason for all these disparate individuals to play footsie here (particularly since my state senator and county commissioner are both in the opposing party to Polis).
Relatedly, while Polis has shifted migrants around on the board in the past (see the link below), this effort was pretty quickly picked up on and became a news story. I see no reason to think moving homeless people around would be somehow easier to keep secret. Not impossible, but not likely.
The lesson here is to be skeptical, even if it's something you might agree with, want to see, or that confirms what you feel happens in the world. Skeptical meaning that you don't go too far either way: you don't immediately assume truth, but you don't dismiss either.
Take your time with things you hear. Think it over. Does it make sense? Is there a precedent? Sit down at a computer and search for what is out there. Ask around (and ask several people with likely divergent views).
There is no guarantee you'll arrive at the truth, but you will have the ability to make a more informed judgment than simply believing what you read offhand or just as simply tossing it out.
**Incidentally doing things like this is a good way to make sure your elected and local officials get to know you.