Author: Kevin Cross Page 1 of 6

Published in the Denver Post on September 29th, 2023

As a Colorado resident, I am proud that our state has strong laws for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and environmental justice, but these laws mean nothing when regulations are not strong enough to put them into action. The rules the Air Quality Control Commission passed on Friday in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Management in Manufacturing Phase 2 rulemaking are an egregious example of this problem.

Impacted communities have been waiting too long for real reductions of pollution and other cumulative impacts from industry. Climate change likewise needs immediate action. The Environmental Justice (EJ) Act of 2021 brings those issues together, but the rule passed by the Commission falls short of meeting its requirements.

The rule passed by the Commission, far from achieving near-term reductions, delays reduction requirements until 2030, and emissions will actually increase in the near term. This means far more greenhouse gases will be emitted cumulatively than if reductions were required to begin now and steadily decrease until 2030.  The associated toxic pollution in disproportionately impacted communities near 14 of the 18 regulated facilities will also be allowed to continue unabated until the reduction requirements in 2030.

How does waiting until 2030 for required emissions reductions prioritize impacted communities and how does this help Colorado do its part in limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – the stated intent of the law? The rule also creates much uncertainty about pollution reduction in disproportionately impacted communities and certainly doesn’t prioritize them; there are many loopholes that allow polluters to get out of reducing pollution at their factories.

The public spoke out en masse against the proposed rule. Hundreds of people asked for better, stronger rules. Multiple environmental and environmental justice groups legally became “parties” to the rulemaking to oppose the proposed rule, and others submitted oral and written public comment. The Environmental Defense Fund presented an alternate proposal — developed and backed up by respected experts – that would have achieved greenhouse gas reductions 18 times greater than the rule passed by the Commission..

The Commission could have selected the alternate proposal submitted by the Environmental Defense Fund, or they could have directed the division to write new, better rules (as two commissioners suggested) — but instead most voted to place industry profits over the health of the people and the urgency of the climate crisis.

Some of the commissioners only seemed to care about greenhouse gas reductions when a show of concern could support weaker rules (suggesting that requiring industry to reduce emissions in Colorado would drive business elsewhere and lead to more emissions out of state). During deliberations, one of the commissioners expressed doubt that decreasing greenhouse gases was even the intent of the EJ Act (although this intent is clearly stated in the legislative declaration), and others implied that since industrial emissions are a small percentage of total statewide emissions, perhaps reducing them doesn’t matter. The amount of time spent discussing what industry needed and wanted dwarfed any conversation about the real impacts to people’s health and the serious threat to our climate caused by not achieving near-term reductions.

Several of the commissioners thanked and praised the parties to the rulemaking, saying what wonderful industries we have in Colorado and how much they learned about industrial processes. As they referenced industry in glowing terms while saying nothing about any of the other parties, it appeared that in their minds, environmental groups were not even parties, as though invisible. The relationship that exists between this commission–which is supposed to be protecting public health and the environment—and environmental groups is so far from the friendly camaraderie shown to industry it is darkly comical.

In the 3-day hearing, lighthearted banter among the commissioners, division and some parties was a surreal contrast with emotional testimony from community members who are poisoned by pollution and people who are fighting air pollution and climate change like the matter of life and death it is. I wonder how many members of the public felt insulted. I know I did.

Heidi Leathwood is a climate policy analyst for the environmental organization 350 Colorado

Published in the Colorado Sun on August 27th, 2023

Climate change disasters are making headlines on a daily basis. One of the key solutions is to replace polluting natural gas furnaces with clean, high-performance electric heat pumps. Across the country cities and towns like Crested Butte have banned gas in new buildings.

Building electrification is a serious threat to the business models of utilities that distribute natural gas. Xcel Energy has responded by:

1) Casting doubt about the ability of heat pumps to heat Colorado homes, and

2) Promoting a Clean Heat Plan that continues to rely heavily on natural gas.

Heat pumps 

Xcel paid the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to measure the performance of heat pumps at Colorado’s higher elevation. Engineers already understood that heat pump performance is moderately less at elevation than at sea level, just as it is for gas furnaces. The laboratory’s preliminary results confirmed this, but Xcel caused a controversy when it reported the results in a way that implied that heat pumps do not provide adequate heating in the winter. For example, in a July 24 newspaper interview, an Xcel representative made this misleading statement: “We do think heat pumps can deliver a significant amount of heating and emissions reduction in a reliable and affordable way when it’s relatively mild outside —the spring and the fall“[emphasis added].

