Colorado

Environmentalists decry softening of proposed regulation of drilling’s impact on Colorado’s poorest communities

Published

2 years ago

August 9, 2024

Environmentalists decry softening of proposed regulation of drilling’s impact on Colorado’s poorest communities

Environmentalists and the oil and gas industry are battling over new state regulations that one side says would protect vulnerable communities that suffer the most from pollution and the other agues would effectively ban new wells in Colorado.

The latest clash involves the ongoing debate about how close those wells should be to homes.

Next month, the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission must approve rules that define “cumulative impacts” of pollution and address how they affect what are known as disproportionately impacted communities across the state.

Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill last year directing the energy commission to establish rules regarding the cumulative impacts of drilling by considering how the oil and gas industry’s work can harm air and water quality, wildlife and public health, as well as increase odors and noise, in communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution.

The cumulative impacts rule comes on the heels of the commission’s decision this week to approve a comprehensive plan from Crestone to drill up to 166 petroleum wells near Aurora Reservoir, despite strong opposition from a nearby neighborhood where homes cost between $600,000 and $1 million.

At issue in the newest debate is a provision that would have required a company to receive consent from every resident or building owner within 2,000 feet of a proposed drilling site. Right now, rules state drilling sites must have a 2,000-foot setback from homes, hospitals, schools and office complexes, but there are exemptions that allow companies to drill and those permits are rarely denied.

Environmentalists say those exemptions provide numerous loopholes that allow the industry to drill wherever it wants, and this latest provision was needed to protect the communities that suffer the most from air pollution, noise, traffic and other issues caused by drilling.

“It creates more room for the industry to continue to produce oil and gas in disproportionately impacted communities,” said Patricia Garcia-Nelson, an advocate for GreenLatinos Colorado.

“Blunt instrument to ban the industry”

The energy commission has been working on drafts of the new cumulative impacts rule for months, and those early versions — reviewed by environmentalists, oil and gas companies and lawyers — included the requirement for consent from neighbors. That changed last week when the commission’s staff released the latest draft.

Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said the industry urged the commission to drop the consent requirement.

“We feel those setbacks are unnecessary because they are a one-size-fits-all blunt instrument to ban the industry from Colorado,” he said.

The state already has rules in place to protect communities, Haley said.

Depending on the specific project, the state can require operators to use electric drilling rigs or install a closed-loop system that cuts toxic emissions. Regulators also can impose rules that reduce traffic, noise and odors, too.

“It’s not just about emissions,” Haley said. “Sometimes it’s about truck traffic. Sometimes it’s about odor. There are a lot of tools at the ready to make sure the communities are protected.”

Haley also noted that effectively banning new wells in the state would force Colorado to buy its gasoline and petroleum products from other sources. That would have an environmental impact, too, because the product would have to be shipped, trucked and piped into the state.

Colorado is the fourth-largest state supplier of crude oil and eighth-largest natural gas producer, according to the Energy Information Administration. The industry contributes nearly $2 billion in state and local tax revenue in Colorado.

“The commission has listened to their concerns for years, which is why we have the most protective environmental standards in the world right here in Colorado,” Haley said of environmentalists. “Some of these groups are not going to be satisfied until there’s a ban on oil and gas in Colorado.”

Considering cumulative impacts

Environmental advocates say the state regulators who make decisions on drilling permits ignore communities where residents are mostly Latino, Black or Indigenous and whose income levels are often lower than the state average. A consent provision would have given them a stronger voice in decision-making for drilling permits.

“I’ve been doing testimony in front of the commission since 2017 and we keep hearing the same ‘the sky is falling’ claims from the industry, but… the concerns of the community have never changed, and they’re never been addressed,” Garcia-Nelson said. “It’s really heartbreaking.”

To explain how cumulative impacts on a community should be considered, Garcia-Nelson, who lives in Greeley, offered as an example the neighborhood near the JBS Foods meatpacking plant on the north side of the city.

Three oil and gas operations sit within a half mile of the plant. There are homes less than a half mile from the plant and the drilling sites, and they’re all close to the Cache la Poudre River, she said.

