Energy roundup! A two-parter updating legislative energy policy: good news, dumb law, and reality slaps our legislature. Then, gun control's racist history ought to lawmakers uneasy, ought to.
Energy bill roundup part 1: an update and a bill that makes you wonder if our legislature doesn't have better things to do.
Let's get to the update first because it's simplest. I wrote a bit back about a bill that would expand the Public Utilities Commission (the board that is supposed to prevent rampant abuse by monopoly utilities like Xcel--see the first link below for more context).
The bill would have added two more commissioners and put geographic restrictions on where the commissioners need to be appointed from--one on Eastern Plains, one on the West Slope.
I thought the bill wasn't perfect, but was a step in the right direction and thus am glad to say that as of my last check, it was out of committee. See the link to the bill second below if you want to tag and follow its progress.
The whole reason for the roundup here is because while looking for the committee results for this bill, I found a couple others that were notable. One I will cover in the next post in more detail, but I have space here for what has got to be one of the more forehead-slappingly dumb bills I have seen.
HB25-1277, titled "Increasing Transparency Impact of Fuel Products" is linked third below.
This bill, quoting the fiscal note, would require "... certain fuels to bear a label that says that burning thefuel releases greenhouse gases that are known to be linked to global heating and significanthealth impacts."
Yeah.
Were you not aware? If you were would you stop driving?
Just out of morbid curiosity, I checked the fiscal note for cost. There is no estimated cost to the state. There would be to business, although perhaps not a huge one.
The cost here comes to our collective intelligence as we toss what is easily one of the most petty regulations on top of business that I have seen in a long time.
What's worse? This bill too passed its committee at my last check.
See you in part 2.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/gov-polis-tiny-table-has-little-room?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1126
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1277
Energy bill roundup part 2: a bit of reality manages to penetrate the capitol dome
Let's go back before we go forward.
A 2021 bill (see the first link below) required that the Colorado Energy Office (quoting the fiscal note), "... implement a building performance program, and requir[ed] owners of certain large buildings to submit annual energy use data to the office and meet energy performance standards"
From pretty much the beginning, the owners of these large buildings repeatedly argued against this effort since it would put a huge burden on them. They worked against the bill (which passed and was signed into law by Gov Polis -- perhaps in the innocent age before Polis was "laser focused" on affordability). They spoke up at rulemaking hearings. They have even brought a lawsuit in Federal court over the issue. Check out links 2 and 3 below for more context.
As a side note, people in production agriculture have been complaining that their Ag-related buildings were to have been exempted but weren't (with a bill this session working its way through the system to ensure that the state make good on what's in the 2021 bill). See the 4th link below for more context on this.
Okay, now back to the present.
HB25-1269 "Building Decarbonization Measures" is linked 5th below and was up for committee at the same hearing as the two bills I talk about in the first post.
There are many ways that you could take this bill, but I take it as a rare acknowledgement of the economic reality lying underneath the Colorado Democrats' zest for environmental mandates.
There are things in the bill that are not necessarily helpful (more in a sec), but the essence of this bill is relaxing the requirements that came out of the 2021 bill and extending deadlines, all done in the face of the plain reality that the 2021 effort was a brutal gut punch to the owners of large buildings.
As with the PUC bill in the previous post, I don't think it goes far enough, but I'll take what I think I'm likely to get; I was glad it passed its first committee hearing.
The testimony for this bill brought up some interesting points which I think are worth sharing. I link to the committee audio 6th below if you want to tune in yourself (won't be hard to find, it was first up).
Here are some interesting notes in no particular order:
--I am not sure if you are aware, but municipal buildings are exempted from these requirements. Let me repeat that. The state (meaning the government, not necessarily The State of Colorado) exempted itself from the same burdensome requirements it clamped down on others with.
--There was a lot of concern among those testifying that the requirement has merely shifted from now to 2040. I agree, and in this sense another perspective on this bill is that it's kicking the can down the road. Again, not perfect, but take what we can get.
--As part of the bill the State of Colorado is offering consulting help in order to get these buildings up to snuff. How do they do this? By charging a fee on all building owners, putting it into an enterprise (a government run business which is exempt from TABOR restrictions), and then using that money. I tried to speak up on this bill but couldn't since I was remote and hadn't signed up, but if I had the first things out of my mouth were that I wasn't aware of the bill til now but I'm not surprised that they have to back off their restrictions and I'm not surprised they're creating yet another enterprise to collect fees.
--Maybe it's just me but the head of the Colorado Energy Office Will Toor's tone in this hearing was interesting. Felt reasonable, diplomatic. Lots of mention by Toor of the "legitimate" concerns of building owners. Would that these concerns mattered more at the time of the 2021 bill. Where was our "Libertarian" governor then?
--There is a point where Rep DeGraaf pushes the Colorado Energy Office expert on the difference between his carbon estimates and the climate effects due to carbon. This is a worthy thing to note. This state talks all the time about reducing the amount of greenhouse gases and how important that is. The thing is, these reductions are not even a tenth of a percent of the total in our atmosphere. Why on earth are we destroying our economy (the estimate of the overall economic impact of the 2021 bill is in the billions if memory serves) for an insignificant reduction in overall carbon.
--Notable too that DeGraaf's question is repeatedly unanswered. Maybe it's just me, but it was striking that a civil servant would not answer the question of an elected official. Just who is running things here?
