Response to ‘Signature Time for Anti-Fracking Initiatives’
It is unfortunate that Boulder Weekly, once again, wrote a story about proposed anti-energy ballot initiatives without even trying to get the other side’s perspective [Re: “Signature Time,” April 21].
If it had, readers would’ve learned that Tricia Olson’s claim that these measures would not mean a “ban on fracking in Colorado” was disingenuous.
In February, Ms. Olson told anti-fracking supporters on a conference call that when it came to a measure allowing local governments to pass regulations, this would permit a “full-fledged ban on fracking (tinyurl.com/gqox8or). That is her group’s intent, and that is in fact what these measures would do.
Under the 2,500-foot setback proposal, for instance, at least 87 percent of all new oil and natural gas development would be eliminated in Weld County alone. This would wipe out an industry that has a $32 billion annual economic impact in the state, supports more than 100,000 jobs and contributes $1.2 billion in public revenue, including hundreds of millions of dollars to schools.
These measures also permit local government to take land from Colorado citizens, putting private property rights in jeopardy and potentially costing taxpayers billions of dollars in compensation lawsuits.
Colorado has had 10 rulemakings since 2010, which has resulted in the toughest oil and natural gas regulations in the country. The governor’s oil and gas task force, through an 18-month, bipartisan, collaborative process, made nine recommendations for rule changes, seven of which passed unanimously. The COGCC recently adopted regulations that went even further than the task force’s recommendations.
These new rules should have a chance to work before we use ballot initiatives to change the state constitution.
Karen Crummy/ Director of Communications Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence
Editor’s note: As a rule we don’t like to respond to letters to the editor as it is your voice and your opinion and we don’t mind if you disagree or even don’t like us. But in this instance I would like to point out that many of the things that are being thrown out in the above letter as facts that Boulder Weekly didn’t bother to collect and report have been collected and reported on by this newspaper in the last 90 or so articles we have written during the past five years about oil and gas extraction. First, the article in question states clearly that the local control initiative would allow communities to prohibit, limit or impose moratoriums on oil and gas development. As the article also clearly stated, Olson was insistent that neither initiative would mean a ban on drilling in Colorado. This is also true. A community could choose to ban drilling or allow it within its city limits but neither initiative would allow anyone to ban drilling for the state.
And for the record: We are well aware of our state’s claims about its oil and gas regulations being the toughest, and we have explained why they are woefully inadequate and who paid to have them remain that way. We are aware of the industry’s claims about its economic importance to the state and the “permanent” jobs it claims to create, and we have researched and explained how exaggerated they are. We are aware of how the studies of setback impacts to the industry were created by CU’s Leeds School of Business, and we just won a significant journalism award for our investigation into the process, which showed it is quite deceptive on several levels and is largely industry spin. And finally, we are well aware of the Governor’s task force, who was on it, why they were chosen, and what it actually accomplished which, even according to the non-industry members of the task force you praise, was little to nothing. We are aware because we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours investigating and reporting on these issues. We suggest you go back and read the information we have provided to the public on the issues you are writing about and the claims you are making. If you find any errors in this body of work, please let us know promptly so we can correct them. So far, no one has found any and it isn’t for the industry’s lack of effort. And as for including the other side, don’t blame us, it seems everyone from the COGCC to the Governor to the oil and gas industry has decided they don’t like the hard questions we ask so they’ve stopped picking up the phone. We didn’t stop calling.
—Joel Dyer, Editor
Colorado Care Alternative
Thanks for publishing Steve Smith’s article [Re: ColoradoCare: You can handle the truth,” April 21] describing how Colorado Care offers an alternative to abusive, over-priced and inadequate for-profit health insurance. It is hard to believe that Colorado could again be a pioneer state by assuring that no one gets sick or dies as a result of lack of access to quality health care. Mr. Smith did not offer a website where readers can learn how they can learn more about Colorado Care and ways of being supportive, including sharing the website with their friends. The website is: www.ColoradoCare.org
Barry Karlin/Lafayette
A tune for Nablus
I have one thing to communicate in support of Nablus as our new sister city. It is a song I heard years ago at a presentation by Barbara Petzen, who was speaking about her experiences connecting Israeli and Palestinian youth up on campus at the Center for Asian Studies. No words could better describe! Warning. It is as infectious as Zika and you won’t be able to get it out of your mind for a long time! Bukra fil mish mish. See the music video on YouTube.
Lynn Segal/Boulder
Xcel’s Plan: Not That Bold
Recently, Xcel customers received a glossy postcard touting Xcel’s “Bold Energy Plan for Colorado.”
Unfortunately, it did not explain how Xcel plans to keep its coal plants running now that all three of its major coal suppliers are bankrupt.
It did not indicate any plan for reducing Xcel’s 55 percent dependence on coal for generating electricity in Colorado. Xcel unwisely counted on burning coal for many years in one plant until 2069.
It did mention a “Solar Connect” program that would allow customers to buy solar electricity from Xcel. I believe sources of renewable energy production should not be owned or controlled by Xcel. Xcel will always be motivated to favor the sources it owns, and to choke off competition. Economists call this a “perverse incentive” — an incentive to do something not in the public interest. In a conflict between Xcel’s ratepayers and Xcel’s stockholders, Xcel will always prefer its stockholders.
Xcel’s massive new filings at the Public Utilities Commission are complex, but may be designed to lock-in profits for Xcel while locking-out independent solar installers, or even rolling back rooftop solar benefits for all of us, as recently happened in Nevada. (lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-solar-energy-beyond-residents/.
My main concern, though, is Xcel’s lack of a truly “bold plan.” A genuinely bold plan would give us a glide path to nearly 100 percent renewable energy, with a timeline. Studies show that this is possible (thesolutionsproject.org and www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2921.html).
A truly bold plan would ensure that we citizens of Colorado are not left with the injury of an overheated planet and the insult of having to pay for Xcel’s stranded coal plants that helped put us there.
Phil Wardwell/Erie