If cumulative impacts were to be considered before issuing a drilling permit, regulators would need to consider how all of those industrial operations combine — air pollution, water pollution, traffic, noise and foul smells — to affect nearby residents rather than solely judging the impact of the single permit under consideration, as is the practice now.

Allowing residents to give consent would help people in a city surrounded by oil and gas drilling, Garcia-Nelson said.

“In Greeley, you can’t get away from it,” she said.

“Only one set of concerns being addressed”

When the energy commission’s staff released the latest draft on Aug. 2, the provision that would have required consent to override setbacks was struck from the proposal.

Environmentalists were livid that the provision not only was gone, but that it had been removed seemingly out of the blue after months of drafts included it. Now, their written rebuttals are due Friday and they have little time to organize opposition ahead of rulemaking hearings that begin Sept. 3.

“It literally seems like the ECMC accepted every one of the industry’s concerns and stripped out every one of the community’s concerns,” said Rebecca Curry, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit law center that takes on legal cases for environmental groups. “They made a bunch of changes that go in the wrong direction.”

Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson, senior manager for state policy at Earthworks, said about a third of the oil and gas developments in the past few years have been within 2,000 feet of neighborhoods. And most of those neighborhoods qualified as disproportionately impacted by the state, which uses a population-based formula that takes into account ethnicity and race, income, housing costs and language barriers.

Those communities are least likely to fight back because they do not have the time and resources to read hundreds of pages of technical material and sit through lengthy meetings.

“They’re most susceptible to having developments move in with little pushback,” he said.

That’s why regulators need to consider measures that protect those communities that suffer the most from toxic air pollution, Forkes-Gudmundson said. And it seems those regulators are going to ignore a legislative mandate to consider those neighborhoods in their decisions, he said.

“There’s only one set of concerns being addressed, and it’s certainly not to the disproportionately impacted communities who could have oil and gas developments in their backyards,” he said.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Originally Published: August 9, 2024 at 6:00 a.m.

Source link

Click to comment

Colorado

An Evening Against Edmonton | Colorado Avalanche

Published

9 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

An Evening Against Edmonton | Colorado Avalanche

Edmonton Oilers (31-25-8) @ Colorado Avalanche (43-10-9)

8 p.m. MT | Ball Arena | Watch: TNT, truTV, HBO Max | Listen: Altitude Sports Radio (92.5 FM)

After back-to-back shootout victories, the Avalanche concludes its two-game homestand on Tuesday against the Edmonton Oilers. This game is an Avalanche Cup Classic, presented by KeyBank, which will honor the 2022 Avs team that won the Stanley Cup and defeated the Oilers in the Western Conference Final. Tuesday’s game is the second of three regular-season meetings between the teams, as the Avalanche won 9-1 in Edmonton on November 8th, and they’ll play in Alberta on April 13th.

Sunday Success

The Avalanche defeated the Minnesota Wild 3-2 in a shootout on Sunday at Ball Arena. Nathan MacKinnon and Nicolas Roy both scored for Colorado while Nazem Kadri posted an assist in his second Avs debut. In net for Colorado, Scott Wedgewood stopped 32 of the 34 shots he faced. MacKinnon opened the scoring at 12:19 of the second period with his 43rd goal of the season via a right-circle one-timer set up by Kadri, who began the play with an interception below the offensive-zone goal line. Kirill Kaprizov tied the game for Minnesota with a power-play goal at 4:17 of the third period when his pass from the right circle deflected into the net. The Wild took a 2-1 lead at 7:01 of the third period when Nico Sturm scored a shorthanded breakaway. Colorado tied the game at 12:39 of the third period when Nicolas Roy scored his first goal as an Av and sixth of the season via a net-front deflection on Brett Kulak’s slap shot. In the shootout, Valeri Nichushkin scored for Colorado in the first round, Matt Boldy scored for Minnesota in the second round and MacKinnon tallied the winner in the fourth round.

Leading the Way

Nate the Great

MacKinnon leads the NHL in goals (43) while ranking second in points (104) and third in assists (61).

