CBI now has authority to investigate some gun crimes, how do they intend to use it? What can Power Pathways teach us about land use and renewables? Sen Hansen = Pinnocchio.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) now has authority to investigate some gun crimes, how do they intend to use it?
SB24-003 (linked first below) granted the CBI new powers to investigate certain gun crimes subject to some caveats on their actions. They are required to (quoting the bill summary):
"...communicate with the appropriate local law enforcement agency and deconflict investigative operations prior to taking investigative or enforcement action and to collaborate with the local district attorney in the beginning stages of the investigation."
Pretty broad, and to my mind empty, language here. I got curious to hear how exactly CBI interpreted this bill and the dictum quoted above, so I contacted their media officer with some basic questions which you see copied and attached as screenshot 1.
The gentleman who first responded to me (he was unavailable after my first round of questions, so someone else at the office took the latter half of the discussion--FYI), embedded his responses in and among my questions in his reply, so what you see below is a copy and paste of his answers in the same order in which the questions were put.
I did not put his answer to my question #4 since he did not understand my question well and the answer to this one came from the other person at CBI. One other note, these are full and exact quotes, the elipses (...) are CBI's not mine.
"Yes....CBI can and has been given authority to initiate investigations...something we already do when it comes to Organized Crime, Fugitive Apprehension and Cyber Crimes so Illegal Firearm Activity is no different."
"No...we don't have a firm timeline...we're still figuring this out and hiring people who will be assigned to this unit."
"We'll collaborate with DA's just like we always have in all our cases....this is no different. We present cases, ultimately it's up to the DA's to prosecute cases. If there's a disagreement, it's ultimately up to the DA to decide on charges. Because we collaborate throughout the process. we're unlikely to pursue a case if the DA tells us it's not a case they think is worth pursuing but often they may not make that final decision until we can present them the evidence we've gathered."
Revisit screenshot 1 and look at my question #4. This question (admittedly open to some interpretation and/or containing some ambiguity) caused the folks at CBI some heartburn. As I explained on the phone to the second person I spoke with, I was not accusing CBI of doing anything wrong or that they've had problems in the past.
What I was trying to get at with question 4 was the idea that guns and gun control are politically very sensitive. This dynamic is amplified when a new law allows officers to come in from far away to investigate.
If and when there are conflicts between people and those that enforce the law, there needs to be some process for handling those complaints. If it is local officers and locally-elected officials, that process is known and, I believe, more responsive.
I wanted to be able to get some idea of CBI's take on this. How would they handle complaints that arise if a CBI officer mishandles an interaction with the public? With a local officer? I also wanted to be able to share with you the process for initiating complaints anyone may have with CBI officials that may come to investigate. You should know how to speak up if you feel as though you were disrespected or mistreated.
Once that was established with the CBI media people, the response I got was as follows:
"As with every case in which the CBI is involved, our agents, analysts, etc. communicate with the local agency, whether a sheriff’s office, police department or district attorney’s office about the elements of a specific investigation throughout the entirety of the case. The foundation of our organization is built on extensive collaboration with those entities and that will continue through this new unit. The best way to make a complaint is to either call the regional office (below) [I attach here as screenshot 2 below] or email the CBI directly: cdps_cbi_denver@state.co.us"
I consider this to be a developing story and have made some reminders to follow up on this in the future. Expect an update roughly 6 months or so from now.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-003
The intersection of renewables land use policy and Power Pathways
I wrote a fair bit about renewables and land use during the last Assembly session, focusing in particular on a bill that, in its original form, would have let the state dictate to local governments rules about land use for renewables (my latest post on the bill and its eventually-signed form linked first and second below, respectively).
As part of writing about this, I was contacted by a reader who is living the consequences of what could have come out of this bill (and may still--there's always the next legislative session).
I thought sharing this reader's story and information would be helpful. It's an example of people standing up. It's an example of what may be coming to your neck of the woods as the Front Range seeks to expand its portfolio of renewables (which are to be located, of course, "over there" where you live).
