Progress Now Action

Cheers to Representatives Salazar and Udall for their dedication to preserving one of Colorado's treasures, the Roan Plateau. In their letter to the editor in the Denver Post, Salazar and Udall expressed their desire to ban drilling atop the plateau. They agreed that drilling should be allowed at the base and on private lands. This allows the oil to be drilled without sacrificing the beauty and the inherent natural value of the plateau.
Representatives Salazar and Udall recently added an amendment to an energy bill that would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from allowing surface disturbance from oil and gas development on the public lands on top of the Roan Plateau. Representative Salazar also helped the efforts in negotiating the 120 day review and comment extension for the State of Colorado on the BLM's recently issued Roan plan, which will allow Governor Ritter the opportunity to officially weigh in on a topic that is important to so many Coloradoans.
Some energy lobbyists say that banning drilling will cost Colorado billions of dollars in lost revenues. However, the country could only run on the oil from the Roan Plateau for 5.8 hours. And the oil gained from drilling will not help the economy; it will only benefit the oil and gas companies. Investing in clean, renewable energy is a much better investment. Colorado has an environment amenable to renewable energy, and it would fuel the economy to become a leader in renewable energy resources.
Furthermore, protecting the Roan Plateau will safeguard economic diversity and sustainability in local communities. It will allow for recreation and quality of life as generations to come enjoy this natural area. Protecting the Plateau means protecting the habitat of fish and wildlife.
Governor Ritter and Representatives Salazar and Udall value this land and are committed to preserving Colorado's pristine beauty for generations to come.

A recent report released by the School of Mines and Booz Allen Hamilton Consulting would lead Coloradoans to believe that the Oil and Gas industry is the largest industry in the state. The report states that this industry provides $22.9 billion dollars of economic output, supports 70,000 jobs, and generates over $1,500 in taxes.

While the Oil and Gas industry is certainly a key factor in Colorado's economy - it is by no means the largest. In fact, Retirees actually contribute more to personal income; 23% of the total personal income in Colorado vs. the 1.6% from the oil and gas industry.

Furthermore, the study assumed high revenue for the industry and did not consider any negative impacts from the gas and oil boom. At the Cheyenne hub, the price of natural gas is $3 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), much lower than the price the report assumed of $7.39/mcf. The report did not consider any of the price ranges of the market. The report also did not consider any negative costs from the mining boost: increased road maintenance costs, increased crime and the resulting stress on local policing, increased truck traffic, increased infrastructure costs for local governments, loss in quality of life for local residents, destruction to wildlife habitats. The report is rather a study of total revenue, not net revenue.

It is important to note that about a third of the jobs related to the industry have nothing to do with drilling in Colorado (page 48). And furthermore, most of the economic activity being created by drilling is not staying in the state. In the Piceance Basin 73% of the economic activity is leaking out of the basin and 57% is leaving the state (page 29). This starkly contrasts the immense local economical investments from developing renewable energy. Additionally, none of the gas drilled in Colorado is actually consumed in Colorado (page 26). Following all of this, slowing down drilling to protect places such as the Roan Plateau should not be considered a devastating blow to the industry. Before any more assumptions are made however, a net study needs to be conducted, one that considers the range of oil and gas prices and the negative costs.

If Colorado wants to become a renewable energy exporter the state needs to solve the Transmission Problem, and fast. Colorado is arguably in an excellent position to export clean energy. We have the 5th best solar potential in the nation and the 11th best wind energy potential and are on the Eastern edge of most of the nation's renewable resources, strategically placed to serve the population-heavy eastern cities. Though we might have the resources and the technology is becoming more efficient every day, we have no way of transmitting this energy.

Since Colorado's renewable resources are mostly located in places that have hardly any transmission lines, transmission lines would need to be created. What needs to happen is that the transmission lines need to be built before the wind or solar farms are constructed and this is completely changing how transmission lines are planned and built. Renewable energy is on the rise, Colorado is aggressively pursuing it, and clean energy policies are being similarly pursued at the national level.

The expensiveness of transmission should also not be a deterrent. The reality is that our grid needs an upgrade anyway so it's going to happen regardless - why not at least make sure that we set our electricity grid up for the future of energy, not it's dirty past? Furthermore, the large solar and wind companies, I'm talking the big giants here, already factor in the price of transmission into their cases.