As of writing this, the bill did make it out of committee. If you want to track it, bookmark the link below.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1286
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/25/colorado-landlords-lawsuit-greenhouse-gas-cuts-injunction/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1269
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20250306/12/16911
Related:
When some businesses (e.g. data centers) get economic incentives like a decrease in their electric rates to lure them here, that can leave you and I and other ratepayers making up the shortfall.
See the bill below.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1177
Gun control's racist history ought to (but may not) lawmakers uneasy.
Many in our state legislature are highly sensitive to and concerned about issues involving race and racism (and also, to a greater or lesser extent, over issues about poverty).
What many of them do not seem to have any concern over is how gun rights overlap and intersect with those concerns.
How often have they asked for a demographic note (see the first link below for some context in last week's newsletter if you'd like) on a gun bill so they could see if there are any disparate impacts on the communities they profess concern for? I'll give you a hint: the answer is they have never.
How often have they looked at the history of gun control efforts with regard to racism?
How often have they reached out to and sought the input of gun owners who are not white in drafting bills?
I don't have the precise answer to the second two because they're not a matter of public record, but my guess is the answer to the latter two questions is the same as the first.
A reader recently shared the essay linked second below. In it you'll read how ultra (super mega) progressive State Rep Javier Mabrey's recent statements in a committee hearing for a gun rights bill betray either a lack of knowledge about the racist history of some gun control laws, a lack of concern for it, or perhaps both. For extra reference, something quite scholarly but still reasonably approachable, I link to a Harvard Law review third below.
Quoting the essay on Mabrey (with link intact):
"Mabrey, in his closing statements to justify his NO vote, stated “..by 1800, four states had enacted gun carry restrictions…” just briefly before citing an 1837 Georgia Statute banning the carry of various types of bowie knives and pistols. He neglected to mention that very law was overturned in Nunn v. Georgia 1846 for being unconstitutional. He also neglected to mention that the vague slew of laws he grouped together for dramatic effect were largely racist laws originating in southern states with the express intent of limiting the rights of free Black people. Unfortunately for Mabrey, he missed the mark in capturing the greater context of the laws he cited completely. In doing so, he revealed the typically carefully tucked-away utter contempt for Black Americans and Black Coloradans that many progressives of his pedigree hold. The singular focus on banning guns at all costs blinds the progressive legislator to the reality of the world, thrusting them into the same bucket of those with terminal white privilege they often decry."
I happened to have seen Rep Mabrey's response to this prior to the reader sending me the essay, and so I want to include his words from Twitter on this essay. You will see that attached as screenshot 1.
I think what drove Mr. Mabrey and what likely drives many of his colleagues is a mixture of contempt, contempt in the sense of person or a thing that is beneath consideration, and ignorance.
When you look at what the author cites in the essay and look at Mabrey's tweet, the two point to the fact that he (Mabrey) is none too studied on the history of gun control. He also doesn't seem to care enough to either study it or to study how an effort like SB25-003 will affect the very groups he professes to have a concern for.**
Something tells me he is not unique among his colleagues. How many times have we seen shallow, patronizing, and paternalistic concern come from this legislature? A concern that negates individual agency in favor of group identity and making people dependent on the state?
We have seen such moves too many times to think that only Rep Mabrey feels the way his words suggest, we have seen such moves from too many of his colleagues to think he's alone.
If you are currently advocating against this bill or the other gun control moves in the legislature, thank you.
If you are not, please consider starting.
Whichever one you're landing on, please read the essay linked second below and consider how you can include its points in your advocacy. Our legislators need to be confronted with their own ignorance and hypocrisy.
**I mentioned a professed concern for the poor or lower-income Coloradans among the progressives in our legislature. I would like to point out that the bill I mention above, SB25-003, puts numerous costly roadblocks in the way of a fundamental right. I ask how concerned the state's Democrats can be for people with lower incomes if they pass legislation that overly burdens the poor who might want to exercise their right to self defense.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/bringing-the-swampiness-home-to-colorado?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/colorado-lawmaker-reveals-allegiance-georgias-historically-racist-gun-laws-deny-rights/
https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-135/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/
Couple Last Minute Updates:
SB25-003 "Assault Weapons Ban"
is up for its first CO House committee hearing Tues 3/11 Upon Adjournment (10AM). SIgn up to speak against this bill here: https://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2025A/commsumm.nsf/NewSignIn.xsp
and
We The Second did a rundown on the financial funny business involved in funding SB25-003 the Democrats' Gun Grab.
More in the link below. Worth a read.
Also, they mention emailing not just state reps but CPW Commissioners as well about the bill since the bill tasks CPW with doing the heavy lifting again (something I'm sure CPW is happy to hear post-wolf reintroduction).
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/sb25-003-money-shell-game-tabor-cpw-cbi-the-wildlife-cash-fund/
Will Toor is deep state Colorado at its worst. Boulder intellectual, former Boulder City Council member, former Boulder County Commissioner. Toor flat out makes stuff up: he included the FasTracks Denver-Boulder-Longmont heavy rail link using freight lines that has been a political and financial football ever since. He did this with ZERO input or information from the rail line. Toor is a zealot who cannot be trusted.
So what? They can have 100 Public Utilities Commissioners but if they're all appointed by Polis they will all be in his back pocket. How about this? Xcel Energy cannot raise its residential energy charge to customers above the cost-of-living annual benefit adjustment by the PERA state board of directors. And, I'll agree to the global warming potential of fossil fuels if the same warning is prominently displayed on electric cars warning consumers of pollution, extreme fire potential and child slavery in production of their electric car batteries.