Advocating strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level supportive of a livable climate.

Author: Kevin Cross Page 1 of 3

Action Alert: Tell Governor Polis That Colorado Needs to Take Meaningful Action on the Climate Crisis

Governor Jared Polis recently threatened to veto SB21-200:  Reduce Greenhouse Gases Increase Environmental Justice, which would require the Colorado Air Quality Commission to move more quickly toward putting rules in place to meet Colorado’s GHG emissions reduction goals.  Please send Polis a message telling him not to get in the way of passing this important legislation.  A sample message, contact information, and a link to a Colorado Sun article on Polis’ veto threat follow:

  1. Sample message (please personalize)

Subject: Please do not veto SB21-200

Dear Governor Polis:

I was shocked by your recent threat to veto SB21-200: Reduce Greenhouse Gases Increase Environmental Justice.”  This bill, while not perfect, would help ensure that Colorado does its part to address the climate crisis by meeting its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals for 2025 and 2030.

Your claim that the bill would give “dictatorial authority over our economy to one unelected board” rings hollow for several reasons.  First, the board you referred to, the Air Quality Control Commission, was given rulemaking authority concerning GHGs in a bill passed by the General Assembly and signed by you two years ago.  Second, commission members are appointed by you and approved by the State Senate.  And third, the rulemaking process is open to all state residents, who broadly support taking action on the climate crisis.

Achieving 26% GHG emissions reductions by 2025 and then 50% reductions by 2030 is doable, but will require a serious effort by all Coloradans.  SB21-200 will help us succeed in this task.  Please do not obstruct passage of this important legislation.

2. Contact information: To send a message to Governor Polis, use the contact form available on his website here: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/share-comments.

3. For more background on the Governor’s veto threat, see this Colorado Sun article: https://coloradosun.com/2021/04/28/senate-bill-200-jared-polis-veto-threat/.

Coal Burning Not the Right Path to Secure Pueblo’s Future

Published in the Pueblo Chieftain on April 23rd, 2021

Let me be clear. I stand in strong support of the Pueblo community and the bright future that I believe you are on track for.

It is highly unlikely, however, that attempting to burn coal at Pueblo Unit 3 (a.k.a. “Comanche 3”) for another 19 years will be a successful strategy.

In short, the US coal industry is in structural decline and Xcel or anyone else who suggests that coal will just “fall out of the sky” until 2040 is not paying attention.

Knowledge is power. Facts matter. Here are a few facts to consider.

First of all, there is no indication that the Comanche people (the Nermernuh or Nʉmʉnʉʉ) were consulted or would want a coal plant named after them, so I will refer to the plant as Pueblo Unit 3.

The large surface mines in Wyoming that provide coal to the Pueblo plants, including Pueblo Unit 3, are playing out and are quickly becoming defined by their large reclamation obligations rather than by the value of the remaining coal.

For many years the Pueblo coal plants were supplied by the Belle Ayr mine in the Powder River Basin (PRB) south of Gillette in northeast Wyoming. The Belle Ayr mine is now largely depleted and has changed hands at least four times in this century. The last two times the Belle Ayr mine changed hands, the seller paid the buyer to take the mine. Yes — the seller paid the buyer – because the buyer was, in theory, assuming the very large reclamation obligations for the mine.

Recently, Xcel has turned to the Black Thunder mine in Wyoming for much of the coal used in Pueblo. The Black Thunder mine is also being rapidly depleted. Moreover, the owner of the Black Thunder mine, Arch Resources, has said they want to get out of mining coal in Wyoming. Consequently, the Black Thunder coal mine is not likely to be a reliable source for the Pueblo coal plants either.

There are other coal mines in the Powder River Basin but they all face challenging geology and a troubled financial future. Mines in other areas of the United States are also playing out and are generally not profitable as witnessed by the flood of bankruptcies that have engulfed the US coal industry in recent years.

In short, advocating for burning coal to secure Pueblo’s future and provide tax revenues for the next 19 years is not a strategy that is likely to work due to coal supply issues — independent of all the moral and environmental reasons to stop burning coal as quickly as we can.

I don’t favor a coal-dependent strategy for Pueblo, but I stand in strong support of Pueblo receiving transition funding from Xcel. There are many ways this could be done.

As one example, Xcel in Colorado (Public Service Company of Colorado) reported $588 million in after-tax net income in 2020. If Xcel were to pay the approximately $17 million in property taxes that Pueblo is receiving from Pueblo Unit 3, they could still have over $570 million in profit left over. That is way more than adequate!

A scheme could be worked out to phase out transition payments over the next 10-20 years, including reducing payments when Pueblo receives property taxes from new solar developments while Pueblo learns to budget for the post-coal era.

Solar developers are clamoring to build solar projects in the Pueblo area (ask Xcel to see “JFH-5 in 21A-0096E” to see a map). Pueblo has the solar resource and the transmission capacity. That is a golden combination — in all senses of the word!

Clearly there are ways to help Pueblo through the transition that don’t require advocating to burn coal for another 19 years!

The problem with elected officials trying to protect property tax revenues by burning coal for another 19 years is that it is highly unlikely to work. Full stop. Under a coal-dependent strategy, Pueblo will be left with a much-shortened time frame to plan and budget for the post-fossil fuel era.

We’ve seen the effects of blind reliance on coal in the Powder River Basin communities of Wyoming. It isn’t a pretty sight — and certainly not something I would want for the community of Pueblo which I care deeply about!

Pueblo has already positioned itself to be the renewable energy capitol of Colorado. The Pueblo community deserves tremendous credit for this accomplishment and for the great civic pride that is now apparent to anyone who visits your City! Kudos! Keep going!

Don’t drive backwards into the future — it doesn’t work well! Don’t rely on the false promise of endless supplies of coal. They won’t show up. Negotiate with Xcel from a strong base of knowledge. Keep looking to the sun and wind and 21st century solutions for your community.

Pueblo’s future is bright indeed as long as you keep looking forward. I believe all of Colorado is cheering you on!