All Hail Cale

Among NHL defensemen, Cale Makar is tied for second in points (66) while ranking fourth in goals (19) and assists (47).

Marty Party

Martin Necas is tied for seventh in the NHL in points (76).

Series History

In 135 regular-season games against the Oilers, the Avalanche has a record of 74-49-6-6. The teams have met three times in the playoffs, with the Avs winning the 1997 Western Conference Semifinals in five games and the 2022 Western Conference Final in four contests.

Sunday in Sin City

The Oilers defeated the Vegas Golden Knights 4-2 at T-Mobile Arena on Sunday. In the second period, Trent Frederic opened the scoring for Edmonton at 3:21 before Vegas’ Noah Hanifin tied the game at 13:09. The Oilers took a 3-1 third-period lead after goals from Vasily Podkolzin at 2:34 and Leon Draisaitl at 11:53. Jack Eichel cut the Golden Knights’ deficit to one with a shorthanded goal at 16:43 of the third period. Edmonton took a 4-2 lead when Kasperi Kapanen scored an empty-net goal at 18:03 of the third period.

Producing Offense Against the Oilers

MacKinnon has posted 39 points (13g/26a) in 29 regular-season games against the Oilers, in addition to five points (3g/2a) in four playoff contests.

Makar has registered 13 points (5g/8a) in 13 regular-season contests against Edmonton, in addition to nine points (2g/7a) in four playoff games.

Kadri has recorded 25 points (12g/13a) in 30 regular-season games against the Oilers, in addition to four points (1g/3a) in three playoff contests.

Edmonton’s Elite

Connor McDavid leads the Oilers in points (108), goals (35) and assists (73).

Draisaitl is second on the Oilers in points (92), goals (34) and assists (58).

Evan Bouchard is third on the Oilers in points (73) and assists (55) while ranking fourth in goals (18).

A Numbers Game

34

The Avalanche are 34-0-0 when leading after the second period this season.

85

Colorado leads the NHL with 85 second-period goals this campaign.

.806

The Avalanche’s .806 points percentage at home this season is the best in the NHL.

Quote That Left a Mark

“Emotional seeing the support I get here. It’s absolutely incredible. It makes me want to play harder for these fans and this team.”

— Nazem Kadri on the support he received from Avalanche fans at Sunday’s game

Source link

Colorado

Colorado Rockies spring training game no. 17 thread: Kyle Freeland vs. Jedisxson Paez

Published

21 hours ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Colorado Rockies spring training game no. 17 thread: Kyle Freeland vs. Jedisxson Paez

In his first spring training action of 2026, Kyle Freeland faced the daunting task of pitching against Team USA in an exhibition game on March 4. He gave up a solo homer to Aaron Judge in a two-hit, one-strikeout performance in one inning.

Today, Freeland and the Rockies (8-6-1) will take part in his first Cactus League action against the White Sox (10-7) at Camelback Ranch. The Rockies are 5-2 on the road this spring vs. 3-5-1, including the showdown vs. Team USA, at Salt River Fields.

Today’s game represents a rematch of a Feb. 23 showdown where the Rockies beat the White Sox 5-4. Chicago will send Jedisxson Paez to the mound to start the game. The 22-year-old RHP will be making his third spring appearance. He’s posted a 23.14 ERA in 2 1/3 innings over two starts with six earned runs, six hits, including one homer, three strikeouts and one walk. Former Rockie Drew Romo will be starting at catcher for the White Sox.

On Sunday, four pitchers combined to throw five scoreless innings and Kyle Karros and Tyler Freeman each had two-hit performances in the Rockies 4-4 tie with Cleveland. Even though it’s only spring training, the Rockies offense has been much improved thus far. The Rockies rank among all Major League teams this Spring in: on-base percentage (.381, T-1st), home runs (23, T-4th), average (.287, 3rd), HBP (14, T-2nd), slugging (.492, 3rd), OPS (.871, 3rd), runs scored (98, 5th), RBI (91, 6th) and total bases (254, 6th).

Earlier on Monday, the Rockies released a new motto for the 2026 campaign: “New era. At altitude. We are here for the climb.”