In fact, the renewable energy laboratory has shown that heat pumps can perform well in the laboratory at cold temperatures. Out in the real world, today’s cold-climate heat pumps consistently demonstrate they provide excellent heating even in the coldest locations such as Maine, northern Minnesota, and even the “Icebox of the Rockies:” Fraser, Colorado. I can personally attest that our heat pump kept our all-electric home in Jefferson County warm this past winter as outdoor temperatures dropped to -15°F — without requiring auxiliary electric resistance heating. 

Xcel’s Clean Heat Plan

Xcel’s heat-pump comments were made during the lead-up to the Aug. 3 release of their Clean Heat Plan. While that plan includes efficiency and electrification (it’s not clear how much of that will happen anyway), its stated emissions reductions rely to a great extent on a number of questionable carbon accounting measures: 

• Carbon offsets. These are credits purchased from others who claim to make carbon reductions that will offset the purchaser’s carbon emissions. But it is difficult to prove that these reductions would not have happened in any case, and it is no substitute for a company reducing its own carbon emissions.  
• Certified natural gas. This is a dubious green marketing effort by the gas industry to certify its natural gas as meeting certain requirements, but with an emphasis on reductions of methane leaks in supplier wells and pipes before the gas reaches the utility. The gas supply industry should have addressed these leaks long ago. Claims that upstream leaks will finally be reduced is a poor justification for Xcel’s continued burning of natural gas. And the bottom line is that “certified natural gas” is just natural gas. 
• Recovered methane. Xcel is referring here to the limited amount of natural gas that can be economically captured at some Colorado locations, such as coal beds and landfills, to prevent its loss to the atmosphere. The one source Xcel specifically cites is the Southern Ute Coal Bed, which could provide less than two-tenths of one percent of Xcel’s retail gas sales. 
• Hydrogen. Despite all the hype, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an expensive, highly energy-intensive energy carrier. To really address carbon dioxide emissions, renewable electricity must be consumed to produce, compress, and distribute carbon-free “green hydrogen.” Because it is the smallest molecule, hydrogen is extremely leak-prone, and a recent study showed that leaked hydrogen has a global warming impact that is significantly higher than that of carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is highly explosive, and when it burns it releases not just water vapor but nitrogen oxide air pollutants as well. Most importantly, heating a home with green hydrogen would consume more than 3 times as much electricity as heating it with a cold-climate heat pump.

While heating with hydrogen is extremely inefficient, Xcel’s plan to simply mix some hydrogen with natural gas to reduce emissions is just plain ineffective. To avoid damage to existing pipes and furnaces, Xcel can only mix in small amounts of hydrogen. In a subdivision in Adams County, Xcel intends to use only a 10% mix, which translates to a mere 3% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — and even less if we account for the effects of hydrogen leakage. Because green hydrogen is so expensive to produce, Xcel may wind up buying commercial gray hydrogen (which is produced from natural gas), in which case the project will actually increase total carbon dioxide emissions! 

Xcel argues that a plan that focuses on electrifying buildings is too expensive. While installing a heat pump currently costs more than installing a gas furnace, the heat pump provides both heating and cooling, and excellent heat pump tax incentives are available. In addition, a study by the New Buildings Institute showed that a new all-electric building saves on construction costs because the cost of the entire gas infrastructure is avoided. And as more homes are electrified, prices will drop.

Building electrification is a key step in addressing climate change, and it provides the added benefit of giving us healthy air to breathe both inside and outside our homes. Don’t be misled by Xcel’s statements about heat pumps and by a Clean Heat Plan that could more accurately be called the “Keep Burning Natural Gas Plan.”

Chuck Kutscher, of Jefferson County, is a mechanical engineer and college instructor who worked as a researcher and center director at NREL before his retirement. He is the lead author of the 3rd edition of the college textbook, Principles of Sustainable Energy Systems.

Posted on May 5th, 2023

Summary

As Colorado seeks to address the climate challenges of our time, we appreciate efforts to adopt solutions that positively impact our state. However, we have serious concerns surrounding several of the “emerging” technologies being promoted; in particular, carbon capture and sequestration, direct air capture, hydrogen, and nuclear. We are troubled by the lack of risk-analysis, cost-analysis, and impact-analysis being done in these sectors. We are also concerned that the pursuit and/or adoption of these technologies may further delay action to reduce emissions by redirecting resources and investment away from viable solutions that already exist, such as wind, solar, conservation, and stable energy-storage. We ask for a more rigorous evaluation of emerging technologies than has been presented so far, and for careful re-consideration before pursuing them further.