So while the financial commitment to build transmission lines is an issue, the big road-block is all the political hoop-jumping. Senate Bill 100 called for utilities to identify renewable energy zones and then create plans to develop these areas. SB 100 also allowed utilities to recover costs for their transmission investments. The longer we debate, the longer we prolong Colorado's opportunity to take the lead and be a renewable energy exporter. The industry is ready, the policies are there: we need to spend less time haggling over the transmission question.

In the Denver Post today, Zach Fox asked, "Who will pay the tab for the ozone solution?" What he didn't ask was who will pay the tab if we don't clean up our air quality. Ozone pollution can have very negative effects on both our health and our environment.

According to the American Lung Association, ozone pollution has very negative health consequences. Ozone acts as a powerful respiratory irritant, causing symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, wheezing and coughing. Ozone can also exaggerate asthma.

Prolonged exposure (6.5 hours) to even relatively low levels of ozone have found reductions in lung function, biological evidence of inflammation of the lung lining and respiratory discomfort.

A study conducted in Los Angeles, which has repeatedly had the worst ozone levels in the country, showed the effects of long term repeated exposure to ozone. The results showed that long-term residents of Los Angeles had higher than expected loss of lung function over time.

The American Lung Associations cites people with pre-existing respiratory disease, and individuals who exercise outdoors as particularly vulnerable to ozone pollution.

Children are especially affected by ozone pollution because their respiratory defenses are not fully developed. Their airways are smaller and a more likely to become blocked when irritated. Since children breathe more rapidly, they take in more ozone pollution than adults.

Ozone is also detrimental to the environment. Ozone pollution affects leaves on trees and plants as well as affecting certain plants' ability to store food, making them more susceptible to disease and insects. It can be harmful to agriculture, reducing crop yield.

Solutions to reducing ozone pollution, such as adoption Clean Cars Program, have an array of benefits. Hybrid-electric cars save consumers money in fuel and have been shown to retain their value better than conventional cars. The Clean Cars program will spur the economy and reduce US dependence on foreign oil. The Clean Cars Program will also significantly cut global warming pollution.

The benefits to cleaning up our air and cutting pollution from vehicle emissions far outweigh the costs. The Regional Air Quality Council in Denver advises that the best way to protect one's health from ozone is avoiding exposure and staying inside on days when ozone is high. Is the cost to clean up the air too high of a price to pay, if we fear the outdoors for the effect it may have on our health? Is it fair to our children to keep them indoors on a summer day?

As Colorado attempts to move to a more sustainable framework, diversification of the transportation network is a crucial factor. The negative implications of remaining dependent, almost exclusively, on vehicle travel have significant economic and environmental impacts. Creating viable, alternate modes of transportation is crucial to the economic stability and environmental vitality of the state.

Already strapped government budgets cannot fund the needed additions to highway capacity to keep traffic flowing efficiently. Even if there was enough money to build the needed capacity, the elasticity gained by new road capacity is lost in the long-run. Doubling the capacity of a road leads to a 73% increase in usage and eventually traffic congestion levels surpass the levels of congestion that were originally being addressed. Studies and experience have proven this result and illustrate that building our way out of traffic congestion is impossible and that adding highway capacity through expansion is unlikely to increase the overall efficiency of the transportation system.

Accommodating car travel by continuing to cover our land with roads and parking lots encourages the use of personal vehicles while degrading our environment. Run-off presents the highest threat to the maintenance of water quality while increasing vehicle use amplifies global warming pollution. Even with the lower emissions of new cars overall emissions are not reduced due to the large increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since building additional roads and parking lots creates greater amounts of pollution and degrades water and air quality, these costs need to be factored into the total costs of car travel.

Increasing the efficiency of our transportation system is best addressed by providing alternate modes of transit. When access to and the capacity of public transit is increased, fewer vehicles crowd roadways. In addition, tolls can be used to manage existing roadway capacity to maximize the overall carrying capacity of the system. These measures have the benefit of decreasing global warming emissions since less car travel is experienced. There is also less expansion of roadways and therefore water quality is not further degraded.