Leslie Glustrom is a Senior Advisor to Clean Energy Action which is based in Boulder and which works throughout Colorado and the US to accelerate the transition to the post-fossil fuel world.

PERA Should Divest from Fossil Fuels for the Climate as well as for Better Returns

Published in the Boulder Weekly on April 22nd, 2021

Colorado legislators and Colorado’s state pension fund — Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) — should be paying close attention to the fact that a bill, HB21-1246 PERA Public Employees’ Retirement Association Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies, didn’t move forward in committee at the state legislature on April 19. To not divest from fossil fuels not only fails to take bold action to address the climate crisis but also fails beneficiaries in choosing to ignore the mounting evidence that funds that have divested are outperforming those that have not.

It is vital that Colorado continue to lead the fight against climate change in every way possible. It is our moral imperative to do so as climate change is a real and serious threat to the health, welfare and prosperity of all Coloradans, all U.S residents, and all people on the planet.

Maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel energy production will unquestionably lead to a self-created catastrophe. Therefore the State of Colorado has an ethical responsibility to take steps to avert this disastrous result. Attempting to profit from investments in companies whose profits depend almost exclusively on the continuation of practices that cause climate breakdown (and adding insult to injury, losing money on those investments) is unacceptable and puts Colorado on the wrong side of history.

Colorado has codified into law HB19-1261, Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution, with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 26% by 2025, at least 50% by 2030 and at least 90% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Continuing to invest our public funds and pensions in fossil fuels does not serve us in achieving these goals.
The fossil fuel sector continues to struggle, with profits dropping, cash flow down, long-term debt loads rising and growth opportunities limited. A 2021 report by BlackRock examined hundreds of divestment actions of funds worldwide and concluded that portfolios experienced no negative financial impacts as a result of divesting from fossil fuels. In fact, they found evidence of improvement in returns for those funds.

The fossil fuel industry is suffering a prolonged downward trend, facing increased climate-related financial risk, and mounting concerns over the growing climate crisis. The number of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages from the biggest contributors to climate change is growing. All of this significantly impacts the value of oil and gas companies and investment returns for PERA.

PERA should be actively working to mitigate climate-related financial risk, taking into account that at least two-thirds of fossil fuel reserves will not be monetized if we are to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, which we must do in order to avert the worst climate impacts. According to the International Energy Agency, stranded asset estimates range from $304 billion to $100 trillion by 2035. Attempting to beat the market by holding these investments until the last possible moment is a high-risk strategy that doesn’t help our planet or PERA’s beneficiaries. As Bevis Longstreth, former SEC Commissioner, has stated: “It is entirely plausible, even predictable, that continuing to hold equities in fossil fuel companies will be ruled negligence.”

Legislators should take responsibility since PERA is currently not doing so. Our public money should not be invested in companies that are adversely impacting our collective health and further exacerbating the climate crisis.

Deborah McNamara is the campaign director for 350 Colorado. Kevin Cross is a spokesperson for the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate.

Action Alert: Write to House Energy and Environment Committee in Support of Community Choice Electricity

Please submit written testimony to members of the House Energy and Environment Committee in support of HB21-1269: PUC Study of Community Choice Energy before it is heard in committee on Thursday, April 29th. A sample letter, committee member contact information, and a fact sheet on the bill follow:

  1. Sample Letter (please personalize)

Subject:  Please vote ‘yes’ on HB21-1269 (PUC Study of Community Choice Energy)

Dear <Committee Member>,

I am writing to urge your ‘yes’ vote on HB21-1269, “PUC Study of Community Choice Energy,” when it is heard in Committee on April 29.

This bill would authorize a PUC investigation of a promising energy policy that would allow communities to choose their wholesale electricity supplier, while the utility continues to own and operate its distribution system and deliver electricity.  

Communities have their own local energy goals and priorities, and they deserve an opportunity to learn whether CCE might offer them a path to achieve their energy goals, whether those goals involve:

  • procuring cleaner energy faster,
  • lower electricity rates,
  • locally-relevant energy programs,
  • local energy generation, or
  • local economic development and jobs.

This bill does not authorize CCE.  It is only a study bill and does not change the status quo.  Communities deserve an opportunity to learn more about this promising energy option.

Please vote ‘yes’ on HB21-1269.  Thank you!

2. Members of the House Energy and Environment Committee are:

alex.valdez.house@state.co.us

edie.hooton.house@state.co.us

tracey.bernett.house@state.co.us

meg.froelich.house@state.co.us

dominique.jackson.house@state.co.us

andres.pico.house@state.co.us

emily.sirota.house@state.co.us

matt.soper.house@state.co.us

brianna.titone.house@state.co.us

tonya.van.beber.house@state.co.us

mike.weissman.house@state.co.us

perry.will.house@state.co.us

dan.woog.house@state.co.us

3. Fact sheet on the bill for download:

House Finance Committee Rejects PERA’s Divestment from Fossil Fuels

News released dated April 20th, 2021

COLORADO — On April 19th Colorado’s House Finance Committee heard HB21-1246 PERA Public Employees’ Retirement Association Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies, which would have required Colorado’s state pension fund (Public Employees Retirement Association) to divest from fossil fuel companies. Proponents of the bill argued that to not divest from fossil fuels not only fails to take bold action to address the climate crisis but also fails beneficiaries in choosing to ignore the mounting evidence that divested funds are outperforming those that have not. Despite strong arguments in favor and a hearing that lasted over three hours in duration, the bill did not move forward.

A 2021 report by BlackRock examined hundreds of divestment actions of funds worldwide and concluded that portfolios experienced no negative financial impacts as a result of divesting from fossil fuels. In fact, they found evidence of improvement in returns for those funds.

PERA maintained that decisions on investments are best decided by the PERA Board of Trustees and the PERA investment team, yet has released a Statement on Divestment citing that PERA will not make decisions on divestment unless told to do so by the Colorado General Assembly. 

