The state of CO will not let local governments spend their money as they see fit. Oil and gas have to post bonds to clean up orphan wells, what about wind companies and orphan turbines?
I have said more than once that the problem with budgeting in this state is not one of lack of money due to, say, TABOR, but one of a lack of prioritization.
That is, that the government doesn't think to do what families all across this state HAVE to do: when money is short, you skimp on the things you can skimp on to do the things that are necessary.
I recently found something that made me question that a bit. Question whether or not our laws don't make us step on our own ... feet.
The article linked first below is about a problem with road and bridge repair facing La Plata County. The part that is germane to this discussion is excerpted into screenshot 1.
The law that prevents this is linked second below and the relevant text in screenshot 2. The things this law allows are in blue, doesn't allow in red. I added a little black error to an interesting section that specifically allows counties to use federal dollars to go to schools.
Curious.
I say curious because, prior to reading about this topic, I would not have guessed that state law prevents a county from spending on roads and bridges.
I wondered at the law itself. Why is it there? What harm is it preventing?
Then I asked myself whether or not anyone has ever tried to change this. In the article about the problem in La Plata, it mentions a workaround, but I mean an attempt to change the law.
There may be others, but I did find one and linked it third below. El Paso County Republican Rep Pico tried in 2021 to repeal this particular bit of statute, making a bill that would have allowed counties to reprioritize their general fund dollars into roads and bridges if they so chose.
If you're thinking that this story ends with a quick death in committee, you're right. Checking the bill's history that's exactly what the Democrats did.
Again, curious.
I mean, it's almost a given that Democrats will kill a Republican bill because, why give your opponent a win (even if it would benefit others), but I wonder what their stated rationale would be.
My guess, and this is speculation on my part guided by living on this planet for years now, is that by allowing a county to do things like this the county could presumably end up costing the state money. Money they'd prefer to put to other things like DEI consultants.
Surely this is something we could try and fix. Shouldn't we allow local governments the flexibility to decide their priorities? I say this in particular if you are someone like me and are frequently pressing for that sort of thing form your government.
I am also surprised that we don't see more coverage of things like this from media. Without regard to left or right, shouldn't we the voters have a clearer picture of who is deciding what instead of part timers occasionally and randomly stumbling upon them?
https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/the-road-and-bridge-conundrum/?fbclid=IwAR07EzsOTOQh6NEIKSGigrHtHT4PldGwVZuQEcR6UzaxGh53GFc1FUETPEA
https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-30-government-county/county-powers-and-functions/county-finance/article-25-administration/part-1-fiscal-procedures/section-30-25-106-fund-purposes#:~:text=Section%2030%2D25%2D106%20%2D%20Fund%20%2D%20purposes%20(1,service%2C%20fire%20protection%2C%20fairs%2C
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1127
Oil and gas operators have to pay bonds to make sure there is money to clean up abandoned oil wells, do wind turbine companies have to do the same?
In 2022, what was then known as the "Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" (it's on its 4th or 5th name by now thanks to Assembly Democrats' continued re-branding) passed new rules on oil and gas operators requiring them to pay new fees and post bonds on new and existing wells in order to cover the cost of abandoned or orphaned wells. More in the march 2022 Sun article below.
The idea being that, especially for small operators, if the well is not producing or not producing well, the companies could fold up and leave the state holding the bag: there is a certain amount of cost and time associated with rendering a former oil well safe, and a company that goes bankrupt and/or walks away leaves that cost to the state.
In concept, this seems fair. We could argue the specifics here and whether or not the rules are so harsh as to be an insurmountable hurdle to new development (or that they don't go far enough as some environmentalists in the Sun article seem inclined to say), but the concept is a fair one. Anyone who's ever had construction done and had a contractor walk off knows the frustration.
But is this the standard that all are held to in this state?
In other words, do wind and solar companies have to meet this same obligation?
After all with a lifetime of around 20 to 25 years for wind and 25 to 30 years with solar, we can expect (and have already seen) renewables timing out. They hit their service lifetime. Further, as I've written, the materials they're made from are not always in high demand and are not always easy to dispose of.
Put another way, there is a certain amount of cost and time associated with rendering a former renewables site safe. Who pays that?
One could hope that the operators of said sites would do so, but this may not always happen. This claim doesn't just come from my imagination either. Look through the attached screenshot which comes from the article linked second below.**
Unfortunately, the Democrats running this state don't seem too concerned about the issue. They also do not seem too concerned about fair play. There is no statewide law requiring any sort of escrow or bonding for solar or wind operators that I know of. Nor is there any statewide regulation requiring renewables operators to do anything about decommissioned equipment.
And, every attempt by Republicans in this state to add amendments to bills to bring the rules for renewables in line with that for oil and gas have been voted down.
In other words, solar and/or wind operators play by special rules and could simply fold up and walk away from a field leaving the mess behind.
If you think that this couldn't happen because renewables operators are larger companies and would have a harder time walking off (in analogous fashion to there being less concern about orphaned wells from larger operators), I would remind you that companies like NextEra frequently set up multiple, smaller LLC's. They may not do so with the foreknowledge and intent of walking off, but, like the lizard that shakes off predators by literally disconnecting the tail from its body, it would make it easier.
If you are concerned about this issue in your local community, I'd recommend you put in a call to your local county officials.
I talked to my Logan County Commissioner (Sonnenberg) and was told that Logan County has local rules regarding renewables. Before the plans to build them are approved, the county requires some money in escrow to help fund cleanup and/or remediation should it be necessary.
If the state won't act and there aren't already regulations where you live, they can be put in locally.
**The article details a new proposed bill by a couple of Federal legislators requiring the removal of decommissioned turbines from land prior to operators getting more tax credits for new installations.
https://coloradosun.com/2022/03/02/colorado-orphan-wells-new-rules/
https://denvergazette.com/news/bill-to-require-removal-of-inoperative-windmills-introduced/article_e6bb195a-0c89-11ee-868a-d37ac0a065fc.html