Part of the effort to transition our state's grid to renewables will necessarily involve getting that electricity from the rural areas of this state to the Front Range. That involves transmission infrastructure: wires, towers, and etc.
That effort has already begun, aided and outlined by bills in earlier legislative sessions. Xcel has largely outlined the broad strokes of future transmission lines (if you're curious to learn more, google Xcel Energy Power Pathways), and they're not getting down to the local details of where towers go and etc. for certain segments.
People living in Elbert County are the first group that I'm aware of that is dealing with Xcel and the transmission plans. Some are not too pleased with the results so far. One of the major themes, which shouldn't be surprising if you've read this page, is that Xcel (much like our state government) is ignoring local concerns.
To give you context and background I linked to a CPR article which (briefly) touches on this topic as well as an article by Colorado Community Media's local presence in Elbert County which gives a more comprehensive and zoomed-in view of the subject. Those are linked third and fourth below in that order.
I also wanted to share some words that Kerry Peloquin Jiblits (a landowner and member of Elbert County Environmental Alliance--the group trying to get Xcel to revisit their plans) sent me. Quoting from our messaging on Facebook:
"...really heart breaking stories - transmission towers going really close to a 150 year old home, a young man who sunk all his savings into a home on 5 acres only to learn that they will put a tower right in front of his home; a young woman who runs a summer camp for kids on five acres will have a tower in the middle of the kids’ area; the wide swath of trees they will clear cut for their easement. I called her on it, and she replied that she was frustrated she couldn’t include it all. As for Hansen’s cooperation [see my "Related" content below], there has been no cooperation. We are having this shoved down our throats."
I find stories like this concerning. I say that because this latest one is a continuation of earlier behavior by Xcel with regard to this Power Pathways project (see the 5th link below for a FencePost story about Xcel, AGAIN, not communicating well with locals).
What does this mean for future renewables efforts?
I think we can easily expect that both Xcel and the Front Range, through its hold on political power via demographics, will continue to push things like this down on landowners in the rural parts of the state.
What can you do if you're concerned?
First, contact your county commissioners and express your concerns. Contact your state reps and senators to do the same. There are political realities with regard to control of this state, but a loud voice can carry far (again, see "Related" below, my state senator Byron Pelton worked hard alongside local governments to force change to Hansen's renewables land use bill).
Then, get involved. If no local group is working, this is your chance to start one. Talk to your fellow landowners and start a group. Start using the leverage of numbers. I know of resources that can help in this effort (coaching, etc.). If you're interested, let me know.
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/do-as-youre-told-on-housing-density?utm_source=publication-search
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-212
https://www.cpr.org/2024/06/06/elbert-county-xcel-renewable-energy-project-rural-community-pushback/
https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/2024/05/14/xcel-energy-elbert-county-residents-talk-but-dont-connect/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1ut1sCbekSeEiJ9YZu76aBwXBTGwIVIIgU4HY1xagZVgU-NDeuvG_Wcds_aem_ARrpT9yA945VSbMtpoqK5-7M-wPfn7fb11iMRO__cwcAav9pP7cxnPWh8ijMfphVfflB_LUzCwi5QvzbKiW0E9BA
https://www.thefencepost.com/news/xcels-power-pathway-leaves-its-mark-on-rural-colorado/
Related
The CPR article I link to in the post above contains the following quote (some of it from State Senator Hansen):
"While other states have passed laws to restrict local control over clean energy projects, lead sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver, said he believes the amended legislation will make Colorado stand out as a leader in the nationwide race to renewable energy. 'There’s been bills like this that have been much more top-down control in other states, and that's led to lawsuits and lots of problems,” he said. “What we are trying to do instead is to show the rest of the country, "Hey, here's how we do it." We’re working together, bringing together the right experts at the right time, and bolstering local control to really show the rest of the country that [Colorado] can be successful.'”
You can almost hear the wooden nose growing.
Here is reality: the original bill, originally written by Senator Hansen, DID NOT have local control in it. It was top-down control. The only reason it departed from this vision (again, originally proposed by Hansen) was because of protests.
Loud effective protesting by locals and led in the Senate itself by Senator Byron Pelton.