“Current market factors and recent support for divestment actions by the world’s largest and most prestigious investment advisor (BlackRock) have shed new light on these concerns,” said Tom Sanzillo, Director of Financial Analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Taken together, the best analysis of current market forces suggests that the arguments for divestment from fossil fuels—and particularly the rationale and methods outlined in HB 1246—are powerful and compelling. They make a clear case that passage of HB 1246 is likely to improve performance, incur modest costs and offer a prudent approach to manage risks faced by the fund and its existing employees and retirees. The oil and gas sector, once the leader of the world economy, is now among the worst performers. This has been true for almost a decade, and its long-term outlook is negative.”

Colorado’s Fossil Free PERA has submitted formal appeals on the matter since at least 2019, outlining the fiduciary imperative to divest from fossil fuels and citing potential losses in returns, increased climate-related financial risk, and mounting concerns over the growing climate crisis and adverse impacts of fossil fuel investments on local communities.

“The fossil fuel industry is suffering a prolonged downward trend, facing increased climate-related financial risk, and mounting concerns over the growing climate crisis. The number of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages from the biggest contributors to climate change is growing,” says Devon Reynolds, Colorado PERA member, University of Colorado Graduate Student Employee. “All of this significantly impacts the value of oil and gas companies and investment returns for PERA.”  

Colorado’s PERA has come under scrutiny for its fossil fuel investments in Suncor and Extraction Oil and Gas, two fossil fuel companies that have a long history of dangerous pollution violations, particularly near lower-income communities and communities of color. Over 850 letters have been sent to PERA Board, Director, and staff highlighting concerns and calling for divestment. 

“Maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel energy production will unquestionably lead to a self-created catastrophe,” says Deborah McNamara, Campaign Director at 350 Colorado,  “Therefore the State of Colorado has an ethical responsibility to take steps to avert this disastrous result. Attempting to profit from investments in companies whose profits depend almost exclusively on the continuation of practices that cause climate breakdown (and adding insult to injury, losing money on those investments) is unacceptable and puts Colorado on the wrong side of history.” 

In December, New York State became the largest pension fund in the world to take comprehensive climate action, including fossil fuel divestment. The $226 billion state pension fund is reviewing and divesting from the riskiest oil and gas companies within four years and decarbonizing the entire fund by 2040. 

Over 1,110 institutions have now committed to policies black-listing some combination of coal, oil, and gas investments due to mounting concern over climate and litigation risk and adverse public health impacts associated with fossil fuel investments. These include sovereign wealth funds, banks, global asset managers and insurance companies, cities, pension funds, health care organizations, universities, faith groups, foundations, and the country of Ireland. Furthermore, the UN Secretary-General has advised pension funds to divest from fossil fuels. Over 145 pension funds have committed to divestment globally, and that number is growing each year. 

###

Support HB21-1246: PERA Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies

The CCLC voted unanimously to support HB21-1246 PERA Public Employees’ Retirement Association Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies. It will be heard first by the House Finance Committee on Monday, 4/19. Please take one or more of the following actions to support passage of this bill as soon as possible.

  1. Please write to members of the House Finance Committee to express your support for this legislation. Email addresses and suggested talking points are provided below. We have also created a brief PERA Written Testimony Toolkit or your reference to make it as easy as possible to submit feedback. You can submit feedback via email or via the General Assembly portal (link in toolkit). It would be helpful to have testimony particularly from PERA members, as well as from reps of organizations.
  2. Write an op-ed or letter to the editor on this issue. Steps and sample language and letters found here – or draw from the talking points provided below.
  3. Send a note of thanks to the bill sponsors: repemilysirota@gmail.com, sonya.jaquez.lewis.senate@state.co.us

House Finance Committee Members:

Shannon.bird.house@state.co.us, adrienne.benavidez.house@state.co.us, marc.snyder.house@state.co.us, matt@matthewgray.us, mary.bradfield.house@state.co.us, janice.rich.house@state.co.us, lindsey.daugherty.house@state.co.us, shane.sandridge.house@state.co.us, cathy.kipp.house@state.co.us, Stephanie.Luck.house@state.co.us, serena.gonzales-gutierrez.house@state.co.us

Suggested General Talking Points: *Please also refer to the PERA Written Testimony Toolkit 

  • The fossil fuel sector continues to struggle, with profits dropping, cash flow down, long-term debt loads rising and growth opportunities limited. Investment risks continue to mount, and the number of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages from the biggest contributors to climate change is growing. All of this significantly impacts the value of oil and gas companies and investment returns for the fund. 
  • A recent report by BlackRock, the world’s largest investment house, shows that those who have divested from fossil fuels have profited financially. After examining “divestment actions by hundreds of funds worldwide,” the BlackRock analysts concluded that the portfolios “experienced no negative financial impacts from divesting from fossil fuels. In fact, they found evidence of modest improvement in fund return.
  • Bankruptcy filings in the US Oil and Gas sector hit $297 billion in cumulative debt in 2020, and Colorado ranks the fifth highest state in the US for the number of oil and gas bankruptcies since 2015. Fossil fuels are a dying industry, and they are killing our planet.
  • The fossil fuel industry is in a continued downward trend, facing increased climate-related financial risk, and mounting concerns over the growing climate crisis. 
  • PERA continues to invest Coloradans’ public money in problematic fossil fuel companies such as Suncor and Extraction Oil and Gas, both under scrutiny for harming local communities through dangerous pollution violations, particularly near lower-income communities and communities of color. 
  • Our public money should not be invested in companies that are adversely impacting our public health and safety. 

35 Prominent Environmental Groups Submit Joint Letter to APCD Re: 2021 GHG Inventory

Released on March 30th, 2021

DENVER — On Monday, 350 Colorado and the Colorado Sierra Club along with the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate, EcoCycle, Clean Energy Action, Resilient Denver and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council submitted a joint comment to Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) on the 2021 Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. The joint comment applauds the APCD for its work in creating the 2021 Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, while highlighting several critical opportunities to strengthen this foundational climate document.

