Don’t spend transit money on social engineering

December 21, 2007 - 11:06PM

Trivial pursuits

Tax hikes are never an easy sell in Colorado, even when they’re going to fund legitimate government functions such as building and maintaining roads, bridges and freeways. But anger the voters by diverting these grudgingly surrendered dollars to pet projects or trivial pursuits — to lower priority transportation “needs” such as bike paths or pedestrian-friendly communities, for instance — and you’re just begging for rejection.

Bad news for the good old boys at the Gazette: people who pass taxes get to decide why they pass, not people who don't pass them. The Gazette, and its readers, may think that building highways is the only legitimate use of tax dollars and they may think that bike and pedestrian paths are trivial pursuits, but their opinions don't count.

Harsh? No, just reality. Back when Referenda C & D were on the ballot, asphalt junkies like the Gazette editorialists and Gov. Owens decided that the money from D, the transportation issue, should go only to highway building. D failed. Why? Because when it comes to tax hikes, right-wing, anti-tax zealots don't decide what passes.

People in Boulder County liked Ref. C and gave it enough "yes" votes to overcome all of the "no" votes from El Paso County. We didn't like Ref. D and we didn't give it the boost it would have needed to pass.

It’ll be tough enough to sell the state’s “blue ribbon” transportation commission proposal to more than double what Colorado spends annually on transportation — a $1.5 billion annual increase that will have to be paid for with tax hikes or higher “fees.” But if the plan is hijacked by two Boulder liberals, who want to divert these transportation funds for social engineering experiments, the entire effort is in danger of coming apart completely.

Exactly backwards. If the anti-common sense conservatives hijack the proposal it will die like D.

That’s why we were dismayed to read in Sunday’s Gazette that a number of key legislators want to divert would-be road funds to discourage people from driving, as part of some anti car crusade. According to the story, a growing number of Statehouse Democrats, led by Reps. Jack Pommer and Claire Levy, feel that “transportation funding and environmental and growth concerns should be linked.” Instead of upgrading basic infrastructure, they want to use the money to advance a so called smart growth agenda.

And smart tax agenda.

How “smart” any agenda is that flies in the face of consumer preferences isn’t a question we’ll settle today. Whether such approaches really reduce congestion, or merely redistribute it, is also open to debate. But on the practical political level, we think it would be a mistake to divert money in these directions.

Like it or not, most Americans still cherish the mobility, freedom and flexibility personal transport provides. Some Coloradans, either by choice or necessity, use buses, light rail and other forms of public transport. A number can walk or ride their bicycles to work or school. And that’s OK (except that many of these people are being heavily subsidized by other people). But these people are, and likely will remain, in the minority.

But a necessary majority when it comes to raising taxes. And an absent majority if the taxes are going to subsidize highway expansion. And does the Gazette really think pedestrians and cyclists need heavy subsidies?

That’s the reality we’re handed and the situation we have to address. Seizing this as an opportunity to try to remake society along different lines, in order to fit some naïve Utopian notions about the way the rest of us should (but don’t) choose to live, is not a wise expenditure of precious resources or the legitimate business of the state. Diverting money from the concrete goal of improving battered roadways to the nebulous goal of getting people to abandon their cars will convince voters that politicians can’t be trusted with more of their money.

If people want to live in more pedestrian-friendly communities, they can seek them out. If people like to commute to work on a bicycle, they can do so. And if these folks want to smugly pat themselves on the back for being “smarter” than the rest of us, so be it.

But using public money and state power to coerce or entice people into making politically correct lifestyle choices is inappropriate. It’s generally a minority of professional planners and smart-growth activists who are pushing these we-know-best schemes.

They seem to have forgotten that I was against the tax increase, they're the ones who want to tax people and divert the money to their agenda.

These sorts of ideas may go over big in Boulder, where Pommer and Levy are from. But there’s a reason Boulder is the butt of so many jokes elsewhere in Colorado. Government’s job isn’t to tell people how to live, but to serve a limited set of needs that the private sector can’t provide. Straying too far from these fundamentals when setting the state’s transportation priorities will lead to a car crash at the ballot box.

