http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/blog_rss/americansforamericanenergy We've got a new member here in the Progress Now office! This cute guy is a rescue dog who's part Rhodesian Ridgeback- part Texas Heeler farm dog. He's about a year and half old and was found wandering the streets of Dallas, TX. The rescue facility described him as fearless; a source of boundless energy and perpetual motion but he can always find time to sit in your lap and whisper dog secrets in your ear. We'd like to include the rest of you in welcoming him to the Colorado progressive community by doing a naming contest. We'd love to hear your suggestions. Please enter them in the comments section below. We'll announce the winning name next week. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqYK http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqYK/commentary#comments Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:48:07 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqYK KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 11 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqYK/ From universities to churches across Colorado and the nation, individuals are gearing up for a week of education and action on Global Warming.   On Wednesday January 30th at 8pm est an hour long, live, interactive webcast called the 2% Solution will be screened online.  The program, featuring actor Edward Norton, Stanford University climate scientist, Stephen Schneider , sustainability expert Hunter Lovins and green jobs pioneer Van Jones and youth climate leaders, will include a discussion of global warming solutions.  The 2% Solution comes from the notion - that to hold global warming to the low end of 3-4 degrees F will require cuts in global warming pollution in developed countries by more than 80% below current levels by 2050.  Put another way, we need to cut roughly 2% of current emission levels a year for the next forty years. The webcast will revolve around the question: can we as a nation get on to this path, and cut global warming pollution 2% a year for the next decade? If so, what would it take? Then on Thursday January 31st Focus the Nation will conduct a national teach-in on climate change issues.  For events across Colorado - go here .  The teach-in will engage millions of students and citizens with political leaders and decision makers about Global Warming Solutions.   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqkW http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqkW/commentary#comments Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:03:07 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqkW KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqkW/ Representative Douglas Bruce (R- ) has just received the first ever disciplinary measure of censure from the Colorado State House of Representatives.  The House voted 62-1 to censure Bruce for the incident which occurred on January 14th in which he kicked a photographer for the Rocky Mtn. News. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqzs http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqzs/commentary#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:12:04 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqzs KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqzs/   January 23, 2008 Dear Honorable Members of the General Assembly, We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to urge your support of a statewide precinct-based polling place election for the upcoming 2008 primary and general elections.  We believe this is the best solution to ensure that all Coloradans have access to voting.  We recognize the difficult situation facing our county clerks.  Whatever solution is adopted, county clerks will be burdened with a short timeline, limited resources and an enormous task ahead.  The Legislature must act swiftly and surely to give our clerks the guidance and direction they need to move forward and ensure a fair, accurate, and accessible election. Nothing is more sacred in a democracy than a citizen’s right to vote.  It is the consensus of the following organizations many of whom work with traditionally disenfranchised voting populations, that we keep all voting system options available to voters in Colorado. Our groups offer the following comments:   1.      Coloradans like options for voter participation:   Currently, voters can choose to vote by mail, vote early, or vote on Election Day.  These options provide for the greatest flexibility and ensure that all Colorado voters can vote. ·         More than 55% of Colorado voters chose the polling place in previous general elections. Vote by mail may be popular, but it is not used by the majority of Colorado voters. ·         Polling place elections are familiar to Colorado voters and county administrators. ·         Polling place elections can be held with paper ballots, and host one accessible voting machine for voters with disabilities. ·         Polling places must be compliant with ADA accessibility requirements   2.      Vote by mail should not be the exclusive option for Coloradans this year:   Our groups support vote by mail as an option for voters.  Vote by mail can increase voter turnout in low interest elections, and provides an alternative for voters who cannot make it to the polls on Election Day.  ·         Our primary concern is that already underrepresented voting populations will be disenfranchised by an exclusive mail program.  Voters who move frequently, who do not have a home address, or who are not familiar with vote by mail could be left out of the process.  This burden will fall hardest on minority, low income and young voters.  ·         Colorado is not ready for an exclusive mandatory vote by mail program.  Colorado must make numerous modifications to ensure voter protections including but not limited to: mailing ballots to all registered voters, not only active voters; creating ‘service centers’ to provide a voting alternative for voters with disabilities and any voters who do not vote by mail; and changing our ID requirements for first time voters registered by mail.    We believe the Legislature can act to make a precinct polling place election work:   1.  Support HB 1155 with two amendments We support HB 1155 to give the Secretary of State additional authority to re test and modify the certification results announced in December 2007.  We recognize the pressing need to get our voting equipment up and running for the 2008 primary and general elections. To be compliant with HAVA we must ensure that every polling place has a fully accessible voting system for voters with disabilities.  