Does AG Weiser support yet more gun control (background check/tax on ammo and an "AW" ban)? Is the CO Energy Office denying exemptions to Ag buildings? I write the CO Title Board about mountain lions.
Is AG Weiser going to push for a background check and special tax on ammunition?
If the allegations made by RMGO in the video linked first below are accurate, this is something he has pushed for since taking office and it's something he is still advocating (see starting at about the 10:47 mark).
You know my thinking about things like this. I think it's only fair to ask someone directly what they believe, and so I took this question to the AG's office via email. A screencap of the email I sent to the AG's office is attached.
I didn't receive a response in a couple days (unusual for the AG's office I must say), so I followed up with another email but the same questions.
As of this writing, I have received no response. I will update if I do.
In the meantime, let's turn to what we do know; things that are readily available and from Weiser's own mouth (so to speak). Take a look at the screencap from Weiser's campaign page in the earlier AG's race against Kellner. I linked to the page second below if you want to go and give it a look in its original context.
I circled the relevant bit in red. We can say for certain that Mr. Weiser supports an "assault weapons" ban, even if he will not answer as to what he thinks an "assault weapon" is exactly.
Is it a stretch to imagine that he would want a background check on ammunition and a tax? No. Unfortunately, without any statement from him, I guess we'll have to see what the coming Assembly session brings to know what AG Weiser's upcoming gun control policy advocacy will bring.
https://www.philforcolorado.com/the-stakes
Related:
The essay below showed up in my inbox recently and it relates very much to the post above because it details two disparate rulings on whether or not it's legal to restrict magazines.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out because it will bear on Colorado's existing magazine law and it will also (I think anyway) help determine what efforts like background checks and etc. on ammunition will be tried and/or successful.
https://thereload.com/analysis-judges-continue-to-diverge-on-whether-magazines-are-protected-arms-member-exclusive/
Is the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) denying legitimate exemptions to Ag buildings?
Let me start with some needed context. In 2021, Assembly Democrats passed, then Polis signed, HB21-1286 "Energy Performance For Buildings". I linked to the bill first below for reference.
This authorized the CEO to work and establish a series of energy standards for large buildings (bigger than 50k square feet) which would then be put through the regulatory machinery of the Air Quality Control Commission.
This process has now been completed and the regulations are now a reality. See the Gazette article linked second below for context.
There are exemptions to these new rules per the law that was passed, one of which is an exemption for buildings where over half the floor area is used for agricultural purposes. See screenshot 1 (from the text of the bill itself).
And therein lies the rub.
I heard stories about farmers and others in Ag getting denied valid exemptions for their big buildings. This left them facing both the difficulties of complying and a $100 fee.
I was hoping to have specific cases to share with you, but I was not able to find anyone willing to put their name to a problem.
Absent that, I next reached out to the CEO itself for their comment. I wanted specifically to see if they had been receiving complaints over denials for Ag buildings and/or if they had denied exemptions.
After a significant wait, I got the statement below (a lengthy quote and I left the links they embedded in there).
"Buildings are among the top five contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado, which makes reducing energy use in buildings an important strategy to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado by 2050. To address emissions from buildings, the “Energy Performance for Buildings” statute (HB21-1286), created statewide benchmarking requirements for commercial, multifamily and public buildings 50,000 square feet and larger. The bill also established building sector-wide emission reduction targets of 7% by 2026 and 20% by 2030, to be met through building performance standards (BPS), which the State’s Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted this past August."
"When developing the BPS rules, the State added clarifications and details around the waiver and exemption requirements. For example, HB21-1286 states that buildings with more than half of their gross floor area dedicated to manufacturing, industrial, or agricultural purposes are exempt from the State’s benchmarking and BPS requirements. The adopted BPS rules clarified the definition of ‘agricultural purpose’ as follows:
'Agricultural purpose' means a building or structure used to house farm implements, hay, unprocessed grain, poultry, livestock, or other agricultural products. For the purpose of this definition, this building or structure must not contain habitable space or a place of employment where agricultural products are processed or treated or packaged; nor is it a place used by the public. The gross floor area of a building or structure used for an agricultural purpose must include all space within the building or structure to determine if the building or structure meets the covered building exemption Section III.O.2.
'Agricultural product' means any agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, or vegetable products or poultry or poultry products grown or produced in Colorado. Agricultural products do not include ‘regulated marijuana’ as defined by Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division in 1 CCR 212-3 (2022)."