That's OK.

It gets better. The initial report to the JBC only mentioned raising taxes (or fees) to pay for highway expansions. When the Blue Ribbon Panel's final report came out in January, it included the kind of sensible planning and demand management Claire and I suggested.

Live, from the Capitol!

Your lawmakers in action

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, July 6, 2007

If Statehouse proceedings had been televised in 2003, the Republican Party would probably still have gerrymandered Colorado's congressional districts to its advantage. But more citizens could have had a front-row seat.

That would have been a good thing, and it illustrates the wisdom in House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's proposal to televise House deliberations.

"The idea is to bring the House of Representatives to living rooms," Romanoff told The Denver Post last month. "A lot of folks have no idea what we do here, and we would make better decisions if they did."

Romanoff, a Denver Democrat, said live television coverage "might improve the decorum of the chamber." His optimism is refreshing, if not altogether convincing.

As he noted, 34 states already have their own version of C-SPAN, which televises Congress. Colorado's Sunshine Law requires that the formation of public policy be done in public. Televised proceedings (which would be available in indexed form on the internet) are a significant improvement over the audio-only internet "streaming" of Statehouse debates.

Beginning in January 2008, Romanoff says, the House may come into your home. The state Senate, meanwhile, hasn't mustered equal enthusiasm. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald reportedly is concerned about a potential conflict of interest. Comcast is donating in-kind services to televise House proceedings.

Fitz-Gerald wonders if that's appropriate, given that Comcast has an interest in some legislation. That potential conflict seems manageable.

Meanwhile, some wonder if the presence of TV cameras would transform lawmakers into (even bigger) hams. It might. But it would boost the transparency, and that's the critical factor.

Consider the waning days of the session in 2002, when the GOP railroaded a gerrymandered congressional district plan through the Legislature. The Legislature is supposed to redraw the districts once a decade, after each census. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on a plan, a court picked a plan that gave the Republicans solid majorities in four districts, the Democrats dominion over two districts, and one district fairly even-Steven.

So the Republicans imposed a new map in which the GOP had the advantage in five of seven districts. Similar strong-armed gerrymander plans were imposed in Georgia and Texas. Ultimately, the Colorado scheme failed when challenged in court.

But if cameras had been in the House then, citizens could have watched as former Rep. Tom Plant, a Nederland Democrat, tried to explain why he wouldn't vote on the redistricting bill. The chair interrupted, informing Plant that his point was moot. As Plant objected, the chair silenced Plant, literally, by turning off his microphone.

Boulder Rep. Alice Madden tried to make the same point and was similarly gagged. So was Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer and others. It was a nauseating spectacle — an illustration of how partisan zeal can trump democratic ideals. The newspapers covered it. But reading the stories was nothing like watching the actual train wreck.

Such machinations are offensive no matter which party is responsible. In the future, when partisans launch a similar stunt, perhaps they will stop to consider that people are (or could be) watching. In politics, that kind of scrutiny can be positively transformative.

Kernels of Truth: Joan, CD-2 and the Next Speaker

by: Jason Bane Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:20 AM MDT

It’s time for another bowl of "Kernels of Truth." Here’s what’s popping this week: Will Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald Step Down? Senate Chief of Staff Leaving Who’s the Next House Speaker? The Lamborn Effect The news begins after the jump…