“The Draft 2021 GHG Inventory is a strong start, but misses several critical opportunities to provide policymakers and the general public with more information,” said 350 Colorado Climate Policy Analyst Duncan Gilchrist.

Organizations and technical experts from across the state echoed a concern of the APCD itself, pointing out that the Inventory Report relies heavily on estimates in place of concrete, Colorado-specific data. 

“Whether the issues are large, such as the stunning uncertainties in leakage from natural gas extraction and distribution, or local such as methane emissions from municipal waste, it is critical for Colorado to capture data on every potential carbon source, and every potential carbon sink. And it is our job as citizens to help Colorado do that well,” said President of Heron Scientific Seth Miller who helped lead the technical analysis of the draft inventory.

Further, signatories of the joint comment submitted to APCD emphasized that the Inventory Report does not accurately reflect the full climate footprint of Colorado’s oil and gas industry. The draft inventory excludes emissions data from our state’s exported, combusted oil and gas.

 “As we work to cut carbon pollution in Colorado, we must recognize the impact that fossil fuels extracted here but transported and burned outside Colorado have on the climate. The state’s greenhouse gas inventory should reflect those emissions so we can meaningfully take action on climate,” said Sierra Club of Colorado Deputy Director Emily Gedeon. 

Further signatories requested an explanation as to why the current Inventory Report assumes that oil and gas emissions will dramatically decrease over the next decade, while simultaneously assuming production will dramatically increase.

The joint comment also raises concern that in place of a ‘business as usual’ emissions scenario, the Draft Inventory simply uses Colorado’s aspirational emissions reduction targets as future projected emissions. Given that our state has yet to adopt policies that would achieve emissions cuts at necessary speed and scale, presenting aspirational emissions reductions as our current trajectory gives policymakers and the public at large the impressions that we are on track to meet our targets. Multiple ‘emissions gap’ analyses by Colorado climate groups indicate that this is not the case.

Groups expressed appreciation to Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division for their important work on this front and hope that the final draft will incorporate the recommendations that were made. 

If you are interested in reviewing the 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory you can do so here. If you are interested in reviewing the Joint Comment, you can do so here

###

Quote deck:

“As we highlight in this report, national surveys show that 5% of oil and gas extraction operations release 50% of the sector’s methane emissions. Colorado needs to do more than simply estimate what ’typical’ oil and gas operators emit; we must monitor every site if we are to establish an accurate accounting of our state’s contribution to climate change.”

  • Seth Miller, President, Heron Scientific 

“As Jews and Christians celebrate Passover and Easter, we recount sacred stories of loss, resistance to a life-destroying systems, and eventual freedom for human communities and Creation. Improving Colorado’s GHG Inventory procedures is challenging. Yet, accurately counting the loss—all the harmful GHG emitted—empowers Colorado to transition to more life-giving, sustainable ways of living that frees future generations from the worst ravages of climate change.”

CCLC Positions on Colorado General Assembly Bills

Updated on May 10th, 2021

The CCLC has taken positions on the following 2021 Colorado General Assembly bills:

HB21-1189 | Regulate Air Toxics | Concerning additional public health protections in relation to the emission of air toxics. SPONSORS: Reps Benavidez/Valdez, Sens Gonzales/Moreno | SUMMARY:  The bill expands upon the requirements of HB20-1265 as applicable to covered facilities by: Directing the air quality control commission to consider, at least every 5 years, adding new types of covered air toxics and adjusting the applicable emission thresholds; Requiring that a covered facility’s outreach to communities near the covered facility, in particular disproportionately impacted communities, be conducted in the 2 most prevalent languages spoken in the communities; Requiring covered facilities to conduct fenceline monitoring of covered air toxics and to publicly report the results of the monitoring; and Requiring covered facilities to take corrective action within 15 days after a violation occurs. The bill also requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment to conduct community-based monitoring of covered air toxics in areas near covered facilities and to publicly report the results. | Fiscal note here.

CCLC Position: SUPPORT

Status: Passed E&E Amended, Hearing House Finance 05/10 1:30p

HB21-1238 | Public Utilities Commission Modernize Gas Utility Demand-side Management Standards | Concerning the modernization of gas energy efficiency programs. SPONSORS: Rep Bernett/Sen Hansen SUMMARY: The bill updates the methods used to determine the cost-effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) programs of public utilities selling natural gas at retail, including requiring that the calculation of future benefits reflects the avoided costs to ratepayers resulting from reduced consumption of natural gas. The bill specifies that the calculation must be based on reliable estimates and published scientific data and must include methane emissions. In addition, the bill adds savings targets and budget control mechanisms to the approval process for gas DSM programs, paralleling the existing process that applies to electric DSM programs. See 350Colorado Fact Sheet and CRES Policy doc here. Additional bill text (ALL CAPS is new text in statute): “Demand-side management programs” or “DSM programs” means ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS OR COMBINATION OF PROGRAMS:

(a) Energy efficiency, INCLUDING WEATHERIZATION AND INSULATION;

(b) Conservation;

(c) Load management;

(d) BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION, AS DEFINED IN SECTION

40-3.2-106 (6)(a); and

(e) Demand response programs. or any combination of these

programs.

(II) GAS DSM PROGRAM PLANS MAY BE COMBINED WITH ELECTRIC DSM PROGRAM PLANS, BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PLANS, OR OTHER PLANS THAT REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS AND ONE OR MORE OF THE GAS DSM PROGRAMS OR MEASURES, REPRESENTING AN AGGREGATE TOTAL OF AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF OVERALL RESIDENTIAL GAS DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING EXPENDITURES SERVING INCOME-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS, MUST be targeted to low-income RESIDENTIAL customers and, if so, may be provided directly by the gas utility or indirectly through financial support of conservation programs for low-income households administered by the state IN NCOME-QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS…

TO MEET THE ENERGY SAVINGS TARGETS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION, GAS UTILITIES SHALL CONSIDER INCLUDING INCENTIVES FOR CUSTOMERS TO UTILIZE BEHIND-THE-METER THERMAL RENEWABLE SOURCES. THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT GAS UTILITIES FROM OFFERING PROGRAMS OR INCENTIVES THAT ENCOURAGE CUSTOMERS TO REPLACE GAS-FUELED APPLIANCES WITH EFFICIENT ELECTRIC APPLIANCES.