---

Carbon Management 

We are concerned that “novel” carbon management methods such as Direct Air Capture and Carbon Capture are unlikely to achieve meaningful CO2 reduction at the levels needed to meet our future climate goals. Currently these strategies are prohibitively expensive and unproven on a widely deployed scale. Even if backed by substantial funding, effective implementation would require decades of research and development – a luxury we do not have. Furthermore, we are concerned that novel carbon management strategies could extend the life cycle of the fossil fuel industry by continuing dependence on oil and gas rather than phasing them out. We ask for climate mitigation efforts focused on stopping the production and consumption of fossil fuels, while also promoting growth in “conventional” carbon dioxide removal methods such as reforestation, ecosystem restoration and agroforestry.

Hydrogen 

Our findings indicate Colorado should only put resources toward green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting the water molecule and uses 100% renewable energy. Blue hydrogen is produced from methane and creates more GHG emissions per unit of energy than burning coal, diesel, or fossil gas. The federal definition of “clean” hydrogen includes blue hydrogen, as does Colorado’s hydrogen roadmap, hydrogen hub and HB23-1281. Hydrogen produced from methane pollutes communities, perpetuates fossil fuel extraction, and increases GHG emissions. Even green hydrogen should be used sparingly. It is inefficient, costly and unsafe in sectors such as vehicles, building heating, and power generation. Hydrogen is only economical in difficult to decarbonize sectors such as maritime shipping, aviation and industrial processes. In developing technological solutions, Colorado should pursue green hydrogen as defined by the International Energy Agency, and should not continue to include blue hydrogen in its energy roadmap or future legislation.

Nuclear

While proponents of nuclear energy claim that it is a clean and carbon-free energy source, research indicates otherwise. The development of nuclear reactors and the mining of raw materials like uranium are highly carbon intensive. The generation of nuclear power creates dangerous waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years, and no sustainable solutions exist for long term storage. Nuclear power plants also pose grave risks to surrounding communities because damage from natural or human related accidents would be catastrophic. Nuclear power is the most water-intensive form of power generation. A single 300 megawatt plant requires hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day. Nuclear power is not competitive in cost or time of deployment, and “advanced nuclear plants,” including Small Modular Reactors, are so far an unproven technology. Marginalized communities surrounding nuclear power plants have been linked to higher rates of cancer, and historically bear a disproportionate burden of the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining.  

Carbon Management

Overview: Carbon Management refers to a suite of emerging technologies that aim to reduce carbon emissions by developing financially and environmentally sustainable mitigation strategies. While there is a place for carbon management in the IPCC Assessment’s plan for addressing climate change, it is important to highlight that these technologies provide widely variable advantages and disadvantages. We give an overview of some of the most frequently discussed carbon management technologies here, while also highlighting some of our concerns.

Carbon Dioxide Removal

The 2023 IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report states that negative emissions will be necessary in order to keep warming under 1.5°C. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), both in its “conventional” and “novel” forms, will be required to meet this goal, especially to counterbalance hard to abate emissions in aviation, shipping and industry. Even so, it must be stressed that no form of CDR, even at scale, will allow us to meet our climate goals without timely and aggressive cuts to GHG emissions. CDR should not be viewed as a “free pass” to continue burning fossil fuels at current (or increasing) levels.

Novel CDR includes means such as Direct Air Capture (DAC), biochar, and enhanced rock weathering. DAC has received much of the focus in this sector, although it still lacks sufficient attention in scientific literature. DAC involves pulling CO2 directly from the air and then sequestering it in geological formations or reusing it. Currently, novel CDR provides less than .002 GT/CO2e per year reduction.

• DAC is extremely expensive. Cost estimates vary widely – between $250-600 per ton of CO2 captured. Even after extensive research and development, research indicates the cost is unlikely to fall below ~ $100 per ton of CO2 captured. To reach the IPCC’s minimum recommendation of removing 2 Gigatons/CO2e per year, at the current minimum cost of $250 per ton, a 500 billion dollar annual investment would be required. 
• Even with significant support, DAC will take several decades to be environmentally viable at the scale needed. DAC would need to increase efficiency and scale up in size at a rate of 10,000 times current levels by 2030 to fit into GHG reduction goals. 
• Separating CO2 from the air is an energy intensive process, requiring 1200 kilowatt hours per ton of CO2. If DAC activities are powered by fossil fuels, the process holds little value due to the reintroduction of GHGs. 

Although some novel CDR technologies are promising, we do not agree with the current push for increased implementation of DAC. DAC lacks effectiveness and the long term viability needed to be a significant part of our GHG reduction goals. Investing large amounts of energy and financial capital into DAC is likely to prove unwise given the landscape of more accessible solutions and the dwindling window of opportunity for decreasing emissions.

Conventional CDR includes removing carbon through “natural” methods such as coastal ecosystem restoration, reforestation, agroforestry and soil carbon sequestration, all of which also enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions. We advocate for additional research and legislation focussed on conventional methods of CDR. 