Jason Bane :: Kernels of Truth: Joan, CD-2 and the Next Speaker

FITZ-GERALD STILL PRESIDENT The State Capitol has been abuzz in the last few weeks with rumors that Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald will step down from her leadership role in order to concentrate on her 2008 bid for congress in CD-2. As the rumors go, Sen. Peter Groff would be poised to take over as the new Senate president. "I’ve heard it from a couple of different people," says a Democratic legislator who asked to remain anonymous speaking about potential leadership changes. "That’s the way I’ve heard it – that she’s going to step down as president to focus on the congressional campaign." "There are rumors about that, but I haven’t heard it from Joan," says Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver). "I suspect that it would be very difficult for her to run for congress as President of the Senate." Citing her pending congressional campaign, Fitz-Gerald announced earlier this year that she was stepping down as head of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if she gave up her leadership duties in the state Senate. But reached by phone last night at the State Capitol, Fitz-Gerald said she has no plans to step aside. "No, I’m not stepping down after the session," says Fitz-Gerald. "Right now I’m thinking that I have the summer ahead of me, and the leadership role doesn’t take as much time during the summer." Fitz-Gerald says that she will be focusing on raising money for her congressional run once the legislative session ends next week, and she will also sit down and discuss the Senate with Groff. But she says that she has no plans to give up her role as Senate President, even though the rigors of a congressional race might make it tough to juggle both roles. "I really don’t know [if I’ll have to step down as senate president]. I haven’t given that a lot of thought," she says. "It depends on the intensity of the congressional campaign. I’m going to judge things as they come up, but I don’t fully know what’s ahead of me right now." Even so, there are some Democratic legislators who don’t expect Fitz-Gerald to remain at the helm for too long. "Between now and August of 2008 I would expect that she would step down," says Romer. And if Fitz-Gerald does step down, he says, "I think Peter [Groff] would make a great Senate President, and I would support him." As President Pro Tem and a close supporter of Fitz-Gerald, Groff may be ideally placed to take over. But as one Democratic legislator says, "Peter seems like a good idea to me, but he might not be unopposed." In the meantime, Fitz-Gerald says there are no plans in place to formally kickoff her bid for congress, either. "That can wait," she says of a kickoff announcement. "There’s too much work to be done between now and then. I imagine we will get to that perhaps in June." MARY ALICE MOVING ON Fitz-Gerald may not be giving up her leadership role in the state Senate, but longtime advisor Mary Alice Mandarich told me yesterday that she would indeed be leaving after the current legislative session. Mandarich currently serves as the chief of staff for the Senate Democrats, and her last day - after five legislative sessions – will come on the final day of the 2007 legislative session. Mandarich won’t be out of work for long, however. She’ll be taking an active role in Fitz-Gerald’s congressional campaign, though she says it’s too soon to assign her any sort of title. "We haven’t gotten that far yet," she says of defining her role in the congressional campaign. "I’ll be doing something on the campaign." Mandarich directed the gubernatorial campaign of Gail Schoettler in 1998 (which Republican Bill Owens won in a close race), so she’s no stranger to the rigors of a high-profile campaign. While she was coy about her official role, most observers assume that Mandarich will take on a significant leadership position in the campaign. "She’s going to be very active," says Fitz-Gerald, echoing Mandarich’s statement about her future with the campaign. "She’s really done a yeoman’s job down at the state legislature, and right now she’s going to take some time to relax." "SPEAKING" OF LEADERS… If Fitz-Gerald steps down as Senate President it will create a new top dog in the state Senate, but it won’t be the only chamber where new leaders could soon emerge. If Democrats are able to maintain control of the state House in 2008, they’ll have to elect an entire new slate of officials to lead the way. House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, Speaker Pro Tempore Cheri Jahn, Majority Leader Alice Madden and Assistant Majority Leader Michael Garcia are all term-limited, so the top job of Speaker will be up for grabs. One Democratic legislator, who asked to remain anonymous speaking about potential leadership changes, would handicap the potential field in this order: 1. Rep. Bernie Buescher 2. Rep. Jack Pommer 3. Rep. Mike Cerbo 4. Rep. Dorothy Butcher (the current House Majority Whip) As chair of the Joint Budget Committee and a well-liked member of the legislature, Buescher would seem to be an obvious choice as the next House Speaker. But that’s only if he wins his own bid for re-election in 2008. "Bernie’s challenge, quite frankly, is that he will always have an incredibly hard time keeping that seat,’ says the source. "In a sense, it means electing a speaker who has a built-in handicap, although you could make the case that being Speaker helps him when he’s running for re-election." Leadership positions are often filled by legislators from "safe" districts. None of the current slate of officials – Romanoff, Madden, Jahn or Garcia – have been at risk of losing their bid for re-election for several cycles. Buescher is always a top target of Republicans because of his conservative Grand Junction district, while Cerbo’s seat in Denver will likely never see a serious Republican challenger. THE LAMBORN EFFECT Fitz-Gerald will likely face a tough primary in her bid for congress in CD-2, with Democrats Jared Polis and Will Shafroth representing at least two of her possible opponents. The seat is currently held by Rep. Mark Udall, who is leaving to run for U.S. Senate, and for the last several years it has been an easy seat for Democrats to hold. Whoever wins the Democratic primary should be able to fend off a Republican challenger, but that may depend on the situation. Republicans haven’t traditionally put up a tough candidate in CD-2 because Udall was a shoo-in for re-election, but I’m told they could try to field a strong candidate in 2008 in hopes that the Democratic primary will get as nasty as the 2006 Republican primary in CD-5. Doug Lamborn emerged from a bitter six-way primary last summer as a damaged candidate, which created an opening for Democrat Jay Fawcett to draw more votes than any Democrat in years in that Colorado Springs district. If the same scenario repeats itself in 2008, albeit from a Democratic perspective, a tough Republican candidate could be in position to steal the seat. That’s it for now. For tips, rumors, gossip or just to chat, drop me a line at jbane@coloradoconfidential.com.