IN THE BASE CASE ANALYSIS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 40-1-102 (5)(b), the commission shall apply a THE SOCIAL cost of carbon dioxide AND THE SOCIAL COST OF METHANE emissions to the nonenergy benefits BENEFIT-COST CALCULATION for programs that are defined to be ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR beneficial electrification PROGRAMS OR THAT INCORPORATE BEHIND-THE-METER THERMAL RENEWABLE SOURCES…BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL USE A SOCIAL COST OF METHANE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND NINETY DOLLARS PER SHORT TON.  (This bill will have a fiscal note and GHGs emissions document and links to them will be posted as soon as they are).

CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT. Also supported by CRES, CoCO, and Sierra Club |

STATUS: Passed House, on to Senate soon

HB21-1269 | Public Utilities Commission Study Of Community Choice Energy | Concerning an investigation by the public utilities commission to evaluate the parameters of an energy policy allowing communities in Colorado that are served by an investor-owned electric utility to choose alternative wholesale electricity suppliers. SPONSORS: Reps Hooton/Kipp, Sen Donovan | SUMMARY: The bill concerns the concept of “community choice energy” (CCE), under which a community, or group of communities, may choose to purchase their electricity from a wholesale supplier other than the local investor-owned electric utility. The bill declares that CCE has the potential to enable communities to meet their renewable energy goals and to reduce their electricity rates by allowing wholesale competition and local control over the energy supplier and energy mix without changing the local utility’s current status as sole supplier of electric transmission, distribution, billing, and customer service functions. To lay the groundwork for evaluating the potential adoption of CCE in Colorado, the bill proposes an investigatory proceeding at the public utilities commission that would invite testimony and documentation from interested stakeholders, utilities, the public, invited subject-matter experts, and persons with firsthand knowledge of CCE operations, including regulators from states in which CCE has been implemented. The bill directs the commission to submit a report summarizing the investigatory proceeding to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over energy matters by December 15, 2022. | CCE Fact Sheet.

CCLC Position: Support.

Rationale: We supported this bill last year and membership (particularly Larry Milosevich) was instrumental in its drafting. We need to study whether separating supply from delivery will maximize meeting utility GHGs emissions reduction goals and apply pressure to upgrade goals across the electricity sector. Quoting from the Fact Sheet: CCE is a promising energy policy that merits serious study to see if it is indeed worth pursuing. Dozens of Colorado communities, representing more than a million people, have ambitious renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, but no practical way to achieve them. CCE offers a possible path forward for these communities, and they deserve a serious evaluation of this approach. Competition and community choice should increase efficiency and innovation in our wholesale electricity system, and thereby drive down costs. Let’s study it and figure out the details. There is little downside, much potential upside, and very low risk to studying CCE. This link provides a number of documents supplied by Sponsor Hooton to address the bill in more detail: Study Overview, Presentation, FAQ, Community Memo, and the LCS (Legislative Council Staff) Memo providing an educational overview.

STATUS: Passed House E&E amended, onto Appropriations

SB21-246 | Electric Utility Promote Beneficial Electrification | Concerning measures to encourage beneficial electrification, and, in connection therewith, directing the public utilities commission and Colorado utilities to promote compliance with current environmental and labor standards. SUMMARY: The bill directs the PUC to establish energy savings targets and approve plans under which IOUs will promote the use of energy-efficient electric equipment in place of less efficient fossil-fuel-based systems. This directive would substantially follow the model of existing demand-side management (DSM) policies established by the PUC.Section 2: “BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION” MEANS CONVERTING THE ENERGY SOURCE OF A CUSTOMER’S END USE FROM A NONELECTRIC FUEL SOURCE TO A HIGH-EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC SOURCE, OR AVOIDING THE USE OF NONELECTRIC FUEL SOURCES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION OR INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, IF THE RESULT OF THE CONVERSION OR AVOIDANCE IS TO: (a) REDUCE NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OVER THE LIFETIME OF THE CONVERSION OR AVOIDANCE; AND (b) REDUCE SOCIETAL COSTS OR PROVIDE FOR MORE EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF GRID RESOURCES. (a) “Cost-effective”, with reference to a natural gas or electric demand-side management program, A BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM, or related ANY measure RELATED TO EITHER A DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT OR BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM, Section 2 also requires that any installation, upgrade, or new construction under a beneficial electrification program must be performed either by utility employees or by qualified, Colorado-licensed contractors. Section 3 directs the PUC to apply current standards for measurement of the social cost of carbon emissions, including methane, in evaluating the cost, benefit, or net present value of utility plans and proposals for beneficial electrification. Section 4 THE COMMISSION AND IOUs SUBJECT TO COMMISSION JURISDICTION SHALL: (I) …include…THE SOCIAL COSTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE EMISSIONS, INCLUDING THE AVOIDED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE DIRECT COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUEL IN APPLIANCES OR INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT THAT IS REPLACED WITH ELECTRICITY; (II) THE AVOIDED UPSTREAM EMISSIONS OF METHANE FROM THE PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY OF FOSSIL FUEL TO THE APPLIANCE OR EQUIPMENT; AND (III) THE INCREMENTAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY; (c) BASE THE COST OF METHANE EMISSIONS ON THE MOST RECENT ASSESSMENT OF THE GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF METHANE DEVELOPED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, USING A DISCOUNT RATE OF TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OR LESS; EXCEPT THAT, BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL USE A SOCIAL COST OF METHANE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX DOLLARS PER SHORT TON … SHALL USE A DISCOUNT RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OR ANY LOWER VALUE ESTABLISHED BY THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE SUCCESSOR TO THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT. (d) INCLUDE UPSTREAM LEAKAGE OF METHANE EMISSIONS IN THE EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION, AND TRANSPORTATION OF FOSSIL GAS IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IF THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION DETERMINES AN ESTIMATE FOR UPSTREAM METHANE LEAKAGE. (4) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOW AN ELECTRIC UTILITY TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO ITS CUSTOMERS TO REPLACE GAS APPLIANCES WITH HIGH-EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC APPLIANCES. |

CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT

STATUS: on Senate Floor this week

SB21-200 | Reduce Greenhouse Gases Increase Environmental Justice | Concerning measures to further environmental protections, and, in connection therewith, adopting measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and adopting protections for disproportionately impacted communities. SPONSORS: Sens Winter/Moreno, Rep Jackson | SUMMARY: Current law requires the air quality control commission (AQCC) to adopt rules that will result in the statewide reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2050, as compared to 2005 emissions. Section 2 of the bill supplements these requirements by directing the AQCC to: Consider the social cost of GHG emissions; Require GHG reductions on a linear or more stringent path; and Finalize its implementing rules by March 1, 2022, including specific net emission weight limits for various emission sectors, subject to modification by the AQCC, including through the use of a multi-sector program; Directing each wholesale generation and transmission electric cooperative to file with the public utilities commission a responsible energy plan that will achieve at least an 80% GHG reduction by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels and specifying that if a plan is not filed, the cooperative must achieve at least a 90% GHG reduction by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels; and directing each retail, wholesale, and municipal electric utility and cooperative electric association to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 95% between 2035 and 2040 and by 100% by 2040. Section 3 adds GHG to the definition of “regulated pollutant”, prohibits the AQCC from excluding GHG emissions from the requirement to pay annual emission fees that are based on emissions of regulated pollutants, gives the AQCC rule-making authority to set the GHG annual emission fee, and authorizes the use of these fees for outreach to and engagement of disproportionately impacted communities. Section 4 requires the AQCC’s GHG reporting rules to establish an assumed emission rate representing the average regional fossil fuel generation emission rate for electricity generated by a renewable energy resource for which the associated renewable energy credit is not retired in the year generated. Section 5 creates an environmental justice ombudsperson position and an environmental justice advisory board in the department of public health and environment. The ombudsperson and the advisory board will work collaboratively to promote environmental justice in Colorado. Sections 2 and 5 specify processes for soliciting and facilitating input from disproportionately impacted communities regarding proposed AQCC rule changes and departmental decision-making.

CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT

Rationale:  This is one of the hallmark bills of the session, and is designed to address the many shortcomings that environmental and community groups have been expressing about progress (or lack thereof) on HB1261.  It FINALLY includes GHGs as a specific pollutant that must be permitted, fee’d and emission controlled (not just CO2, CH4, etc). Further, at only 6.5 FTE (Full-Time Employees) our Climate Change unit is severely hampered (particularly in comparison to California, whose lead we often follow, which has more than 200 FTE working on this issue) and with staff juggling an intense schedule of rulemakings over the next couple of years, it’s important to have staffing to work on enforcing rules, not just writing them, which this bill will provide. It’s also designed to (quoting Senator Winter) address all 4 pillars of the climate crisis: electricity via both codifying ‘promises’ by utilities to reduce GHGs, and by requiring more aggressive emissions reductions.  It addresses O&G emissions reductions by defining maximum emissions of 13MMT by 2025 and 8MMT CO2e by 2030, which largely prevents the planned expansion of O&G production by 30% over the next 10 years. It addresses buildings (by requiring built environment rulemakings on home heating and GHGs), transportation (via this summer’s planned AQCC rulemaking) and Environmental Justice, by helping the public navigate the system and participate in the Rulemaking process by providing them an ombudsman, which our various groups have been stressing the need for since 1261/181 were passed. And it devotes some money to addressing the needs of our DI communities as they participate in the process, by providing staff and funding for things such as after-hours meetings located within DI Communities, providing multi-lingual and child-care services, snacks and transportation, and potential compensation for speakers/panelists from the community to help, etc.  Strenuously supported by Sierra Club and CoCO, all hands on deck requested by sponsor Winter.  Fact sheet here. Sierra Club benefits here.

STATUS: Passed Senate T&E Amended, passed Finance, on to Senate Appropriations; 🚨 extensive outreach planned to persuade Polis not to veto—COME TO THE WEST LAWN OF THE CAPITOL AT NOON ON THURSDAY 5/13!—Also important to contact your Senator NOW for a YES vote Here’s the Fiscal Noteit requests $4M and adds 31 FTE.

SB21-264 | Adopt Programs Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities | Concerning the adoption of programs by gas utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SPONSORS: Sens Hansen/Coram (bi-partisan) SUMMARY: Section 1 of the bill defines a “gas distribution utility” (GDU) as a gas public utility with more than 90,000 retail customers. The bill requires each GDU to file a clean heat plan (plan) with the public utilities commission (PUC). A plan must demonstrate how the GDU will use clean heat resources to meet clean heat targets (targets) established in the bill. The targets are a 5% reduction below 2015 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels by 2025 and 20% below 2015 GHG emission levels by 2030. Section 1 makes a legislative finding that meeting these targets will facilitate the electric generating utility sector’s compliance with the state’s GHG emission reduction goals by reducing GDUs’ carbon dioxide and methane emissions. A plan may use qualified offsets as one method to meet the targets. A GDU that uses only clean heat resources in its plan to meet the targets is not subject to any other GHG emission reduction requirements during the 5-year period covered by the plan. If a GDU does not file a plan, the air quality control commission (AQCC) will adopt rules to require the GDU to meet a 30% GHG emission reduction by 2035 when compared to 2015 levels. The PUC will initiate a rule-making proceeding by August 1, 2021, to adopt rules that establish a cost cap for each GDU’s compliance with its plan. The cost cap is 2% of gas bills for all of a GDU’s full-service customers. A plan that costs equal to or less than the cost cap and uses clean heat resources to the maximum practicable extent need not meet the targets. A plan that uses only clean heat resources and meets the targets need not comply with the cost cap. The PUC is directed to approve a plan if the PUC finds that doing so is in the public interest. A municipal GDU must file a plan that demonstrates a 20% GHG emission reduction by 2030 compared with 2015 levels. Small GDUs may file a plan, which is subject to the cost cap and must contain its own targets. Section 2 requires the AQCC to initiate a rule-making proceeding by January 1, 2022, to define qualified offsets that plans may use to meet a target. The AQCC will start another rule-making proceeding by January 1, 2029, to determine mass-based GHG emission reduction goals for plans for 2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050.Section 3 gives the oil and gas conservation commission authority over class VI injection wells used for sequestration of GHG, including through the issuance of permits.

