Yes, democracy is slow and messy. You wouldn't want it otherwise. "Cumulative Impact" regulations are another nail in the coffin of oil and gas in CO.
Yes, democracy is messy. It's slow.
And I personally wouldn't have it any other way.
I read the op ed below (written by, in case the name doesn't ring a bell, a former Republican spokesman for the Colorado State Senate Republicans) and found myself nodding in agreement. I enjoyed it enough to share.
Mr. Naumann mainly writes about efficiency not being the point of democracy in the context of vacancy committees, but I think you can extend the concept.
We now have a state law (and apparently an unwritten media code in some papers) where we have to list the cost for certain democratic events that we heretofore didn't. Recalls being one example.
I would also point you to the process used to get both Prop HH and the equalization of TABOR refunds if it passes on the ballot. One party rule certainly made that happen quickly. So quickly, in fact, that almost no one was aware that it was in committee.
Another? Sure. How about the squashing of debate we witnessed in the Colorado House this last Assembly term. Shutting off debate certainly helps move bills.
But, I ask you this (and it's the same question Mr. Naumann proposes): regardless of the policy outcome, whether you agree or no, are we better off for all the efficient processes above?
Should we consider cost when we talk about some political process or should we invest in doing things the right way? The way they've been done?
We have people in the Assembly who were put there by 40 people.
We lost our ability to speak up in hearings and have a full accounting on Prop HH.
We have policy that had no tempering effect of minority party opposition (along with, I would be you my lunch, the shoe being pinched down on the other foot should party roles ever switch in Colorado).
American democracy is messy and it's slow. It can be (somewhat--I'd remind you to consider relative numbers and percentages when considering costs) expensive.
That's the point, however. That's the feature not the bug. If we go slow, if the process takes time, we allow a broader base. We allow for more hands on it. We get more centrist policy and policymakers.
As much as I bristle about it, the more mature side of me understands that the process of disagreement and compromise I've had to learn as a married man with a child is ultimately to the good (and that includes me).
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/since-when-was-efficiency-the-goal-of-a-democracy-counterpoint/article_3d77e20e-630c-11ee-920f-ab0634fda971.html
Another nail in the coffin for oil and gas.
Well, golly, one really begins to wonder whether or not eventually saying "the glass is full" (re. stopping any new gas and oil development) wasn't the point of a 2023 law passed by the Assembly Democrats and signed by Gov Polis.
In the last Assembly session, the Democrats passed HB23-1294 Pollution Protection Measures. See the first link below.
Among the many things that this bill does is the provision I took off the bill summary and attached as a screenshot. Translated into plain words what we're talking about here is saying that we're going to invent a way to define and then regulate the "cumulative impacts" of oil and gas in this state.
Yet more important policy decisions made by an unelected body.
To wit, this will happen through the magic of a rulemaking by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (which used to be the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) finding the rules to allow or deny permits for oil and gas.
The hearing has yet to happen, but it appears (see the Sun article linked second below for more detail) the bone of contention is how said cumulative impacts will be measured and assessed.
How do you measure or estimate the emissions from a well and or a drill rig?
Who does the estimating and how?
Do you give credit for lowering emissions or water use due to new efficiencies?
Those questions are yet to be answered as the rulemaking hasn't proceeded yet.
Let me now come 'round to why it is I started this post off by saying I thought the point of this bill was to stop new oil and gas development.
Consider the quotes below from the Sun story:
"Michael Foote, an attorney for the Colorado Sierra Club, said that the commission 'must establish clear criteria for the denial of a new permit application' when that new well or location does not offset its cumulative air quality impact."
and
"But reducing pollutants from each source as the number of wells grows still creates a challenge, Kate Merlin, an attorney for the environmental group WildEarth Guardians, told the commission. 'They want to add a quart and you’re saying you can’t add a quart, you have to add a pint,' Merlin said. 'You’re still adding to a bucket that’s already overflowing.'”
Let's assume that oil and gas operators do get credit from the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission. I.e. that the rules are written such that you get to use 2 more gallons of water for every 2 you reduce in some other part of your operation.
That game will go for a bit, but eventually economies of scale and efficiencies will run out. At that point, and if the rules are set such that no one can begin a new project without an equal offset that effectively ends new development.
This, combined with the last sentence in the second quote (the idea that we ALREADY have too much emissions and water usage) tells me what I need to know about what environmentalists think about continuing oil and gas development in this state.
Given that the Democrats running this state listen pretty closely to what said environmentalists want**, it's not a leap to think that they are forcing the commission to undertake this rulemaking to ensure that we limit oil and gas development and bring it eventually to a halt.
Knowing Polis' penchant for fobbing off politically difficult decisions on unelected boards leads me to think that this is why it got his okay. He can slip right down the middle again. Claim victory in a room of environmentalists and wash his hands of this terrible policy when he's in with businesspeople.
**The following is also in the Sun article:
"In 2022, six environmental groups petitioned the ECMC [Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission] to start a rulemaking for more robust cumulative impact regulations. The commission declined to undertake that rulemaking, but in 2023 the legislature directed the ECMC to have cumulative impact rules in place by April 2024."
That is the commission didn't do what environmentalists demanded, so the legislature made sure the commission had to.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1294
https://coloradosun.com/2023/10/13/how-should-colorado-measure-the-impact-of-oil-and-gas-there-has-to-be-a-point-where-the-glass-is-full/