Diversification of the transportation system provides economic and environmental benefits. In the end, providing alternate modes of transportation will strengthen Colorado's economy while at the same time addressing global warming issues. The economy will grow while emissions are reduced and Colorado's quality of life will be maintained. Our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil is reduced and a more sustainable framework of development is attained.

Yesterday, Environment Colorado released a report called “Feeling the Heat” which showed that temperatures are rising across the US and especially in Colorado due to global warming. The temperatures are higher in Colorado due to the elevation and also the inland location of the state.
Key Findings on Colorado were: • In 2006, the average temperature was 3.8°F above average in Denver. Nationally, the average 2006 temperature was at least 0.5°F above normal at 87% of the locations studied. • Over the course of 2006, Grand Junction experienced 75 days where the temperature hit at least 90°F, 11 days more than the historical average. Heat waves have serious implications for human health, causing heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and even death. • Colorado Springs experienced average minimum temperatures — the lowest temperatures recorded on a given day, usually at night — of 2.4°F above normal in 2006 and 3.9°F above normal during the 2006 summer. Warmer nighttime temperatures exacerbate the public health effects of heat waves, since people need cooler nighttime temperatures to recover from excessive heat exposure during the day.

The data was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center collected from 255 weather stations across the US. This rise in temperature is something that we can expect to see in the future if we don’t take action against global warming. 2007 is already predicted to be one of the hottest years on record. Let’s reduce global warming pollution before it’s too hot to enjoy Colorado! To read a full copy of the report.

When contemplating growth, expansion is assumed. Adding more people to the Denver Metro Region has inevitably led to a greater amount of land experiencing urban development. But is this the best way for the Region to grow? Perhaps communities should be asking HOW we can grow so as to minimize costs and maintain Colorado's exquisite quality of life.

Studies and experience have shown that growth should be directed inward to minimize both economic and environmental costs. Compact growth curtails costs by facilitating a more efficient use of resources. Services and public infrastructure in higher population density areas can be maintained and provided at lower costs due to the close proximity of residents, businesses, and retail shops as well as transit locations. Traffic congestion is not exacerbated and air and water quality are better.

Sprawl development, on the other hand presents significant increased costs as compared to compact growth. When development is spread out, traffic congestion worsens along with air and water quality. The increased expansion of public infrastructure, and especially roads, presents significant expenditures. Since expansion presents many more negative implications regarding increased costs for public infrastructure and environmental degradation, the question is not simply to expand, or not to expand but rather -

Who pays?
• Whose responsibility is it to pay for the additional costs of providing public infrastructure to far flung developments?
• Are proper price indicators in place to adequately reflect the costs of sprawl?
• Should sprawl development be subsidized by externalizing the costs and leaving the responsibility of providing public infrastructure to local, regional, and state organizations?

In the current debate of whether there should be an expansion of the Denver Metro Region's UGB/A - the question of who pays cannot be ignored. Any development that represents sprawl must take into account all the costs involved and incorporate these costs into the market price of the development. By requiring a full consideration of all costs involved with a proposed development, a market based approach to growth can be achieved. This market based approach must reflect the true cost of development, however, and public input should be welcomed and encouraged in the process.

There is a battle brewing inside the Denver Council of Regional Governments around expanding the urban growth boundary. Jefferson, Douglas, Adams and Arapahoe county, want to be able to develop more unincorporated areas. They are united against the regions cities who make the case we should focus development in the already developed areas. Maintaining the focus on already developed areas would reduce sprawl, improve air quality, increase mobility and save the region billions of dollars in transportation improvements.

The biggest point of contention is the State Land Board's proposed development of the Lowry Bombing Range. They have asked Arapahoe County to petition to include this development in their request to expand development. This is a very bad development for the region:
1. In 1999 the Range was designated as part of the voter mandated Stewardship Trust Lands for its unique ecological value.
2. While selling off the land will generate 80 million dollars for schools, the Denver Council of Regional Government models indicate expanding the Urban Growth Area to include Lowry would lead to the region and state having to pay over 800 million dollars in added infrastructure (roads, sewer, water etc) costs.

The Trust Lands should be protected. The state should promote smart growth not leapfrogging development. Finally, Colorado is grappling with how to fund tens of billions of dollars in unmet transportation needs. Why in world would a state agency add half a billion dollars to that total? DRCOG should send Lowry back to the Land Board.