Tags: Joan Fitz-Gerald, mary alice mandarich, Bernie Buescher, mike cerbo, dorothy butcher, jack pommer, campaigns, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Caveat homeowner: Lawmakers support fair balance in home transactions

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, March 30, 2007

Four years ago, the home-building industry bought some income protection from the state Legislature. This year, lawmakers are trying to nudge the scales back toward a balance between seller and buyer.

Not surprisingly, home builders are displeased. But the industry's financial interests are no longer the Legislature's driving concern.

In 2003, the state Legislature approved a law limiting the ability of home buyers to sue for negligent construction, and sharply limiting the damages the buyers could collect. Under that law — which the home-building interests spent $355,000 lobbying for — home buyers were required to try to cajole home builders into fixing shoddy construction before filing suit.

Apparently to some home builders, those barriers to consumer protection weren't high enough. Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat, says major home builders have been including warranty escape clauses, leaving some home buyers with little or no recourse for faulty construction.

A press release issued Wednesday by state Democrats contrasted home builders' promises in 2003 with their actions in 2007. "With this (2003) law, builders still end up being responsible to fix a problem, and good builders will always do that," Amber Homes President Jim Harmon told Colorado Builder magazine then.

Today, the Dems note, Amber Homes contracts include this clause: "To the fullest extent permitted by law, all other warranties, expressed or implied, including warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, workmanship and habitability are disclaimed, excluded and waived."

That inconsistency explains the genesis of House Bill 1138, which is sponsored by Pommer and which cleared the state House on Thursday. The bill would, rather modestly, prevent home buyers from being forced to forfeit their right to seek redress for faulty construction.

On Wednesday, Harmon of Amber Homes told the Rocky Mountain News that the central issue (fair warranties) was a ruse. He lambasted the trial lawyers, who he said are behind HB 1138 and are tilting against a "problem that doesn't exist."

If there's no problem, why are some home builders unwilling to warranty their work on basic measures of quality — such as "habitability"?

Rep. Debbie Stafford, an Aurora Republican, was among those supporting the Pommer bill. She did so even though, she alleges, a fellow legislator warned her that she'd be targeted in future elections by the home-building barons.

