Another bite out of oil and gas in CO, Not In My BackYard for batteries, and, because it's Friday, Nat King Cole.
Another bite out of the oil and gas industry in this state.
If you're thinking that the goal is the complete elimination of any and all fossil fuels in this state, you're not wrong. That is the stated goal of environmentalists I have read in many articles. For the more extreme environmentalist legislators, I do not doubt the goal is the same. The legislators might be constrained somewhat by law and political sense (it would be politically costly to try and outright ban fossil fuel supply and/or demand so they'll nibble at the edges til it's all gone).
I'm not merely making outrageous claims either. Let me support what I mean with snippets from an actual bill.
The bill I am referencing is HB23-1294 Pollution Protection Measures. The bill page is linked below and the screenshots come from either the bill text (BT), bill summary (BS), or fiscal note (FN).
Let's start with the overall bill itself. Even taking the summary approach and reading the fiscal note, you'll note the lengthy additional requirements (even worse if you read the bill itself) this imposes on oil and gas extraction.
Remembering that starting a well is already a years long process that could tie up millions of dollars for that time, do you think the extra requirements will encourage or discourage oil and gas companies from starting? Would you want to run an even longer gauntlet?
Now let's talk about other challenges. Take a look at screenshots 1 and 2. Is lowering the bar on challenges to your operation or proposed operation going to encourage or discourage oil and gas companies? Will it lead to stability or less stability? Now come at it from another direction: if you were an environmentalist that had a particular animus to oil and gas development, would you hesitate to start filing complaints to tie up permits?
**Quick side note: this is a similar argument to the one about the recent gun lawsuits bill. It is just as easy to shut down an industry with repeated complaints/suits as it is to successfully win in court. Whether you're in the right or not, you just have to raise the price of poker above that which your opponent is willing to pay.
Turn back to the bill and look at screenshot 3. If we are allowing the AQCC to go beyond Federal rules, what is the limiting principle on what they can do? The AQCC has not shown themselves to be models of restraint in the past after all.
And lastly, look at screenshot 4. If you read through the bill carefully you'll note a tiny little provision tucked in there. Guess who this provision could apply to? I'll give you a hint: I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this one's about oil and gas. This one's about things like that Employer Trip Reduction Program (see the second link below).
That was the program where your employer would've monitored your driving habits and etc.
This bill has bad idea written all over it. It is a step on the path toward the radical environmentalists dream of eradicating fossil fuels completely without any ready, viable, large-scale alternatives. It's just that we're doing this in the way that the Democrat politicians know is more feasible: death by a thousand cuts.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1294
https://raqc.org/etrp-resources
***Related:
Not all news re. oil and gas is bad.
Said another way, not every elected official and/or board in this state is against oil and gas exploration. There might be some moderates left.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/11/arapahoe-county-votes-down-moratorium-on-lowry-oil-and-gas-drilling-project/
Brighton is a pretty liberal place (at least in terms of the people running it), so I was surprised to see that some of the folks there are not too happy with a factory making batteries being located there.
I'm tempted to cluck my tongue at this, but I'll be honest, I don't know that it would be fair. I think the impulse to want something and to want someone else to live with it is a pretty human thing and not so much an ideological one.
Boulder has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions (and with a likely fossil fuel consumption to match), but they do not (capital do, capital not) want any oil or gas exploration nearby.
Brighton, given their politics, likely would be classified as a fan of renewable energy and EVs, but they do not want the factory nearby.
The Front Range wants renewables but not the solar arrays, turbines, or the high-tension towers marching through their views and cities.
Big cities wanted the protection of nuclear weapons, but they didn't want ICBM silos nearby.
This presents an interesting question to me (and I hope to you as well). Do you support the folks in Brighton not having this plant nearby? If not, how do you feel if the neighborhood were agitated instead about an oil field being nearby? If you support them, how do you propose solving the problem of property rights, or, relatedly, something society needs having to be SOMEWHERE?
I'm reminded of the Vail vs. Vail Resorts eminent domain thing I posted about earlier. How much control should you have over what I do on my land? It's a tough question with no simple answer, and, as someone whose ox will not be gored, one I don't know that I feel stupid enough to step in on.
What I hope for, however, is the same I hoped for in the Vail case: that the solution is one reached via genuine compromise and not via a tug of war where competing parties seek to "capture" the government to use as a cudgel against the folks they disagree with.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/brighton-neighbors-speak-plans-create-colorados-largest-battery-factory/
Stardust by Nat King Cole
Last one of the day, something for fun and not related to politics.
Heard this on the radio recently.
In a world of a lot of noise and fuss, enjoy some mellow and some quiet. Close your eyes for a couple minutes and just be.
Enjoy and have a good Friday!