"The Colorado Energy Office (CEO) has not made any new exemption determinations since the AQCC adopted these rules. The State’s 2023 benchmarking reporting season deadline was June 1, 2023, but CEO provided building owners a two month extension to report or file for a waiver or exemption. When filing for an exemption under the criteria stated in the bill, all building owners are required to submit building floor plans and any other supporting documentation that shows their building’s total square footage and the square footage dedicated to each use type. If a building meets the 50% or more threshold, the exemption is approved. However, if building owners do not submit correct documentation, respond within an appropriate amount of time, or submit before the reporting deadline, the exemption is denied."
"CEO understands that building owners are still getting acquainted with these requirements. In the next reporting season, which will open on March 1, 2024, CEO will give building owners an opportunity to re-apply for exemptions and submit corrected benchmarking reports if needed. We recommend building owners reach out to our fully staffed Building Performance Colorado Help Center during the reporting season for help submitting benchmarking reports or appropriately filing exemption requests."
After getting this response, I followed up by asking:
In the statement you sent, you said you understand that owners are "... still getting acquainted with these requirements."
As such, for people who made what I would term "a good faith" screw up (meaning things like, from your list, building owners who "... do not submit correct documentation, respond within an appropriate amount of time, or submit before the reporting deadline") were their fees returned when the exemption was denied?
The answer I got back was:
"If a building owner was denied an exemption and paid the fee, but is later approved for an exemption, the building owner will be able to request a refund from the Colorado Energy Office."
Unfortunately, without hearing from anyone who has a specific allegation, I don't feel comfortable alleging that the CEO broke the rules or was unfair per se.
Reading between the lines of CEO's response, I get the feeling that some of the problems I heard mentioned were due to honest mistakes and some due to perhaps misunderstanding the rules. E.g. maybe one farmer sent in his exemption request late. Maybe another thought she qualified but didn't because her building also had a little apartment.
In the former case, this seems like something ripe for a bit of grace the first year out (hence my follow up about returning the $100 fee). I'll leave it to you as to whether grace was fairly given now that you see the CEO's response to my followup.
The latter seems like a case where the rule was applied correctly, although I disagree strongly with the way the rule was written in the first place.**
Agricultural buildings that meet the rules are due an exemption. If you have a building that you think should qualify for an exemption to this new emissions and benchmarking standards, get in the know sooner rather than later. If you even wonder, I'd recommend checking in with the help center!
**This provides the perfect chance for me to remind you here that rulemaking hearings are just as important as lawmaking committee hearings and thus you should be paying attention to when they are and speaking up when they happen if it's an issue that affects you and/or that you're passionate about. It's also a great chance for me to ask you send me things that you hear of so I can post and share with others.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1286
https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/controversial-255billion-energy-efficiency-rule-passes/article_9e3d285c-3e21-11ee-835d-8b1652653f0f.html#:~:text=Late%20Thursday%20afternoon%2C%20commissioners%20voted,and%20by%2020%25%20by%202030.
The initiative about mountain lions is up in front of the title board (see the meeting notice linked first below along with the final text the title board will consider linked second below).
****This is time-sensitive, if you're going to act, you'll need to do so before 10/18!
As I said in my first post on the topic, I am not a hunter and certainly not one who hunts big cats, but I am concerned about the "creep" with regard to animal rights in this state.
I may try to join the title board hearing remotely to speak up, but in case I'm not out of class early enough, I sent in my comments to the board via email. That is the screenshot attached. If you too want to send written comment, you'll find the email in the meeting notice linked below.
If you are a hunter, or if you too are concerned about the slow but steady encroachment of animal rights activists into every activity in this state like me, I urge you to send in your thoughts to the board.
If you choose to do so, please remember that comment to the title board is not about whether this is a good policy or not. The comments need to be (as you will note in mine) about confusions you have in the text itself and things that you think would cause voters to not understand what they're voting for.
Toward that end you might find the Legislative Legal Service's review and comment linked third below to be helpful. You can also use my email as a starting point if you would like, I just recommend that you take what I wrote and make it your own. Your voice, your thoughts.
Speak up! When you see the camel's nose peek under the tent, you need to stomp on it hard.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/agenda/2023/20231018MeetingNotice.pdf
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91Final.pdf
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91ReviewComment.pdf