A few weeks ago, ozone pollution reached unhealthy levels in the Denver-metro area. Unfortunately this is not the first time nor is it expected to be the last. Colorado has exceeded federal ozone standards the past two summers and officials in state and local government say this summer may not be any different. Colorado can only exceed federal ozone standards two more times before the EPA will begin regulating.

Ozone is beneficial in the upper atmosphere, warding off the more powerful of the sun's rays; in the lower atmosphere, however, ozone is a major health concern. The pollution irritates the lungs and respiratory system, negatively affecting elderly, children, and the asthmatic. Even those in good health report having pain and shortness of breath on days with high ozone concentrations.

Industry and vehicle emissions are the primary causes of ozone in the lower atmosphere. This is a problem that has a clear solution: we need to clean up the way we do business and the way we live. To do so will only be to our benefit.

One necessary change must be the vehicles we drive. The cars we drive today could be far cleaner and far more efficient. Twelve states have already taken the initiative on this and have agreed to the Clean Cars program. Adopting Clean Cars would decrease ozone-causing and global warming pollution, save consumers money, and better the health of Colorado citizens.

We have every reason and ability to begin living in a cleaner, more sustainable way. We should use them wisely and implement policy that makes sense for Coloradoans.

In the West we are use to hitting the open road without worrying about having spare change to pay for tolls. The meaning of 'freeway' was literal in both the sense of an open road and no fees. As the population grows in West we are finding that freeways do not always provide an open road and a new perspective on tolls may be needed.

Traditionally, tolls have been used to fund new highway capacity. Recent studies have shown that this use of tolls does not provide the greatest benefit, however, and does not address the question of social justice regarding those who cannot afford to pay tolls or that live within tolled transportation corridors but do not drive. Transportation districts are finding that tolls can be used to effectively manage traffic flows through time of day charging and by funding public transit within the tolled corridor. By giving travelers better options for travel and by charging greater amounts at certain times of day, congestion can be limited - and ideally eliminated - without creating a social injustice to non-drivers or drivers. Better traffic flows also brings environmental benefits by increasing the efficiency of vehicle travel which creates less pollution.

Since tolls can be used as an effective traffic management tool and as funding for public transit, they should have priority consideration in future transportation planning. Building additional highways has failed to address congestion issues in the long run, is extremely costly, both economically and environmentally, and perpetuates dependence on a single mode of transportation at a time when diversification in transit is crucial.

For additional information on tolls please see: Link
www.fitchratings.com
Replogle, Michael and Keri Funderburg. (2206). No More Just Throwing Money Out the Window: Using Road Tolls to Cut Congestion, Protect the Environment, and Boost Access for All, Environmental Defense, Washington, DC.
Link (accessed 7/9/2007)

This Saturday, global warming is going to be the talk of the town. In fact, it's going to be the talk of the world as the Live Earth concerts - spanning 24 hours and all seven continents - turns the eyes of the world toward action on global warming.

While the world is thinking globally about climate change, Sierra Club, Environment Colorado and other conservation and renewable energy organizations are teaming up to act locally, hosting a 'Friends of Live Earth' ECOncert, which features five local bands and speakers like Sierra Club President Robbie Cox, Colorado Senate President Joan Fitzgerald, a staff representative for Governor Ritter and Environment Colorado Executive Director Matt Baker discussing ways to stop global warming.

With great live music from Two Bit Spud Wagon and Wisebird it's sure to be a great time. Not only is it a chance to hear some new music, there'll be tons of opportunities to take action on global warming - including the chance to be part of the Global Warming Phone Jam by calling Senators Salazar and Allard and asking them to support reducing our global warming pollution 80% by 2050. And the best part is, it's free!

So come on down to the show this Saturday, July 7th from Noon to 5:00 PM in Central Park. And let us know you’ll be there by clicking on the link below or copying and pasting it into your web browser to RSVP. Be sure to invite your friends, too!

Who: Environment Colorado, Sierra Club, Clean Energy Action and other environmental/energy groups
What: Boulder ECOncert, a 'Friends of Live Earth' concert event
When: Saturday, July 7th from Noon to 5 PM
Where: Central Park, Corner of Broadway and Canyon, Boulder

After the concert, Defenders of Wildlife will be hosting a 'Watch Party' for the Live Earth Concert occurring around the world for 24 hours on 7 continents. The event is July 7 at the Wynkoop Brewery from 6-9pm. There will be free food, cash bar, raffle.