CCLC Position: We supported an earlier version of this bill, SB21-161

STATUS: Assigned to Senate Transportation and Environment, hearing date TBD

SB21-108 | PUC Gas Utility Safety Inspection Authority | Concerning gas pipeline safety, and, in connection therewith, increasing and clarifying the rule-making and enforcement authority of the public utilities commission. SPONSORS: Sen Story

CCLC POSITION: ENDORSE

Status: Passed Senate Appropriations, onto Senate Floor

HB21-1246 PERA Public Employees’ Retirement Association Divestment From Fossil Fuel Companies | Concerning divestment action by the public employees’ retirement association against companies financially involved with fossil fuel companies. SPONSORS: Rep Sirota/Sen Jaquez-Lewis SUMMARY: Beginning one year after the effective date of the bill, the board is required to: Divest the funds managed by PERA (fund) of any stocks, securities, equities, assets, or other obligations of companies on the exclusion list in which any money or assets of the fund are directly invested; and cease new direct investments of any money or assets of the fund in any stocks, securities, or other obligations of any company that is a fossil fuel company. The board is required to complete divestment from fossil fuel companies by a specified date. Beginning one year after the effective date of the bill, the board is required to endeavor to ensure that no money or assets of the fund are invested in an indirect investment vehicle unless the board is satisfied that such indirect investment vehicle is unlikely to have in excess of 2% of its assets directly or indirectly invested in fossil fuel companies.

CCLC POSITION: SUPPORT

Rationale: CCLC has endorsed this position previously, and has supported 350Colorado in its drafting.  We cannot end fossil fuels extraction without starving it of the funds it needs to continue its Ponzi scheme. Public employees do not deserve to have their retirement benefits suffer from poor investment in a dying industry. 350Colorado Fact Sheet here. For a glimpse at the problem, see hereSTATUS: Indefinitely postponed in House Finance Hearing on 04/19, back next year.

SB21-114 – Minimum Setback New Schools From Existing Oil And Gas

Concerning the establishment of a minimum setback requirement from existing oil and gas facilities for new public school building sites. SPONSORS: Sen Kirkmeyer |

CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE

Rationale: Designed to thwart state regulations by enshrining local control for O&G-heavy counties/cities.  Intended to allow building new schools nearer than 2,000’ from existing wells, with a specific exception for fewer feet if the well has been plugged. A plugged well is not a safe well, needless to say. We fought long and hard to establish minimum setbacks from homes/schools just last year, and this bill attempts to allow local ordnance to supersede the state.  The bill was amended in committee to ensure a minimum of 2000’ setback from wells for any newly constructed public school and to remove P&A’d wells from the exemptions.!

Status: Failed on Senate Floor

SB21-125 | Alternate Proposals Air Quality Control Rulemaking | Concerning the submission of alternate proposals to rules being considered by the air quality control commission. SPOMSORS: Cooke |

CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE.

Rationale: Intended to stifle or prevent public participation. Requires hiring consultants and legal staff, hold public meetings and provide thorough economic impact analysis just to offer an alternate proposal to a rule. Written by dirty energy lawyers to prevent CCLC member orgs from offering improved approaches to a rule or rules. This is a ‘message’ bill designed to pit O&G and RE Developers against local land use/zoning and against public health & safety. Status: Status: Failed in Senate Transportation and Energy Committee.

SB21-163 | Cost-benefit Analysis For Rules Additional Requirements | Concerning additional requirements for a cost-benefit analysis performed in connection with a state agency’s adoption of rules. | SPONSORS: Rankin | SUMMARY: (In part) If the executive director determines that the proposed rule would likely have materially disparate effects on different regions of the state, the agency must include in the cost-benefit analysis a determination of the anticipated benefits, costs, and adverse effects of the proposed rule on different regions of the state; If the executive director determines that the proposed rule would have a negative economic or noneconomic impact, the executive director shall inform the public by either making a public presentation about the negative impact and any counterbalancing positive impact at the rule-making hearing or publishing a written report summarizing the impacts; The executive director, upon request of any party to the rule-making or member of the general assembly or upon the executive director’s own motion, may require an agency to update a cost-benefit analysis to reflect material changes made to the proposed or adopted rule either before, during, or after the rule-making hearing; A member of the general assembly, no earlier than one year after a rule has been adopted, may request that the adopting agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis regarding the rule’s implementation; more…

CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE

Rationale: The requirement to note negative impacts on Rest-of-State is a poison pill for statewide emissions reductions goals.  This bill applies to PUC, CDPHE, and COGCC which hamstrings all of our regulatory bodies.  It would be a better bill if it also had a requirement for benefits such as applying a social cost of carbon and/or public health consequences but it doesn’t—just negative impacts. It’s designed to prevent our ability to implement the requirements of 1261 by attempted to segregate the Front Range from the rest of the state.  Status: Failed in Committee.