Recommendations: Require the Secretary of State to test and/or demonstrate how problems revealed by the decertification have been resolved or mitigated to cause him to rescind or amend any decision. Any recertification must ensure the highest level of confidence that existing standards are not weakened. The retesting should be open to the public.    2.  Increase Post Election Audits Because we are putting back into use voting systems that have at one time been deemed inadequate for certification, we must improve our security and pre and post election testing. Colorado does have a good post election audit, but it must be improved to ensure greater confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.  Statistical audits can ensure with at least 99% confidence that a full manual recount would not alter the outcome, and do so with the greatest efficiency of effort.   3.  Fund our Counties Regardless of the type of election chosen, the real challenge for counties will be in planning for an election with such a short timeline.  Our counties are desperate for funding to allow for: Improved training and recruitment of temporary workers and election judges Voter Education and Outreach (this is critical for a successful election) Technology upgrades, training, and other modifications necessary due to certification/ recertification   4.  Address voter registration database issues While a statewide voter database can be useful in the future, our current SCORE system is untested and unproven with numerous technological problems. Introducing this new system statewide on a major Election Day could subject our state to disastrous consequences. We should require counties to maintain their existing county-based voter registration systems to avoid Election Day problems with the SCORE system.   Colorado leaders have the opportunity to provide guidance to ensure that the 2008 primary and general elections are fair, accurate and accessible for all.  Voting is our democracy’s most sacred right.  For most Americans it is the only time they voice their opinions about the direction of our state and nation.  Colorado voters have entrusted you with their vote. They expect you to ensure that their voices will be heard and their votes will be counted. We urge you to consider these recommendations carefully and work to make every Coloradans’ vote count. Thank you. Please contact us with any questions or further requests for information,   Sincerely, Jenny Flanagan, Colorado Common Cause Kristen Thomson, People for the American Way Dusti Gurule, Latina Initiative Bill Vandenberg, Colorado Progressive Coalition/Colorado Progressive Action Cathryn Hazouri, ACLU Colorado Barb Van Hoy, Citizens Project Faith Gross, the Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People Rosemary Harris, NAACP – Colorado Springs Branch Steve Fenberg, New Era Colorado Joe Richey, Democracy for Colorado Kirpal Singh, Colorado Public Interest Research Group Cary Lacklen, Coloradans for Voting Integrity Linda Meric, 9 to 5 Working Women   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz7 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz7/commentary#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:11:54 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz7 KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqz7/   Statements from Speaker Romanoff and Majority Leader Madden In response to the proposed paper-based voting system that was announced today, Speaker Romanoff released the following statement: "The procedures for the 2008 elections have been the subject of considerable debate.  I am pleased to join the governor and a bipartisan team of my colleagues in reaching a swift and sensible solution. "The 2008 elections are among the most important of our lifetime.  While the outcome of these elections is still in doubt, the rules should not be. "Democrats and Republicans may duke it out on the campaign trail, but we don't need to fight about the fairness of our elections." Majority Leader Alice Madden released the following statement: "Today we are guaranteeing the safest, most efficient, and most secure voting method, and the one that guarantees access for voters. It's not often that we are faced with such a significant problem, and yet we are able to solve that problem – -- quickly, with agreement from across the aisle, in both chambers, from two branches of government, and with input from the county clerks and many, many others.    This solution may not please everyone, but I strongly believe that we have done the best job possible in remedying the problem, and in averting a potential disaster in democracy. Paper-based ballots will ensure that every vote is counted.  Sometimes, the old-fashioned way is the best way. And since my kids tell me that "retro" is  “in” again, I think we're on the right track!   Finally, let us not forget that our forefathers and foremothers fought for the right to vote. .  We recognize that the right to vote is essential but it is hardly guaranteed.  It takes ongoing maintenance and our constant care.   I am proud to continue work ensuring that every Coloradoan has the chance to cast a safe, secure, and verifiable vote.”   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz4 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz4/commentary#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:39:50 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/Cqz4 KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqz4/ The following was released from the governor's communication office this afternoon _______________________________________________________________    Gov. Ritter and a group of bipartisan lawmakers today announced new legislation for conducting the 2008 elections by using paper ballots at polling places while maintaining voter choice through options such as early or absentee mail voting. "One of the most basic roles of government is to provide for elections that are fair, reliable, transparent and convenient for voters," Gov. Ritter said. "Our democracy depends not only on the people's ability to vote, but also on their confidence that every vote counts. "This bi-partisan legislative proposal will fix the problems we face because of decertified electronic voting machines for the 2008 elections. Paper ballots are a tried-and-true election method that has worked for decades. They ensure a verifiable paper trail and minimize the possibility of technology failures that have caused Election Day problems in the past." The legislation will be co-sponsored by Reps. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, and David Balmer, R-Centennial, and Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver. "Given the constraints of the decertifications, this is the best solution we can craft," Rep. Balmer said. "We must preserve absentee voting and Election Day, precinct-based voting so that we avoid disenfranchising voters who only vote in presidential election years." "The people of Colorado can be assured that the 2008 elections will be accessible, accurate, secure and transparent," Sen. Gordon said. "With paper ballots as the primary method of casting votes, people can feel secure knowing that there is a paper record of their vote." "Sometimes, the old-fashioned way is the best way," Rep. Madden said. "And since my kids tell me that 'retro' style is in again, I think we're being very trendy. Let us not forget that our forefathers and foremothers fought for the right to vote. We should always be grateful for that right and exercise that right." Previously introduced legislation should enable the Secretary of State to recertify optical scanning equipment to count ballots on election night as well as electronic voting machines for the limited purpose of providing polling-place access to voters with disabilities.   Gov. Ritter and legislators said they will continue working closely with the Secretary of State and county clerks to ensure successful election processes this year and in the years to come.   Click here to view Gov. Ritter's letter to the county clerks. "Ensuring fair and accurate elections underpins our entire democracy," Gov. Ritter said. "Restoring the people's confidence in our voting system is vital. This plan will do that." http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqzT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqzT/commentary#comments Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:38:54 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqzT KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqzT/ In a startling report out yesterday, two Colorado Oil Companies have already begun to cry fowl over proposed new rules for their industry.  EnCana Oil sent out letters to non-profits that it has supported, citing the dire consequences of the company’s charitable funding program if new environmental and health regulations were required of the industry.  Really???  According to Rocky Mountain News the letter stated : The rules could affect "the company's ability to partner with organizations such as yours that meet the needs of the community on a daily basis," …. The EnCana letter drew criticism from Bruce Christensen, who runs a nonprofit in Glenwood Springs to aid developmentally disabled people. - Never in 30 years of his work has he encountered such a request from a donor, he said. "I would like to think people who support the nonprofits do it because they support their mission and are trying to be a good neighbor within the community - and I don't know that those are connected with lobbying on energy regulation, Meanwhile, Williams Oil sent letters to its employees and contractors describing the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) as trying to –  "railroad" the new rulemaking process by passing the new rules "in stealth." The memo described the rules as a "multi-tiered bureaucratic nightmare" and potentially "ruinous to our industry. So the long awaited push back from the Oil & Gas industry has begun.  We can only guess what other types of misinformation our industry front group friends over at Americans for American Energy will be distributing in the near future. This is a critical time for the COGCC as they prepare to institute new rules for regulating the industry.  The state is providing an even greater level of transparency in getting feedback about proposed rules and better regulation of the environmental and health effects is desperately needed.  This is not the time for Oil and Gas Companies to start putting out false claims and inflating fear in the eyes of citizens, workers, and public leaders. Lets hope they get their act together. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFP http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFP/commentary#comments Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:16:40 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFP KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 550 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFP/ As legislators gear up to tackle large fiscal shortfalls in Colorado this spring the same question keeps coming up each time….how are we going to pay for this? Tomorrow as the Colorado General Assembly begins it’s 2008 session they will start  dealing with how to prioritize improvements in health care , transportation , and both secondary and higher education .  Also on their plate are topics such as Colorado’s response to global warming, agriculture issues , immigration reform , and fixing the state constitution. Meanwhile, Governor Ritter is entering his second year of office.  While widely popular coming out of his firs year, many of the of the blue ribbon panels he set up to report on issues like education, transportation, and health care are starting to report back.  The verdict: we need money – to the tune of $3 billion more a year. So it appears the honeymoon for the Governor may be over and the real work is about start because laying in the path to these reforms are the morass of constitutional provisions limiting state spending, a hesitant state electorate when it comes to tax increases, and a host of pundits who like to remind of us of both. GOOD LUCK! http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFl http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFl/commentary#comments Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:32:38 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFl KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFl/ Two of Colorado’s most popular ski areas, Copper Mountain and Breckenridge, both received F’s in a recent environmental scorecard released by the Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition.  Winter Park followed close by with a grade of D.  The report card used a complex set of several factors such as Preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas , Conserving Water and Energy by Avoiding New Snowmaking , and Environmental Policy Positions and Advocacy in determining scores. The most heavily weighted factors involved the expansion of new ski terrain into previously unused or remote areas.  