There will also be a live screening of Live Earth by the Denver Film Society at their home theatres at the Starz FilmCenter. This presentation free to the public with FREE popcorn for anyone who brings their own eco-responsible reusable popcorn bowl. Plus, discounted drink specials (soda, beer, wine, mixed drinks) for those who bring their own glass. The screening will take place Saturday, July 7 at 7pm at Starz Film Center at the Tivoli, 900 Auraria Parkway, Denver, CO 80204.

One issue that didn't quite make it onto the bandwagon of last spring's slew of legislation was Solar Thermal, specifically solar hot water heaters. Solar hot water systems are a technology that offer an excellent opportunity to reduce our use of conventional fuels such as propane and natural gas, save consumers money, and protect our environment. These systems use the free energy of the sun to heat water in collectors on the roof and then transfer this heat to a storage tank in the house. Usually an auxiliary tank is still needed as back-up, but when this auxiliary tank is actually a tankless, on-demand heater the system is even more efficient. By using a solar hot water heating system a household can offset an average of 76% of conventional fuel use, reducing their energy bill and the amount of CO2 released. Because of their durability these systems last for a few decades during which the owners can very easily re-coup any up-front costs.



Critics say that solar thermal is a waste because they claim that it is not cost effective. The reality is that new technology, especially when it comes to reducing natural gas use, is usually cost ineffective until it is allowed to go through a large market. A strong market in solar thermal would streamline installation processes, allow for mass production, and allow for economies of scale within the market. This is currently occurring with solar PV, and solar PV is much more expensive than solar thermal technology.



The market is ready to expand; it just needs a little boost. There are strong certification in place for systems and installers, and more and more solar thermal businesses are popping-up all over the place. Considering the rising energy prices and threats of global warming we need to match the federal solar credit and create state incentives and rebates. At the very least all new houses should have solar thermal built right into them.

Last week, State Senator Josh Penry and Assemblyman Al White proposed a creating a 'Permanent Fund' to be used for higher education. The Fund would come from the state's share of the royalties from oil and gas development in the Roan Plateau. We don't believe we need to rush development of the Roan, but the Penry/White proposal raises some very important issues.

Colorado is the 6th largest producer of natural gas. We are the 7th largest producer of coal and one of the leading uranium producing states. We also have a large hard rock mining presence. But our severance tax is a joke - this is the state equivalent to the federal royalties program. Colorado's effective tax rate for this one time extraction of minerals, coal, oil and gas bonanza is 1%. The federal government taxes oil and gas at a 12% rate. New Mexico (6.5%) and Wyoming (5%) have robust severance tax programs and have used them to create a permanent fund that does everything from offsetting other state taxes to fund new energy programs. These state's view their mineral wealth as a one time event and are using a small portion of it to ameliorate environmental impact on wildlife, water and public health; help local communities most impacted by development and prepare for the day when boom turns to bust. Colorado does none of those things.

The situation here is even worse than that - a recent report from the state audit committee detailed a complex, opaque process that is riddled with the potential for fraud. The report concluded it was impossible to know if the state was being ripped off. Hard rock industries produce almost a billion dollars in revenue but pay a paltry $500,000 in severance taxes. Coal is taxed at 54 cents a ton -- it is selling for over twenty dollars a ton. Oil and gas exports to the state are up 2000% from 1990 but we have idea what we will do once this resource is depleted and we are left to clean the mess left behind.

Colorado needs to create a new state royalty program - an Impact Fee. The fee would be assessed at 5% of the value of the hard rock minerals, oil, gas, and coal. It would create a multi- billion dollar investment fund to be used for three purposes:

1. Address the impacts mineral extraction on local communities. It would fund roads, schools, energy use, social needs and public health in communities directly impacted by the extractive industries.

2. Address the environmental problems caused by oil, gas, coal, and mineral development. This pool would mitigate the impacts on wildlife and big game animals. It would help to preserve land for recreation, hunting and angling. Finally it would serve as a fund of last resort to clean up any sites that are improperly abandoned.