• “There is substantial mitigation and adaptation potential from options in agriculture, forestry and other land use… that could be upscaled in the near term across most regions (high confidence). Conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems offer the largest share of economic mitigation potential…”(2023 IPCC report). 
• Conventional CDR methods also increase and enhance ecosystem services like local air quality improvements, opportunities for recreation, and health of the local ecosystems. It is estimated that additions to ecosystem services could add over $30 trillion dollars per year to the global economy.
• Ecosystem services also correlate with social benefits like therapeutic services, spiritual connections, and social satisfaction. 
• Conventional CDR currently provides the removal of 2 Gigatons/CO2e per year.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)

CCS aims to reduce carbon emissions by capturing them, mainly from industrial facilities and power plants, while redirecting them from entering the atmosphere. CCS has become a frequent topic of discussion as a possible tool for meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets and mitigating the effects of climate change. In 2022, the federal Inflation Reduction Act earmarked billions of dollars of funding for CCS by incentivizing these technologies through the introduction of sizable tax credits.

Before moving forward with CCS, we believe the following factors should be considered:

• CCS technologies are still in their developmental research phases and years from operating on the scale needed to have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 
• To scale up to the level needed to have a meaningful impact, CCS would require an estimated 5 trillion dollar investment. 
• Despite being in development for 50 years, CCS technologies lack consistent carbon-negative results. 
• The IPCC report (Pg 69) shows that the annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions from solar and wind energy combined are almost 15 times as much as reductions from CCS, while costing a fraction as much. 
• To date, 73% of carbon capture has been used for enhanced oil recovery – a method of reinjecting CO2 into the ground to extract more oil and gas. 
• There is a lack of scientific consensus surrounding the viability of CCS.
• Carbon capture technology carries an “energy penalty.” This means that a greater energy input – 10% to 40% more on average – is required where carbon capture systems are in place.
• Injecting CO2 into the ground for purposes of sequestration has the potential to induce earthquakes. 
• Pipelines used for the transfer of CO2 pose a public safety risk. Previous incidents of pipeline ruptures have demonstrated the hazards of CO2 exposure.
• In a perfect scenario – where carbon capture technology develops enough to be implemented at a large scale and to operate at 90% effectiveness – it would only result in a reduction of 14-18% of total carbon emissions.

Summary:
Although carbon management technologies appear to align with the wider goal of addressing climate change, this growing field is rife with unknowns. DAC and CCS are decades away from wide scale implementation, and their ability to effectively limit carbon emissions is a point of concern. Moving forward with these strategies would include deferring much needed resources from areas such as solar and wind infrastructure, building out electric power distribution systems, scaling up transportation charging networks, enhancing innovations in rechargeable battery technologies, and increasing energy efficient housing. Moving forward with the implementation of DAC and CCS risks extending the lifespan of the fossil fuel industry – a move that puts us in grave risk of not meeting our climate targets.

Further recommended reading on carbon management

---

Hydrogen

Background

Oil and gas companies, along with utilities that are fossil fuel intensive, created the “Clean Hydrogen Future Coalition” in 2021, urging the Biden administration to increase policy support for a wide range of hydrogen uses. Gas companies are testing the use of hydrogen blended with natural gas. Colorado has a Hydrogen Roadmap for development of hydrogen in Colorado and is involved in planning for a regional hydrogen hub. It is time to take a closer look at the long term implications of hydrogen.

Summary

Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen may have some promise in the future in reducing emissions from hard to decarbonize sectors. However, currently at least 99% of the hydrogen being produced actually increases greenhouse gas emissions. The development of “green” hydrogen is in its early stages and still extremely expensive. For all but the most difficult to decarbonize sectors, solar and wind power are more fitting energy sources. Hydrogen is not a good replacement for fossil gas in home use or in generating electricity; it would increase cost and safety concerns while decreasing efficiency.

The facts about hydrogen:

• Fossil fuel companies are already producing a massive amount of hydrogen, which creates more greenhouse gasses than the whole nation of Germany.
• Hydrogen is extremely flammable, susceptible to combust in even small concentrations.
• Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest molecule known to humans, making it more difficult to contain than other gasses.
• Hydrogen leaks could cause a chemical reaction that increases the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Hydrogen is known as an indirect greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential more than 5 times higher than CO2.
• The practice of blending hydrogen with natural gas is expensive and dangerous; see numerous peer reviewed studies cited in this report by Physicians for Social Responsibility.
• There are two technologies to produce hydrogen: 1) splitting the water molecule and 2) splitting the methane molecule using steam methane reformation (SMR). Hydrogen produced by splitting the methane molecule using SMR is known as “gray” hydrogen. If carbon capture is used during SMR to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is called “blue” hydrogen. “Blue” hydrogen causes more emissions per unit of energy than burning diesel, coal or natural gas. What Colorado calls “clean” hydrogen or “low-carbon” hydrogen is currently mostly “blue” hydrogen, (i.e. “hydrogen from SMR with CCS” – see the Hydrogen Roadmap, p. 3).
• The only hydrogen defined by the International Energy Agency as “green” hydrogen is produced using water that is powered by renewable energy. Currently less than 0.02% of hydrogen produced globally is “green”. 
• Pure hydrogen cannot be transported in existing pipelines, which don’t have systems for detecting hydrogen leaks and are not equipped to handle the higher flammability and leakage rates of hydrogen.
• Building a hydrogen pipeline can cost up to 68% more per mile than a fossil gas pipeline.
• Suncor’s hydrogen producing plant at the Commerce City refinery was the initial cause of a cascading series of failures in December 2022 that resulted in a 3-month shutdown.

Colorado’s “Low-Carbon Hydrogen Roadmap” recommends pilot projects to blend hydrogen in existing infrastructure to streamline the permitting processes. Developing pilot projects that burn hydrogen for power generation in existing gas turbines and use Colorado’s existing gas storage facilities creates serious public health and safety concerns due to Hydrogen’s chemical composition. This Roadmap is largely for the development and use of “blue” hydrogen, since “green” hydrogen is still too expensive. We believe these factors warrant further consideration before Colorado continues to expand hydrogen production and infrastructure.

 —

With thanks to Susan Saadat and Sara Gerson, the authors of the report Reclaiming Hydrogen for a Renewable Future, from Earthjustice’s Right to Zero campaign. Many of the facts and studies cited above come from this report. 

---

Nuclear Power and Small Modular Reactors

Background: 

Nuclear energy is frequently touted by industry advocates as a low-carbon energy source to transition away from fossil fuels. While nuclear proponents have claimed that nuclear power is an attractive energy alternative for coal-transitioning communities such as Pueblo, Moffatt and Routt counties, nuclear proposals have received a great deal of backlash from frontline communities. In 1979, Colorado experienced its first failed attempt at nuclear, with the Fort St. Vrain power plant. Fort St. Vrain was so fraught with operational problems that it had to be shut down after a decade to cut financial losses. Over 14 tons of toxic waste are still being stored at that plant 33 years later. In Pueblo, there is a strong community-led effort to halt proposals to replace the “Comanche 3” coal plant with twelve NuScale Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). In 2011, a similar attempt to bring nuclear power to Pueblo was rejected due to community concerns in wake of the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster. 

We believe Colorado’s troubled history with nuclear power, in addition to the concerns outlined below, should be considered before policymakers pursue experimental nuclear technology for Colorado’s coal-transitioning communities. 

Overview of Our Concerns Regarding Nuclear Power and Small Modular Reactors: 

• Nuclear power creates waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years.  A nuclear plant generates electricity from radioactive material that must be replaced every 18-24 months. This spent fuel is high-level radioactive waste which must be isolated for thousands of years. Presently, the U.S. has over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, an amount which grows by about 2,000 metric tons each year.
• Small modular reactors would generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.
• There is no good solution for processing or storing radioactive waste, and most of it would likely be kept onsite. Despite decades of effort, the United States does not currently have a permanent disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste. As a result, spent nuclear fuel is stored in pools or in dry casks at reactor sites. 
• Nuclear plants have the highest water requirements of any energy generating technology, requiring water both for energy production and for cooling spent fuel. For energy production, a single 300 megawatt small modular reactor operating at 90% capacity would withdraw between 160 million and 390 million gallons of water daily. 
• The damage from an accident at a nuclear power plant could be catastrophic, and the risk is heightened by increasing natural disasters due to climate change. Nuclear reactors and waste storage pools are also vulnerable targets for terrorist attacks. 
• Nuclear power plants have been linked to higher rates of cancer. Studies have shown statistically significant increases in childhood leukemia near nuclear power plants. In the United States, regulations limiting radiation exposure are based on the damage radiation causes in adult males; however, females and children are affected more by radiation exposure. 
• Nuclear power is not competitive in cost or time of deployment. While renewable energy and battery storage are rapidly increasing in technological capacity and decreasing in cost, the cost estimate for small modular reactors is rising dramatically, despite receiving billions in Federal subsidies. The timeline of deployment for NuScale Small Modular Reactors is also highly uncertain and continues to be delayed, with the earliest estimates predicting NuScale reactors won’t produce electricity until at least 2029.
• The safety risks of “Advanced nuclear plants”, including Small Modular Reactors, are so far unproven. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that the new designs they analyzed “are not likely to be significantly safer than today’s nuclear plants. In fact, certain alternative reactor designs pose even more safety, proliferation, and environmental risks than the current fleet.” A modular design means the plant has several smaller and less powerful reactors instead of one large reactor; such a design increases the probability of failure in one or more modules.
• Nuclear power poses environmental justice concerns. Far too often, nuclear reactor proposals target  disproportionately impacted communities such as Pueblo, Colorado.These communities are often low-income, working class communities concerned about tax and job loss from coal plant retirement. 
• Nuclear power plants require uranium which must be mined and enriched. Marginalized communities bear a disproportionate burden of the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining and enriching. In the United States, uranium mining has a tragic history of exploiting and devastating Indigenous communities. Over 500 uranium mines were established on Navajo land, and 4 million tons of uranium were extracted from these mines, between 1944 and 1986. Due to lasting contamination in the land, air, and water from these mines, the communities that surround them still experience high rates of serious health impacts from uranium exposure.