HB21-1034 | Consumer Right To Use Natural Gas Or Propane | Concerning a guarantee of customer choice in the use of gaseous fuels to produce thermal energy. SPONSORS: Rep. D. Woog |

CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE

Rationale: The bill invalidates any statute or local ordnance that prohibits the installation in a new or existing home or business any system or appliance that uses natural gas or propane for cooking, hot water, space heating, or electrical generation, thus forestalling beneficial electrification and local land use/development enacted by a municipality. The language is vague enough that a developer seeking a no-gas subdivision could be required by a buyer to install gas. This inherently requires housing expansion to plan for/install/maintain gas infrastructure to protect the consumer’s right to choose gas. Status: FAILED in Committee 7-5 |

HB21-1205 | Electric Vehicle Road Usage Equalization Fee | Concerning a road usage equalization fee for plug-in electric motor vehicles. | SPONSORS: Rep Pico | SUMMARY: The bill requires a road usage equalization fee (equalization fee) to be imposed at the time of annual registration on each plug-in electric motor vehicle that is required to be registered in the state. The fee is set in an amount that is estimated to achieve parity between the aggregate amount of motor vehicle registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes paid per vehicle by owners of plug-in electric motor vehicles and vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or other special fuels and is annually adjusted for inflation.

 CCLC POSITION: OPPOSE

Rationale: This bill attempts to preempt the forthcoming transportation bill being readied by Senator Faith Winter, which will increase fees for both ICE vehicles and EVs. This bill forms a working group of CDOT/DOR people which is tasked to report back in 2022.  The proceeds are for existing road maintenance only. This bill attempts to define parity in what ICE users pay for gas taxes which disincentives new EV purchases, and entirely ignores the fees paid to charge EVs.  This is a punitive bill that targets only EVs, rather than targeting the transportation sector as a whole. This bill actually penalized EV buyers, because if it passes they will have to pay for both charging fees AND gas taxes, which will inhibit the HB1261 goal of 940,000 EVs in CO by 2030.  Status: Failed in committee.

PARTICIPATION: All hearing participation can be remote, using the free app WebEx – https://cart.webex.com/sign-up-webex.  Create an account, as you would with Zoom, the download the app to your computer and/or download it for your phone. If you want to testify on any bill, here’s the link to register:  https://www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2021A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp For additional information on testifying before a committee of the Colorado General Assembly, please read the memorandum found here. Also, the draft policies regarding remote testimony for the 2021 Regular Session may be found here

Write to your State Senators to urge them to oppose SB21-125: Alternate Proposals Air Quality Control Rulemaking!

SB21-125 | Alternate Proposals Air Quality Control Rulemaking is intended to prevent public participation in the rulemaking process. The bill was heard on 3/9 by the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee, and there was a surprising amount of legislative support—notably by Rachel Zenzinger, the swing vote on the committee. Despite the fact that Colorado Communities for Climate Action, Colorado Municipal League, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate, and even the Air Pollution Control Division itself testified in opposition and only two people on behalf of oil and gas testified in support, the bill is laid over for further amendments because the committee seems to think the bill has value. We must convince them it does not (see our rationale for opposing below) and its passage will thwart the planned rulemaking by the Air Quality Control Commissions/Air Pollution Control Division to devise new procedures for public participation in rulemakings. Please write the committee members and write your own state senators and ask them to oppose this bill! Committee member emails are as follows:

Chair, Faith Winter: faith.winter.senate@state.co.us

Vice Chair, Brittany Petterson: brittany.pettersen.senate@state.co.us 

Kerry Donovan: kerry.donovan.senate@state.co.us 

Rachel Zenzinger: senatorrachelz@gmail.com 

Don Coram: don.coram.senate@state.co.us 

Dennis Hisey: dennis.hisey.senate@state.co.us 

Ray Scott: ray.scott.senate@state.co.us

To find your State Senator’s e-address, visit http://leg.colorado.gov/legislators.

CCLC Rationale for Opposing: Intended to stifle or prevent public participation. Requires hiring consultants and legal staff, hold public meetings and provide thorough economic impact analysis just to offer an alternate proposal to a rule. Written by dirty energy lawyers to prevent CCLC member orgs from offering improved approaches to a rule or rules. This is a ‘message’ bill designed to pit O&G and RE Developers against local land use/zoning and against public health & safety.

Open Letter to our Congressional Delegation: We Need a Green New Deal!

Letter sent on January 22nd, 2021

Dear Members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation:

When the Green New Deal Resolution (H. Res. 109 and S. Res. 59) was first introduced in Congress in early 2019, the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate voted wholeheartedly to endorse it.  We communicated that position to you in a letter dated June 24th, 2019.

The impacts of the climate crisis have continued to accumulate over the past year and half, from the burned forests and air pollution caused by the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires here in Colorado, to the devastation resulting from the North Atlantic’s most active hurricane season ever in the Gulf States, Mexico, and Central America.  This crisis may be moving more slowly than the COVID-19 pandemic, but the threat it poses to our well-being, our economy, the environment, and indeed human civilization itself is far larger over the coming decade.

We are heartened by the incoming administration’s climate team hires and several cabinet nominations, and by changes in the House and Senate that will make it possible to begin taking serious steps toward addressing the climate crisis at the scale required.  We urge you to support legislation in the 117th Congress that will slash our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, begin to heal the natural world, and put people back to work at livable wages.  A Green New Deal is what’s needed.  Please join together with your colleagues and get to work on it.

Sincerely,

COLORADO COALITION FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE

Micah Parkin (350 Colorado)

Leslie Glustrom (Clean Energy Action)

Jan Rose (Climate Reality Project Denver-Boulder Chapter)

Kevin Cross (Fort Collins Sustainability Group)

Theron Makley (Wind and Solar Denver)

Ph. 970-484-3141     https://colivableclimate.org

The Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate (CCLC) is comprised of 31 organizations that collectively develop and advocate strategies for reducing Colorado’s greenhouse gas emissions to levels supportive of a livable climate.

Page 1 of 3

Powered by wordpress.org

-->