As the report states, “ development on undisturbed forest lands is the single most damaging ecological impact a ski area can undertake .”  According to the report, skier numbers have only increased by 1/10 of 1% per year for the last 20+ years; yet the growth of new terrain at many parks far outpaces this rise.  Ski resorts are competing with each other for a very limited pool of skier dollars every year.  The report cards aim is to encourage positive effects across the industry by pointing out this inconsistency to users and the resorts themselves.       While Colorado had the worst two resorts in the country, it can also boast the best two as well.  Aspen and Buttermilk resorts were numbers 1 & 2 atop the Coalition’s list with Telluride and Aspen Highlands receiving A’s as well. For the full report on Colorado Ski Resort's check here   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqF2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqF2/commentary#comments Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:07:53 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqF2 KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqF2/ As Colorado sifts its way through the state’s current voting debacle, Progress Now is dedicated to providing viewpoints from a variety of sources.  The following comments are from the January, 3rd public forum at the State Capitol on Voting Procedures.   The comments are from Claudia Kuhns, Executive Director of The Public Integrity Project   ____________________________________________________________________   In deciding the manner in which elections should be conducted in there are basic principles that are necessary to follow.  Elections should be transparent, verifiable, accurate, accessible, secure, accountable and ballots secret. .   The methods that are being discussed currently are all-mail ballot elections or paper ballots at the precinct.  Paper ballots at the precinct can come the closest to meeting all of the above criteria.  Mail ballots elections achieve virtually none of these criteria and were voted down by the citizens of Colorado by a 58% to 42% in 2002.   There has been a proposal made by the Secretary of State that certain of the Colorado requirements for certification be eliminated and “patches” allowed to fix the many problems found in the recently completed voting system testing.  Given the number of patches that would be necessary, the voting machine software would resemble a coat-of-many-colors.  As stated by Sec. Coffman, the Federal testing is inadequate and that is the reason for State testing is necessary.  In fact, the Federal testing records of at least one vendor could not be produced by either the vendor or the Independent Testing Authority.  The Independent Testing Authority reports upon which the Colorado Department of State relied are either non-existent or badly flawed.  Ciber, Inc. has lost its Election Assistance Commission accreditation for lack of record-keeping and inadequate testing.  Systest has received a letter of reprimand from the EAC for unethical behavior for working for the Republican Party in the disputed Sarasota County, Florida, congressional contest.  In 2006, Systest was reported in the New Mexico press as saying that the ES&S M100 and M650 scanners were accurate and suitable for use.  In December of 2007, Systest gave the opposite evaluation in testing for the Ohio Secretary of State. These scanners have been decertified in Colorado.  The vendors have been complaining about the differing standards for certifying voting systems in the various states.  Colorado and 34 other states have adopted the 2002 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines into statute.  This was done in 2004 in Colorado.  There have also been allegations that the Conroy v. Dennis lawsuit made the requirements more stringent.  These complaints and allegations simply lack basis in fact.  If 35 states have virtually the same requirements, that certainly makes requirements standard in a majority of states.  If the vendors were serious about having their equipment comply with Colorado statutes, they could have done so by now.   Conroy v. Dennis only requires that the laws that were on the books since 2004 be followed and they clearly were not. Of the two options being seriously discussed, paper ballots at the precinct with an accessible device for those with disabilities is the best option.  In order to keep maintain transparency, accountability and comply with state statute, the paper ballots need to be counted at the precinct so that the results can be posted at the polling place on election night.  In order to keep costs down, the ballots can be hand-counted in small batches at the precinct, then taken to the elections offices and counted on central count scanners. The hand-counted results can then be given to press as unofficial results. Any differences in the counts can be reconciled. Counting in small batches at the precinct level will alleviate bottle-neck problems like those in Denver County in 2006 and 2007.  Since the counting occurs after most people leave work, it would be easier to recruit counting judges who would probably volunteer with no financial payment required.  Studies done by the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project show that neither optical scan or hand-counting meet the .000002% maximum error rate required by HAVA.  If two methods of counting are automatically used, we can achieve a more accurate result with a built-in audit.  Our elections should be subject to the same strict standards of accounting as well-run businesses.  Hand-counting is currently used by 45% of the jurisdictions in New Hampshire as well as country-wide in Japan, Sweden, Germany, Canada and Switzerland.  Hand-counting is currently used in Jackson County, Colorado.  In New Hampshire, ballots may have as many as 25 contests and are still hand-counted, and the results available on election night, usually by 11:00 PM.  There has been discussion on the election taskforce headed by Senator Gordon and Representative Balmer about the need to maintain or increase voter confidence.  Voter confidence can only be maintained by keeping the Colorado testing process intact and by involving citizens in transparent, accurate and accountable elections.   