Source link

Colorado

Outraged over incentives for data centers that are no good for Colorado (Letters)

Published

1 day ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Outraged over incentives for data centers that are no good for Colorado (Letters)

Data centers: What good are they for Colorado?

Re: “Dueling policies for data centers,” March 1 news story

The Denver Post article about two competing bills in the legislature regarding new data centers in Colorado seems to start with the presumption that we want the data centers.

Why do we want them and who wants them? Is it the politicians wanting bragging rights about our state becoming another Silicon Valley? Perhaps they want more businesses so they can collect more taxes from the new residents. Alternatively, they just want more power in Washington by increasing our population. Has anyone stopped to ask why we want to attract more people to our state?

Colorado is in a fight with other Western states to obtain more water for our growing population. Our wildlife is being crowded out by the increased urbanization. The roads are so crowded that it is not uncommon to come to a complete stop on our interchanges during rush hour. We have a serious housing shortage. The air is being polluted by the increased number of cars. These are all the result of a growing population. Did anyone stop to ask why we want more people?

During my 53 years living in Colorado, I have never heard anyone (other than politicians) say, “We need more people.” On the contrary, the conversation is more often about how we are becoming overcrowded. I would like the politicians to explain why we need more businesses and more people in our state. It should not be a presumption that more is better! Are our elected representatives truly reflecting the wishes of their constituents?

Doug Hurst, Parker

Anger and disbelief were our reactions when we read about House Bill 1030, which is under consideration at the statehouse. This outrageous corporate welfare bill would provide some of the world’s wealthiest corporations with massive state tax reductions to build monstrous resource-thirsty data centers. Analysts projected a $92.5 million tax loss in just three years if a bunch of these data centers are built. Just one 160-megawatt facility would gobble up as much power as 176,000 homes once completed. Consider for comparison that the entire DIA airport uses around 45 megawatts of power!

As the state legislature grapples with bone-deep budget cuts, we cannot afford to exempt data centers from paying their own way nor allow their unregulated construction. Taxpayer-funded corporate handouts would entail massive hits to tax revenue that should be used for our schools, roads, infrastructure, and valid state needs. What essential services will potentially be cut or axed to cover the lost revenue to the state from this corporate giveaway?

These data centers also demand massive amounts of our water. A CoreSite data center in Denver alone will use approximately 805,000 gallons of water per day to air-condition its computers. That is the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver homes.

I pray our state legislature will condemn HB-1030 to the corporate welfare hell where it belongs in. Instead, they should support Senate Bill 102 that will hopefully properly regulate these tax-eating, water-wasting, and electricity-gobbling monstrosities.

Terry Talbot, Grand Junction

As a pediatrician, I’ve noticed one key issue missing from the data center debate: public health.

Data centers are extraordinarily energy- and water-intensive. Nationally, they already consume about 4% of U.S. electricity — a figure expected to more than double by 2030. Much of that power still comes from burning fossil fuels. Without strong safeguards, that growth means more air pollution. In my clinical practice, I see firsthand how health is shaped by the air we breathe. More pollution means more asthma attacks, heart disease, and premature deaths, especially in communities already burdened by poor air quality.

Water use is another concern. Large data centers can use enormous amounts of water for cooling. In a drought-prone state like Colorado, this raises serious questions about long-term drinking water reliability and heat resilience.

Energy affordability is also a health issue. When infrastructure is built to serve massive corporate users, costs can shift to households. I see the effects of energy insecurity in families forced to choose between cooling their homes, buying medication, or putting food on the table.

Colorado has an opportunity to get this right. Senate Bill 102 would establish guardrails to protect ratepayers, limit pollution, and ensure large electricity users pay their full infrastructure costs. Other states, including Michigan and Virginia, are reconsidering generous tax incentives after seeing how quickly public costs can outpace public benefit.

Colorado can welcome innovation without sacrificing clean air, clean water, affordable energy, and community health. Public health must be a priority, not an afterthought.