3. A New Energy Fund. Revenues from fossil fuels are as limited as the resource. Colorado should establish a New Energy Fund to smooth the transition from a fossil fuel economy to New Energy Economy and make Colorado a world leader in clean energy. This pool could fund consumer rebates for weatherizing homes and installing solar and wind systems. It would fund renewable energy projects and create seed capital to attract New Energy Businesses.

The oil and gas industry is the most profitable in the world. The industry that tripled the amount charged for natural gas in the last five years, can certainly afford a few points to protect Colorado from the impacts of oil and gas development and prepare us for the day when the resource becomes depleted.

Colorado needs to take control of our energy destiny.

Matt Baker

Today the House of Representatives finally acknowledged that global warming is a real and serious problem deserving of action. The recognition came in an Appropriations bill and passed with a strong majority, 272 to 155.

The vote break-down among our Colorado delegation was nothing short of predictable. All four Democrats, Udall, Perlmutter, DeGette, and Salazar voted in favor and surprise, surprise, our three Republicans, Tancredo, Musgrave, and Lamborn opposed.

What does not make sense is that while the latter three talk ad nauseam about the importance of the private sector and a free market, they outwardly oppose economic growth in their own state.

Today was also a profitable day for Colorado. Vestas Wind Systems broke ground on a new wind site in Windsor - an investment that will mean $60 million and 400 new jobs.

We applaud Congress's recognition today. It is the first step on a very necessary path to a clean energy economy. We do suggest, however, that our three Republican Representatives consider what economic growth actually means. And until they do, we will continue to talk ad nauseam of the economic opportunity in addressing global warming.

To read more on Vestas new wind site

Increased fuel economy standards are compatible with safety. Some people may oppose clean cars because they view clean cars as dangerous alternative to their existing vehicles. But the science shows that safety will not be compromised with new standards.

A 2002 report by National Academy of Sciences concluded that the technology already exists to raise our fuel economy standard of our vehicle fleet without compromising safety. Most of the technologies that the NAS considered related to engines and transmission and has nothing to do with crash safety.

In a 2004 report by S. Ahmad and D. Greene, evidence was shown that increased mpg does not correlate to higher fatalities. Conversely, their report showed that higher mpg leads to a decreased number of fatalities. Their conclusion was based off of an analysis of data from 1966 – 2002.

The weight of a vehicle is not a determinant of vehicle safety. This conclusion was reached by M. Ross and T. Wenzel in 2002, who found that the quality of the engineering is the key determinant of a vehicle’s safety. Their study demonstrated that compact cars such as the Honda Civic and the Volkswagen Jetta have lower driver fatality rates than the Ford Explorer, the Dodge Ram, or the Toyota 4Runner. A later study showed that increased weight actually leads to increased fatalities. T

he safety concern of clean cars has been debunked. Now consumers can make smarter decisions by buying cleaner cars and supporting a Clean Cars program in Colorado. The Clean Cars program would give consumers more vehicle options which take into account both safety and reducing global warming pollution. Get more info on the science behind clean vehicles.

Last week the Senate made a pass at taking significant action on renewable energy. You know, the kind of energy that would help reduce reliance on foreign oil and help combat global warming. A comprehensive Energy Bill was passed in the Senate, however a Federal
Renewable Energy Standard (RES) was not included. This amendment
would have required that 15% of energy produced in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2020. A federal ruling would have given Colorado the chance to become a significant energy exporter in the West, helping to boost local economies.

Once it looked as though there would be enough votes to avoid a filibuster, certain individuals prolonged the decision long enough to avoid a vote altogether. No surprise, but yet again key players let powerful interests trump public welfare.

James Inhofe, the brilliant Senator who thinks global warming is a hoax, led the opposition with the endorsement of special interests including Big Oil, Coal and Gas. Inhofe did the bidding of Southern Company, Peabody Coal and Exxon Mobil among others. The South's influence, played a big role in the outcome. Because they say they're unable to comply to a Federal RES, they obtrusively lobbied parties from both sides to vote against a 15% by 2020 standard.

One encouraging ruling that came about was the passing of an amendment which increased gas-mileage in cars and light trucks. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards haven't been increased in over 30 years! So, this is a huge step in the right direction for environmental quality. Hopefully this thinking catches on and other productive legislation is passed.


Andi DeCenzo