Published in Colorado Newsline on May 2nd, 2023

Frances Wisebart Jacobs, a late 19th-century civic leader, is the only woman among the 16 Coloradans memorialized in stained glass on the walls of the Colorado State Capitol rotunda.

Jacobs’ legacy includes bringing free kindergarten to Denver and co-founding the organization that would ultimately become the United Way. She was also the driving force behind National Jewish Hospital, a tuberculosis sanatorium that provided free care for desperate consumptives who came to Colorado to enjoy the healing benefits of clean mountain air. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tuberculosis was a leading killer, particularly among the urban poor. Historian Jeanne Abrams notes that “no single accepted standard for tuberculosis treatment prevailed in the early years, but by 1880 medical opinion emphasized fresh air for respiratory ailments. Colorado, with its dry and sunny climate, drew tuberculosis victims like a magnet.” A 1925 report found that 60% of Colorado’s population had arrived, either directly or indirectly, to receive tuberculosis care. 

In light of the history of people coming to Colorado to heal from its clean air, our current status as one of the worst metro regions in the country when it comes to ozone pollution is shameful. Our ozone problems have been so bad that in April 2022, the EPA downgraded the Front Range from serious to severe non-attainment of federal air quality standards.

Breathing ground-level ozone is known to cause and worsen a variety of respiratory problems including chest pain, coughing, bronchitis, emphysema and asthma. Poor air quality disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color, leading to increased health risks, higher health care costs, and missed school days. It is a sad irony that a state that once attracted people seeking healthful, clean air now suffers from polluted air that is sickening its citizens. 

We know that oil and gas operations are the largest source of emissions of ozone precursors. House Bill 23-1294, called Pollution Protection Measures, will enhance permit enforcement. It also includes a definition of “cumulative impacts,” a critically important step for future reform.

Key legislative allies introduced a significantly stronger bill that would have created a clean air future for Colorado. Strident opposition from the oil and gas industry and a lack of commitment from the administration of Gov. Jared Polis to advance bold measures stripped the bill of most of its key provisions. This means that frontline communities will have to continue waiting for relief. And yet, the provisions that remain are important first steps for addressing our ozone pollution problem. The creation of an interim committee, as the bill would do, is one of those steps.

Until last week, the history lesson I shared above was an abstract reminder that we should honor our history as a destination for healing. For us at Colorado Jewish Climate Action, the memory of increased risk suffered by the working poor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries serves as a reminder of our current responsibility to fight for environmental justice.

And then my child had a severe asthma attack and was briefly admitted to the ICU. My family received a stark reminder that while disproportionately impacted communities are most at risk from ozone pollution, this problem harms us all.

Moving forward, my wife and I need to be on guard during those all too frequent summer days when dangerously high ozone levels are a hazard for sensitive groups, including those with asthma. This health scare redoubled my commitment to solving Colorado’s ozone pollution problem. In that spirit, I urge our state representatives to look up at the figures memorialized in the Capitol rotunda and honor Colorado’s legacy as a refuge of healing by committing themselves to continuing the fight for clean, healthful air.

Moshe Kornfeld is the director of Colorado Jewish Climate Action.

SB23-016, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado, has two sections regarding PERA’s fossil fuel investments, one of which is in danger of being amended out in a Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Tuesday, 2/21. Section 2 of the bill would require the PERA board to adopt proxy voting procedures to ensure that PERA’s shareholder votes in the companies they invest in align with and support statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Section 3 requires PERA to publicly report a description of climate-related investment risks, impacts, and strategies.

We have three urgent action alerts to ensure that the PERA fossil fuel sections remain in Senate Bill 23-016! Please take action to help pass legislation that ensures PERA is held accountable for its role in financing the climate crisis! 