As Pommer explained this week, HB 1138 is neither anti-builder nor anti-business. "This gives homeowners a fighting chance if they find out that their new home has serious problems," Pommer said. "We're leaving in place the limits on liability that the home builders say they need, but restoring the legal rights homeowners need to protect the huge investment they make in their house."

No "good builder" would object to that. For most people, the purchase of a home is the most significant investment in life. Buyers deserve more than a contractually enshrined caveat emptor.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board

Big day for renewable energy

Ritter signs bills in Boulder County

By Todd Neff
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Gov. Bill Ritter signed two major energy bills Tuesday, requiring major utilities to boost the electricity they generate through renewable sources and fostering the development of electrical transmission to remote wind farms and future solar-generating stations.

Ritter chose a patch of rocky grassland at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's National Wind Technology Center in southern Boulder County as the spot for the signing ceremony, his words amplified by electricity from a fuel cell running on wind-generated hydrogen.

"It is a perfect setting to sign these two bills," Ritter said.

House Bill 1281, of which State Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, was a key sponsor, requires large investor-owned utilities such as Xcel Energy to gradually build to 20 percent generation by wind, solar, biomass and other forms of renewable energy by 2020.

The previous standard, passed through Amendment 37 by Colorado voters in November 2004, called for 10 percent generation via renewables by 2015.

Unlike Amendment 37, the new law includes rural electric cooperatives. Their target is lower: 10 percent renewables by 2020. In both cases, home and business electric bills could increase up to 2 percent to pay for renewables.

John Nielsen, energy program director for Boulder environmental policy group Western Resource Advocates — which helped craft the upgraded standard — said bringing in rural electrical cooperatives was a key part of the bill.

"They're brought in at a modest level, and I think they'll be able to push ahead with renewable-energy tech-

nologies in a way they haven't to date," Nielsen said.

Paula Connolly, Xcel Energy's assistant general counsel, said Xcel will have met the Amendment 37 target by the end of this year and that the company aims to beat the new law's timetable also. Xcel and most rural electric cooperatives supported the bill.

Ritter said the new standard will add $2 billion to Colorado's economy.

Will Coyne, program director for Environment Colorado, said the bill will cut soot, smog, mercury and heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions 11 percent by 2020 while creating thousands of jobs and saving 18 billion gallons of water.

Blake Jones, president of Boulder's Namaste Solar Electric, said the bill is great news for the solar industry. Like its predecessor, it requires that 0.8 percent of the state's electricity demand be met with solar energy. The new bill will double the number of solar panels to be installed to meet that demand.

"It means more jobs, and it means we can continue to grow," said Jones, whose company has already grown from three workers to 22 in about two years.

Ritter also signed Senate Bill 100, which lets utilities charge customers for new electricity-transmission capacity as it's built rather than waiting until the new lines begin operation.

Xcel's Connolly said the new transmission law will help solve a chicken-or-egg problem that makes it hard to connect rural and often distant troves of wind or solar energy with the population centers that need the electricity.

"The combination of these two bills will help us build the transmission necessary to these resources so we can get more renewable energy on our system as soon as possible," she said.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Todd Neff at (303) 473-1327 or nefft@dailycamera.com.

Energizing the future

Shifting political winds propel higher mandates

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Friday, March 16, 2007

There's little doubt now that higher renewable-energy standards will become law in Colorado. That heartening news illustrates how much the political landscape has changed in three years.

In 2004, Colorado voters approved Amendment 37, which requires large utility companies to produce or purchase 10 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2015. The measure passed despite stiff opposition from Xcel Energy, which advertised its green credentials while funneling cash into the anti-37 campaign.

On Thursday, the state Senate gave initial approval to House Bill 1281, which doubles the 10 percent requirement set by Amendment 37. The measure is sponsored by Sen. Gail Schwartz, a Snowmass Village Democrat, and Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat.

HB 1281 imposes a 10-percent standard on smaller utilities, some of which serve rural areas. "These new standards will allow more people across our state to take part in a renewable energy economy," Schwartz said.

