Government inertia. RAQC is proposing rules to punish people and industry for problems both know they have little hand in making. Send your thoughts about that to them.

Government inertia

I enjoyed the discussion between Jon Caldara and Kathleen Chandler linked below. There’s a lot they cover, but what I wanted to highlight the discussion starting at about the 3:45 mark.

Chandler starts the discussion by mentioning RTD’s Access-on-Demand program (see the second link below for RTD’s program page). She mentions the program as something they’re trying to bring some flexibility to and, in so doing, highlights one of the problems with government bureaucracy.

When I teach my students about Newton’s Second Law, I usually present it first in a slightly altered form. Instead of the usual Force = Mass x Acceleration, I show it to them as Acceleration = Force/Mass.

The reason is that acceleration is something that people can see more easily than force. It’s something we have everyday experience with; saying something like “that car’s got a lot of get up and go” is saying it accelerates quickly.

Looking at the slightly altered version of Newton’s Second you see that acceleration varies directly with force and inversely with mass. Put aside the force, and let’s focus on mass, said another way let’s talk inertia.

Massive objects don’t speed up, slow down, or turn quickly. They’re sluggish to respond. Massive government agencies are the same way.

I salute Chandler’s efforts and I wish her luck with RTD. Change won’t come quickly or easily, but she’s obviously committed. This is, by the way, why we need people like her, like you, to get involved in this state. No one promises easy or quick, but the ship won’t turn at all if there’s no force applied.

This was all on my mind when I came across the Complete Colorado article linked third below. It’s about how Yampa Valley voters will be asked this November to form their own Regional Transportation Authority.

Quoting that article with link intact:

“Between late August and early September, Routt County commissioners, along city councils in Craig, Hayden, Yampa, Oak Creek and Steamboat Springs all referred RTA formation ballot questions to their respective voters. If passed, the Yampa Valley Regional Transportation Authority would be created amid ambitious assurances of improved transportation between cities throughout the region, including more frequent buses on US Highway 40 between Craig and Steamboat Springs, a new circulator bus route in Craig, new routes to currently ‘unserved’ areas, and ‘new ground transportation options’ to Yampa Valley Regional Airport, among other services.”

I would remind anyone who is voting on this measure to remember what I wrote above about government agencies and inertia. When you create taxing authorities like this, they grow. They grow unwieldy and then they’re hard to change. Think long and hard about whether you’d like to go down this road before committing knowing that.

The other thing I’d remind you of is something that Caldara mentions in the discussion with Chandler. I don’t remember the quote but it was in essence that there are lots of people in RTD’s taxing district that get to pay for RTD, but likely never use it because much of RTD is concentrated in and around Denver.

If you’re in the Yampa Valley and have to vote on this measure consider whether or not you’d be stuck paying for something you effectively can’t use too.

https://www.rtd-denver.com/other-services/access-a-ride/access-on-demand

https://completecolorado.com/2025/09/30/yampa-valley-voters-to-decide-regional-transportation-authority/

---

RAQC is proposing rules to the AQCC to punish Colorado people and industry for problems both know we have little hand in making.

Sorry for the alphabet soup above, let’s unpack that first. I’ve written multiple times before about the unelected Air Quality Control Council (AQCC), the board of 8 political appointees (cronies) who make big decisions that affect big parts of your life.

I’ve also written about the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). This is a group housed in the Health Department, and which pitches ideas to the AQCC for air quality rulemakings and policy.*

The Sum and Substance article linked at bottom covers a recent series of ideas the RAQC pitched to the AQCC, listed by the author of the article as being in 3 different buckets.

I pulled all three buckets out of the article and put them below so you could see all together (there is more detail and context surrounding each in the article if you want it--any links in the quotes are left intact):

“The first bucket — suggestions that could be done before the end of 2026 — largely involves gathering of data and assessment of potential tools, as well as implementation of already approved plans like the state’s restrictions on gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. That includes assessment of the impact of tightening stationary-source permit limits to reflect actual emissions, assessment of new regulations on wellsite venting and blowdowns and the collection of trip data to indirect sources.”

“The second bucket involves medium-term strategies that, after assessment, could be implemented in 2027 or 2028 and begin to produce emissions reductions by 2030. These include voluntary emissions-reduction actions by indirect sources [ indirect sources are things like warehouses and colleges that attract a lot of vehicles], creation of non-road equipment emissions targets, adoption daily emissions limits and venting regulations considered in bucket one and assessment of new rules like commercial-cooking requirements, consumer-products emissions limits and drill-reg electrification mandates.”**

“Finally, bucket three involves enactment of emissions-reduction strategies by 2030 that could have significant longer-term impacts but may take more time than objectives in the first two buckets to implement. These could involve mandates for indirect sources — only if studies show they are feasible and effective — as well as initiatives to reduce mobile-source emissions in new areas, such as forklift electrification.”

Once again we see what I’ve written about before: unelected officials and political appointees (also unelected) mulling over and possibly installing giant leaps of policy, intruding hugely into the lives and businesses of millions in this state.

The RAQC Director Mike Silverstein, however, seemed to wave off such concerns. Early on in the article, you see the following quote:

“’It’s planning versus demanding. It’s not a regulatory initiative,’ RAQC Executive Director Mike Silverstein said Monday to the Colorado Chamber of Commerce Regulatory Affairs Council. ‘A plan needs to have a goal. It needs to get to get us to (EPA) attainment rather than kicking the can down the road.’”

Oh no, it’s not future policy, it’s not regulation, it’s just a plan.

Well, plans become (in the hands of the AQCC) a bunch of new rules that cost businesses and consumers more money and put an ever-higher burden on operating a business in this state. How many past “plans” by the AQCC are we suffering under now?

And we do all of this in the name of reducing things like ozone emissions. Emissions, the bulk of which we have absolutely no control over because of our topography and the prevailing winds which blow ozone over to us from the West.

Don’t try to convince the RAQC of this, though. One last quote will show why:

“Both Arizona and Utah officials, leaders of business groups have noted, have talked about applying for EPA exemptions from downward reclassification of their ozone noncompliance by arguing they can’t control emissions that their regulated industries are not producing. Angie Binder, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Association, asked RAQC officials Monday if they have considered seeking a similar exemption from the EPA, but Silverstein said they have not and were concentrating on reducing emissions.”

It doesn’t matter that the businesses in Colorado are not making the bulk of the emissions. They’ll get to pay for them!

*Other groups can, and have, pitched ideas to the AQCC just like groups pitch ideas to CPW. A great way for advocacy groups to get their policy over the finish line without having to have elected officials look like bad guys for putting in unpopular or undesired regulations!

**Quoting from below bucket 2 if you need the extra definitions: “Non-road equipment includes heavy equipment like backhoe loaders, farm equipment like combines, tractors, motorboats, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts. Consumer products that could be subject to regulations include automotive products, cosmetics like hair spray, cleaning products, insecticides, roofing products, surface coatings and others.”

https://tsscolorado.com/air-quality-group-preparing-blueprint-of-ideas-to-reduce-emissions-in-multiple-sectors/#

---

A thought occurred about Mr. Silverstein’s plan.

As I finished writing the post right prior to this one a thought occurred.

If you don’t (as I don’t) like unelected bureaucrats and political cronies making policy in this state, I have a couple ideas.

1. Contact your state legislators and express your concerns about what the RAQC and AQCC are doing. Ask him or her to take your concerns to either or both.

2. If you didn’t like Mr. Silverstein’s comments and plans which punish consumers and Colorado business for things they’re largely not responsible for, send him a (civil) email with your concerns. His address is msilverstein@raqc.org