Clare Burchenal, Denver

As the story makes clear, data centers in our communities have real impacts on our health, our pocketbooks and our quality of life. I’m a mom of two small children who are counting on the adults in the room to make responsible decisions that impact their futures. It’s dizzying to see the pace of data centers sweeping the country and confusing as to why leaders are rushing to accommodate them without taking into consideration all of the impacts these massive industrial complexes have on communities.

It’s critical that data centers are powered by clean-burning renewable energy, not fossil fuels. We are in a no-snow winter in Colorado, and we have no safeguards in place against data center water use. Energy infrastructure should be paid for by the billion-dollar big tech companies that will profit from it, not by unfair rate increases for our families and small businesses.

There is a way to do this right. Senate Bill 102 has some important protections for our families and communities while still allowing for the responsible construction and operation of data centers built in appropriate places in our state. It is unacceptable that our leaders do nothing to protect us from big tech excesses. SB-102 will protect all Colorado kids – and their parents and communities. Join me in urging our legislators to pass this important bill.

Sara Kuntzler, Arvada

U.S. women’s hockey players above the game and politics

Re: “Trump tore athletes down on the world’s stage,” March 1 commentary

Dear Megan Schrader,

Thank you for your column on how the president disrespected the U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team. Your excellent commentary hit and sent the puck into the back of the net, so to speak.

To take it a step further, I believe the women’s choice not to visit the White House was more than meets the eye. Ostensibly, they declined the invitation because of the timing, specifically the resumption of play in the professional women’s hockey league.

Yet, I would like to believe it was more an expression of contempt for the president and his policies.

The women were smarter and braver and truer to their values than were the men’s Olympic hockey team, who, with the same timing issues, chose to accept the invitation to the White House. That visit and the visit to the State of the Union Address only helped bolster the president’s optics. An exception was the Colorado Avalanche’s own Brock Nelson, who declined to accompany the men’s team because he valued his family time more than a public charade.

In sports — as in life — we need more people like the women hockey players who will elevate their values above the games and politics.

Bill Allegar, Denver

Backing up to park for safety?

Re: “Do you back into a parking spot or back out?” March 1 feature story

I read this with slight amusement. For someone who has traveled a bit, and especially in Asia (Japan in particular), backing into a parking space is a very common practice (not a new trend) and has been for decades. On my first trip to Japan, around 1992, I was told it was what most people did.

As for the company Imminent Threat Solutions recommending “tactical parking” because they should “prevail against all threats,” seems like marketing hype of the biggest kind, building fear into your daily life of running errands and going to work. Has there been bad behaviour, shootings, and whatnot in a parking lot? Sure, but let’s not build fear for something that happens rarely to the average individual.

Randy DeBoer, Denver

To add to the parking procedures article in Sunday’s paper, there is another option, one that I use and recommend; it’s the “drive-through” to an open space.

After having been hit and having a rental car damaged (a three-month hassle to resolve) by a driver who backed out of an opposite space without looking, I don’t drive into a parking space if I can help it. What I do instead is find an open space where I can drive in straight and continue to a back-to-back adjoining space where I can park and then drive ahead to depart. These parking spots are typically a longer walk to my destination, and I benefit from the additional steps.

G. E. Cole, Centennial

I enjoyed your article on discussing whether to back in or pull straight into parking spaces. Our oldest son is a backer-inner, and I am starting to be one too. What is missing from your analysis, though, is the grocery store, much less Costco or Home Depot. Almost nobody is a backer-inner in these places, since you’re typically loading stuff in your backseat, hatch, or pickup bed. I guess the backer-inners are just not going to be able to escape as quickly once they’ve picked up 50 pounds of dog food, 25 rolls of paper towels, or five sheets of 4′ x 8′ plywood. Hope they survive.

Tim Hickisch, Highlands Ranch

You can support immigrants and the law

Re: “Faith communities show support for immigrants,” Feb. 22 news story

Faith communities do show support for immigrants. I don’t agree with those who stand against the law and ICE. While we may support all people made in the image of God, we should not be for illegal immigrants. They have broken the law, and some are doing great harm while living here. Legal immigrants, please come. Illegal immigrants, please go home and come here legally.

Deanna R Walworth, Brighton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Source link