If you are a PERA member, your voice is especially powerful on this issue – please make note of your PERA membership when taking any of the following 3 actions:

1) Please take 30 seconds to send a letter to members of the Senate Finance Committee, urging them to keep the PERA fossil fuel sections in SB23-016 during next week’s committee hearing!

Click Here to send your letter!

PERA’s leadership has been actively working to get Section 2 removed, and have recently sent out a form letter to PERA members, telling them to urge the Senate Finance Committee to remove PERA from the bill. In the lead-up to next Tuesday’s Senate Finance hearing, we need committee members to hear from constituents loud and clear: PERA must be held accountable for their role in financing the climate crisis. 

If you are a PERA member, please make note of your PERA membership in your letter.

We encourage you to personalize the letter, but feel free to submit the letter as-is.

2) Please sign up to testify at the Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Tuesday, February 21st, and urge the committee to keep the PERA sections in the bill! 

You can testify remotely via Zoom, in-person at the Denver Capitol, or via written testimony. This Factsheet and Testimony Toolkithas talking points and instructions to register to testify.  Please note that comments to the Senate Finance Committee should focus on the PERA provisions of the bill only.

3) If you are a constituent of Senator Kolker or Senator Mullica, please reach out to them and urge them to keep the PERA sections in SB23-016! 

We need PERA members and constituents to contact two Senators on the Finance Committee: Senator Kyle Mullica and Senator Chris Kolker, and urge them to ensure that Section 2 remains in SB23-016. If you are a PERA member and/ or a constituent of these Senators, your voice will be crucial in ensuring this piece of the bill remains intact. You can use this email/ call script to help with outreach – it should only take 2 minutes. 

Senator Kolker represents Senate District 16 which includes Littleton, Columbine Valley, and Bow Mar and the areas around those towns.

He can be reached at chris.kolker.senate@coleg.gov or 303-866-4883.

Senator Mullica represents Senate District 24, which includes Thornton and Federal Heights. 

He can be reached at kyle.mullica.senate@coleg.gov or 303-866-4451.

If you are unsure whether you are a constituent of these Senators, you can find out here. 

In our efforts to keep Colorado nuclear-free as our state plans our necessary transition away from fossil fuels, we have an important hearing coming up related to nuclear power, which would benefit tremendously from public testimony to ensure it does not pass:

Thursday, 3/16 at 1:30pm – Urge House Energy & Environment Committee Members to vote NO on HB23-1080 “Reliable Alternative Energy Sources”. This bill would fund a feasibility study for introducing Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) to Colorado. For instructions to register to testify, and talking points to help craft your testimony, please see this toolkit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WTvjnZyjQkZscwmZEn_ZgqZ1EX0w3EeE/view?usp=sharing.

Published in the Colorado Sun on February 11^th, 2023

The next mayor of Denver must have a heart that longs to keep all of Denver safe from the effects of the changed and changing climate. The next mayor of Denver must have the skill to lead the city to make Denver a world leader in dealing with the changed and changing climate.

The next mayor must clearly prioritize the transition away from burning fossil fuels with initiatives — both established and new — that lead the residents of Denver toward cleaner air, safer indoor spaces, and the new sustainable economic future.

Knowing that racial justice and climate justice are tied together, the next mayor must see that the city must aid those who cannot afford the steps that must be taken to stop burning fossil fuels. More difficult, the next mayor must find ways to persuade those who can afford the steps that must be taken, to take them.

Whatever other good priorities the next mayor has, he or she and the city will face the consequences of our burning fossil fuels: smoke, more heat, ozone, drought, dying forests, erratic weather, potential shortages, and climate refugees.

When new housing is built to help solve our housing crisis . . .

When considering how to help cars, bikes, and pedestrians share the roads . . . 

When trash is collected . . .

When the police do their work, and we strive for justice . . .

When the firefighters do their work . . .

When the city purchases equipment, when it buys its vehicles, when it heats and cools its buildings . . .

When the recreation centers open their doors . . .

When the planes take off from DIA . . .

. . . the mayor must direct the city to do these things in ways that protect Denver from the consequences of the changed and changing climate.

Over the course of 12 years, by 2035, the mayor will know if he or she succeeds if Denver as a whole powers itself by 90% renewable energy.

But which of the many candidates for mayor will care for the health of the city the best? Here are some questions to ask at the forums and debates with the candidates.

These questions are listed in degree of difficulty to show knowledge and commitment to addressing the climate crisis in a just way. The first question is the hardest to answer and the most concrete for city-wide action. The last question might be interpreted as a softball. But if you get a chance to ask all three, they do outline the areas where we Denverites must push on a mayor over the next twelve years.