Gov. Bill Ritter testified in favor of the bill, a relatively rare move for a governor. But Ritter campaigned on a new-energy economy platform, and HB 1281 is a key component of his plan. "Colorado is poised in so many respects to play a leadership role" in renewable energy, the Associated Press quoted Ritter as saying.

One study suggests that raising the renewable-energy mandate could create 4,100 jobs and boost Colorado's economy by $1.9 billion.

In a Senate committee this week and elsewhere recently, some critics doubted such sunny claims. "I'm concerned that the technology is not good enough yet," said Sen. David Schultheis, the Rocky Mountain News reported. "If it were, the free market would gladly develop it."

The bill, which appears likely to pass, would have been politically untenable in 2004, when Xcel was complaining about "hard wiring" energy mandates into state law. This year, however, Xcel supported the bill.

There could be a short-term cost to consumers as Colorado pursues more renewable energy. But the well-known costs of our energy-guzzling status quo are much greater. It's good to see our state's leaders reaching that conclusion.

Report: More renewable energy helps jobs, wages

The Denver Business Journal - 12:33 PM MST Thursday, February 22, 2007

Boosting the amount of power Colorado's utilities would get from renewable resources from 10 percent to 20 percent would lead to more jobs, higher wages and an increase in the state's gross domestic product, according to a report issued Thursday by the Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center.

HB 1281, sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would raise the state mandate for using renewable resources to generate electricity to 20 percent by 2020 for large utilities.

The bill, to be considered by the House on Feb. 23, caps the cost of complying with the mandate that utilities can pass along to customers at 2 percent of their electric bills. The report compared the overall effect of the existing mandate on the state's economy -- that utilities get 10 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2015, a mandate voters approved in 2004 -- to the effect of raising the mandate to 20 percent by 2020. The comparison focused on how each policy affects overall spending, water use and air pollution.

The report found that under the higher 20 percent renewable standard, job creation would be 4.3 times higher, wages paid would be 2.2 times higher, and an increase in gross domestic product would be 1.9 times higher than under Amendment 37's lower requirement of 10 percent.

In an statement about the report, Gov. Bill Ritter -- who has backed renewable energy efforts in the state -- said increasing the requirement to 20 percent would raise Colorado's domestic product by $1.9 million, "bring over 4,000 high-paying, high-skilled jobs and over $570 million in wages paid to our state."

The report also said the 20 percent renewable energy goal also would lead to significant reductions of soot, smog, and mercury pollution, as well as 18 billion gallons of water savings by 2020 because wind and solar power uses less water than power generated using fossil fuels.

The rural economy also would benefit, the report said, via payments to farmers for renting land for wind turbines and increasing the property tax base in rural counties.

Imprisoning the budget

As inmate population booms, state faces a crisis

Colorado is taking a hard look at its prison-sentencing system, and not a moment too soon.

Between 1985 and 2005, Colorado's prison population quintupled, rising from 4,000 to 20,000 inmates. Two years from now, the population will probably reach 25,000, meaning the number of prison inmates will have risen more than six times in 24 years. In the same period, the state's entire population rose by only about 1.5 times.

The exploding prison population comes with a significant price tag: It costs between $40,000 and $90,000 to build each new prison bed, and it costs about $26,000 annually to incarcerate each inmate. With 1,000 extra convicts a year, it all adds up.

But it doesn't compute within the confines of the state budget. In 2005, the Colorado Department of Corrections spent about $533 million, up from $57 million in 1985. In short, the cost of state prisons has risen about six times faster than the population that must fund prisons.

Why does state population matter? Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, passed in 1992, limits the growth of state revenue to the rate of inflation plus population growth. It also limits spending growth to no more than 6 percent annually.

Even with the five-year TABOR "time out" voters approved last year, the prison problem will prove difficult to manage. And since the supply of beds is so costly, it only makes sense to consider the demand.

The steady rise of the prison population is partly a product of stiff sentencing laws passed by the Legislature. The effect is a burgeoning population of inmates guilty of committing lower-level drug offenses and other non-violent crimes.

