Stepping on local land use decisions ... again. Regulation updates--you guessed right, more of them. What the hell Pro15?!
Stepping on local land use decisions ... again.
Last year it was the state trying to step in on land use decisions for renewables' siting (see the first link below). Last year was also the state stepping in on land use decisions for housing.
Next year will it be the state stepping in on land use decisions for cell phone service?
I have written about interim committees for the legislature in the past. They are committees that meet between terms of our legislature and decide on whether to forward bills to the the full legislature based on topics of interest to the committee.
The second link below is to the Cell Phone Connectivity Interim Study Committee's page. My state Senator Byron Pelton tipped me off about a bill that got forwarded for consideration in the coming legislative session. It's Bill C on the committee's page, but I linked to it third below for convenience's sake.
If you read through the bill, it doesn't seem too onerous. On top of that, as someone who lives in a rural area with no landline phone, I can tell you that I am a fan of having reliable cell phone service.
The thing is, this bill is yet another example of the state stepping on local decisions. It's people in the Front Range telling your local government what it needs to do without understanding the constraints that your local elected officials might be working with.
If you wanted to get a jump on this bill before the legislative session gets busy, the emails of the sponsors are linked below. Send them an email and tell them to try again.
You can support cell service for rural areas without trampling on local land use decisions.
meghan.lukens.house@coleg.gov
jennifer.bacon.house@coleg.gov
matthew.soper.house@coleg.gov
dylan.roberts.senate@coleg.gov
nick.hinrichsen.senate@coleg.gov
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/icpcis2024alegislation
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/bill_c_25-0249.01.pdf
Regulation updates
The two Sum and Substance articles linked below are about different topics, but they are thematically linked in that they both cover some coming or proposed changes to regulations in Colorado (one for air quality, the other for carbon capture).
The first, both in link position and date, details some new chemicals that the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) has chosen to regulate.* The list, pulled from the article, is in screenshot 1.
From here the next step is to adopt standards on these chemicals and to set up the regulatory apparatus for them: who has to keep track of emissions, how will they have to report them, etc.
Couple of other tidbits to note here, which I'll leave to you to follow up on by reading the article in full: one of these chemicals is used to sterilize medical instruments (so the companies that do this kind of work are worried about the increased regulation), and, in a continuation of the usual pattern, environmentalists and their cadre of volunteers who religiously attend meetings like this are clamoring for tighter regulations and outside oversight of emissions.
The second Sum and Substance article linked below details the first baby steps of the state's takeover of permitting and studying carbon capture wells (the kinds of deep wells where companies will drill holes and then pump CO2 underground).**
It will be interesting to see (as it will be with geothermal) how the idea of drilling to sequester carbon will intersect with environmentalists' and Democrat politicians' concerns. Just like you have to do fracking for geothermal (and fracking = the devil), you will have to drill to pump CO2 underground. Some of this is hinted at in the article which I will leave to you to read.
Want a quick prediction? Environmentalists will be unmollified by this effort and will demand that the only "pure" way to fix climate change will be to eliminate fossil fuels completely and immediately.
And while that's happening, your tax dollars will be going to oil companies who found the light on climate change and now are eager to cash in government subsidies to use their drilling rigs to make wells to sequester CO2. Oh, wait, that's already beginning. See the bill under link 5.
As per usual, it will be sold as saving the planet and will end up being big gubment $$ going to big companies.
*A 2022 law, HB22-1244, linked third below, allows CDPHE to choose 5 priority chemicals to regulate and then to add to or change the list every 5 years. The regulated chemicals are called Toxic Air Contaminants and are defined by the bill as (quoting the fiscal note): "... hazardous air pollutants, covered air toxics, and any other air pollutantdesignated by the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC)." Pretty wide latitude given if you ask me.
**This effort is the result of the bill linked fourth below. Normally this kind of permitting would be controlled by the EPA. Colorado passed a law to allow our own Energy and Carbon Management Commission to do the regulating if they determined they were up to the job. Screenshot 2, from the bill's fiscal note, shows the parts of this GIANT bill that pertain specifically to this effort.
https://tsscolorado.com/five-air-contaminants-singled-out-for-additional-regulation/
https://tsscolorado.com/regulators-coming-decisions-could-determine-future-of-carbon-capture-in-colorado/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1244
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-016
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1210
Related:
According to the FencePost article below, North Dakota has a law which could force landowners up there to accept carbon injection under their land without their consent.
The case is working its way through ND courts.
Makes me wonder if similar will be happening here (and I don't see it as automatic--especially given how CO environmental groups seem to prefer not having what they might term "half measures" at eliminating carbon). I'll update if and when I hear.
https://www.thefencepost.com/news/nd-landowners-call-state-law-to-force-co2-injection-under-their-property-unconstitutional/
What the hell Pro15?!
I saw this first on Twitter, but the Ft. Morgan times article below details how Pro15, a group claiming to advocate for people on the Eastern Plains, awarded Attorney General Phil Weiser the 2024 Partner of the Year award.
Now, presumably, groups like this don't make awards thoughtlessly. Still, I can't for the life of me figure out this choice.
Ag Weiser does come out to the Plains on occasion. He especially comes out when he has some opioid settlement checks to hand out.
But he's also as Progressive as can be. Did Pro15 figure he was a good partner because of the fact that he supports assault weapons bans? Taxes and background checks for ammo? Completely unrestricted access to abortion (and, this is a guess albeit an educated one probably taxpayer funding for it)?
How about all the decisions he's written friend of the court briefs on? See the second link below for how he's been using your tax money and resources of his office to side on several cases that went before the Supreme Court.
Perhaps this choice, this labeling of Phil Weiser as Partner of the Year reflects the values of Pro15.
If so, I know I don't want to have much to do with that group and don't consider them advocates for me or the people I know and speak with!
https://www.fortmorgantimes.com/2024/10/28/pro-15-fall-conference-breaking-barriers-through-rural-resiliency/
https://gazette.com/opinion/columnists/column-phil-weiser-has-had-a-bad-run-at-bat-george-brauchler/article_3c089302-1b39-11ee-9794-935d6dc8dd97.html