Q: Do you support the recommendations of Denver’s 2020 Climate Action Task Force and how will you fund the hundreds of millions of dollars it calls to raise?

Acceptable answers will range from a basic familiarity with the Climate Action Task Force; to a basic familiarity with the office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency and a clear prioritization of the climate problem; to a detailed knowledge of both the task force and the climate action office; to a clear prioritization of the climate crisis and a plan for getting Denver to its stated goal of 65% renewable by 2030 (or a similar plan), with paths that raise up those who have suffered environmental injustice.

Where will Denver get the money? What part must come from the city? As for the rest, how would the candidate put together  public-private partnerships? How would he or she obtain state and federal funding? How do we electrify environmental justice homes and businesses, and work with landlords? Has the candidate given this serious consideration?

The candidate should be talking in the range of $160 million to $240 million a year through 2035.

Q: What opportunities present themselves with the renewal of the Xcel Franchise agreement in 2026?

Acceptable answers acknowledge that the renewal does present opportunities to get Xcel to support more rooftop solar with batteries, community solar, and to rapidly move its transition to renewable technologies.

Q: How would you as the mayor help create a city-wide culture that will lead to accomplishing the 100% carbon neutral goal in 2040?

The answer to this question will tell a lot about the style of the candidate. Bringing a whole city along such a transition is the job of a good politician. Being unnecessarily divisive doesn’t help, being skillfully courageous does help.

Potentially, the next mayor of Denver will have 12 years to achieve his or her goals. The Denver mayor has limited but powerful tools at his or her disposal. Some of those tools can indeed effect substantial change; others are tools of persuasion. The next mayor needs to build a city-wide culture that looks forward to the new electrified economy.

To do this, the new mayor must establish world-leading goals and a path to meet those goals. A world-leading goal is necessary because the world needs leadership to achieve its necessary reductions. Simply being average in a world of below-average responses does not solve the climate crisis. The goal of being 90% fossil fuel free by 2035 is adequate.

Denver is ready to lead. Leading the world means that we show how American people can live their lifestyles more justly while not over-heating the planet.

These goals cannot be simply hidden within the city government but must be broadly shared by both businesses and the public. There are many allies within Denver and a wide-spread acceptance among Denverites that the climate crisis deserves to be addressed in substantial ways. Setting a path forward will have its difficulties but is doable. We need a mayor who will lead us in solving the climate crisis.

Jeff Neuman-Lee, of Denver, is Legislative Team co-chair for Together Colorado‘s Climate Justice Committee.

Have you seen the news that oil and gas extraction in our state is only a small fraction of the total economy? That means it is feasible to phase out new permits for wells by 2030. Wouldn’t it be great if the public and our legislators knew this?

***Take 5 minutes now to send this easy one-click letter: https://secure.ngpvan.com/ekjNT0iS3EyA0ASVdSC3Nw2 to your state representative and senator sending them the report that shows oil and gas provides only 0.7% of Colorado jobs, makes up only 3.3% of Colorado GDP, and provides only 1.2% of state and local government revenue. Report here: https://www.coloradofiscal.org/costs-benefits-oil-and-gas-colorado/library/reports/.

***It’s easy and painless – the one-click letter will find your legislators for you and automatically send the letter to them. If you’ve got some extra time, contact your city council member too and let them know about this report, and asking them to sign this letter of support: https://secure.ngpvan.com/ftaIfFXGnESVMdU08tbPAg2 for a phaseout by 2030 of new oil and gas well permits.

PDC Energy has submitted a plan for the development of a 466 well fracking site in Weld County (known as the Guanella Comprehensive Area Plan). The approval of this CAP will indisputably accelerate the climate crisis, further degrade our already poor air quality and permanently deplete our limited water supplies. We can not stand by as O&G continue to put our lives and livelihoods at risk. Please sign the petition, developed by CCLC member organization Colorado Rising, either as an individual or as an organization. The petition is located here: https://secure.ngpvan.com/QgHrisV1q0-V73mupDG72w2

Six groups, including CCLC members 350 Colorado, WildEarth Guardians, and the Larimer Alliance, have submitted a rulemaking petition to ask the COGCC to make rules to tackle cumulative impacts of oil and gas operations in Colorado. The rules proposed by the co-petitioners will address ozone, climate, and environmental justice among other things. The COGCC wants to hear from the public and groups about whether they should hold a rulemaking on these issues.

Instructions for submitting comments, along with background information can be found in this toolkit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_16ulI1vV7pW7rmH0xaN2cHaIuQJ2y0TzTb944T8utg/edit#.

Comments made on behalf of organizations are especially helpful.