Last week, the Colorado Lawyers Committee released a report recommending the establishment of a sentencing commission, the Rocky Mountain News reported. Sentencing commissions have helped 17 states curb their prison expenditures and add a dose of reason to sentencing guidelines.

Highlighting the commissions' effectiveness, the lawyers' group noted the experience of North Carolina, which, with the help of a sentencing commission, cut its prison population by more than half in four years, the News reported.

The North Carolina Legislature adopted a new sentencing structure that stiffened punishment for violent offenders and encouraged alternative sentences for non-violent criminals. Such a system, the lawyers' group noted, might not be right for Colorado. But we would be remiss if we did not at least explore the options.

Some lawmakers are ready to take up the cause. During last fall's campaign, for instance, State Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat, effectively and chillingly outlined the clear and present need to confront this issue.

Sentencing commissions and sentencing guidelines are not intrinsically captivating. The topics become more compelling when one considers the looming budgetary havoc. When they return to work this week, legislators should confront this issue in earnest.

Dems want "new energy future"

By Todd Neff
03:44 p.m., January 17, 2007
DENVER — The state’s Democratic leaders will introduce at least a dozen energy-related bills during the 2007 legislative session, ranging from upping Colorado’s renewable energy output to adding power transmission lines to the state’s green-energy hotbeds.

Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Coal Creek Canyon, House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, and other Democratic leaders announced their plans to "literally embark on a new energy future for Colorado," as Madden put it, at a Wednesday news conference at the Capitol. Gov. Bill Ritter also spoke at the event, and representatives from Xcel Energy, the Rocky Mountain Farmer’s Union, wind-energy and environmental groups stood behind the podium.

"We’re going to play a leadership role in a way that in the long run makes a difference in the national energy economy and energy independence," Ritter said.

The legislators highlighted five bills, all of which remain works in process. They range from support for biofuel projects and money for school renewable-energy projects to standards for "net metering," which allows consumers to sell excess solar, wind or other power back to the utility. The two with the biggest potential impact relate to increasing the state’s energy-transmission capacity and raising the percentage of renewable energy Colorado utilities generate above the limits instituted by Amendment 37.

State Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he’s working on a bill that would require utilities to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. Amendment 37, the state renewable-energy portfolio passed by voters in 2004, requires major utilities to provide 10 percent of energy through renewable means by 2015.

Pommer said he’s still working on the bill’s specifics but it could include smaller rural electric associations, a move Ritter said he would support.

Ray Clifton, executive director of the Colorado Rural Electric Association representing 22 member cooperatives, said the association would not comment on specific bills until they could review them. But he said associations should reserve the right to opt out of any such bill, as the Intermountain Rural Electric Association and United Power, which serves parts of eastern Boulder County, did with Amendment 37.

Xcel Energy is investigating how much renewable energy could be introduced to the system without wind power’s inherent ebbs and surges harming it, spokesman Tom Henley said.

He said Xcel supports a Fitz-Gerald-sponsored bill to help energy companies build or upgrade transmission lines by charging customers an estimated 0.5 percent surcharge on monthly bills during construction. Customers generally pay for such infrastructure as part of the price of electricity when it’s eventually delivered. Overhead transmission lines cost between $750,000 and $1 million a mile, she said.

The idea, Fitz-Gerald said, is to boost transmission capacity to the eastern plains, the San Luis Valley and other renewable-energy hot spots.

Fred Grantham, general manager of the Morgan County Rural Electric Association, questioned the cost estimate, saying buried power lines cost two or three times more, and that such costs of right-of-way procurement would add to the bill.

Madden said Democrats are doing what the public has said it wants and that utilities should follow suit.

"Before Amendment 37 passed, we heard the sky would fall," Madden said. "The sky did not fall, apparently. It’s an industry that doesn’t want to change."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Todd Neff at (303) 473-1327 or nefft@dailycamera.com.