Claudia Kuhns Executive Director The Public Integrity Project claudiakuhns@comcast.net 303.349.7583 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFX http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFX/commentary#comments Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:27:33 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFX KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFX/ As Colorado sifts its way through the state’s current voting debacle, Progress Now is dedicated to providing viewpoints from a variety of sources.  The following comments are from the January, 3rd public forum at the State Capitol on Voting Procedures.   The comments are from Kristen Thomas, a Progress Now member and representative of People for the American Way. _________________________________________________   Good morning.  My name is Kristen Thomson and I represent People for the American Way, a non-profit civil rights and civil liberties organization of over 25,000 members and activists in Colorado.  I want to thank you for this opportunity.   The decertification of our voting machines and ballot counting machines could result in confusion that might have the potential of disenfranchising many voters in Colorado.  But we are not alone.  People For is working in California and Ohio, two states facing similar problems.  However, the problem of inaccurate, unauditable, unverifiable voting machines must be addressed, not only to restore voter confidence, but to protect the fundamental right of every voter to have his or her vote accurately counted, so we are supportive of the Secretary of State’s efforts and recommendations that will create a path to re-certification of the voting and vote-counting machines.   In the past, voters in Colorado have enjoyed a great number of choices in our methods of voting.  Our legislature has been on the forefront of increasing access to the ballot.  We feel that it is important to keep all options available to voters in the 2008 elections and beyond.    The proposal to move the 2008 election to an exclusive mail ballot would reduce voter choice in Colorado, and the impact of this burden on voters cannot be fully assessed at this time.  Adequate study of the impact of an exclusive mail ballot election in a state as racially and socioeconomically diverse as Colorado has yet to be conducted. Of greatest concern is the impact of operating this type of election on our citizens that are most at risk of being disenfranchised; low-income communities, communities of color, those without a long-term fixed address, and the disabled.    These are the voters who studies indicate disproportionately prefer to vote in person rather than by mail, and that's why virtually every civil rights group urges caution before any jurisdiction eliminates in-person voting options to go to an exclusively mail ballot.   This is not to say that we are opposed to mail balloting as an option available to voters.  Rather, we see our current situation as an opportunity to do greater education with our voting population around the benefits of voting-by-mail and encouraging voters to choose that option for themselves.  If done early and properly we will have a much sense of how to handle the voters who do not chose that option.    Additionally, any proposals to move to an all paper ballot need to closely examined to ensure the integrity of precinct-based optical scanners, proper use of bilingual ballots, and proper training of poll-workers.  It is also important that voters still have access to early voting locations across the state.    Without specific proposals, it is difficult to comment as to which are the best options for Colorado.  We look forward to working with the legislature, Secretary of State and County Clerks toward a solution that protects the fundament right to vote, increases access to the ballot and meets the needs of election administrators.    One final note.  The funding available from the federal government is inadequate for the operation of modern elections and to protect our fundamental right to vote.  It is time that the State of Colorado step up to the plate and provide additional funds for the conduct of the 2008 elections given the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves in now.  We should not be restricting voter choice due to fiscal constraints alone.      Thank you again for this opportunity. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKm http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKm/commentary#comments Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:22:30 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKm KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqKm/ With flashy issues like healthcare, global warming, and education on the table for this spring’s crowded legislative session, the plate may be getting a little fuller with discussions of how to fix the constitutional quagmire Colorado is in.  Because of the ease with which Colorado may amend its constitution (the easiest governing document to amend in the country, requiring only a simple majority of voters to add provisions) the document has become so bloated with single issue amendments that it has doubled in size since 1990.    The main issue of contention is the fiscal straightjacket and temporary fixes that the state has put in place since the 1980’s.   Like that proverbial beast, Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) looms heavily over nearly every fiscal decision made in the state.  And while it is a novel notion to have a constitutional amendment that requires voter approval for tax increases, TABOR’s ratcheting effects on this state have been disastrous.  In a recently released report from the Belly Policy center Colorado state government ranked 44th of the 50 states in per capita spending.  The state also ranks 4th worst in the country in the total taxable resources spent on public education. Colorado has passed several revisions, addendums, and amendments to try to band-aid up some of the more gaping holes including Amendment 23 and the recently passed referendum C.  But legislators still find themselves in daily battles over the morass of conflicting constitutional provisions.  See the Rocky’s list below: * Gallagher Amendment: Passed in 1982, it limits the amount of tax burden the state can place on residential property owners. * TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights: Limits state spending and taxation by a formula based on population and inflation. * Arveschoug-Bird: Limits general fund spending hikes to 6 percent annually. The legislature initially passed the measure in the spring of 1992, but it was included in TABOR that fall, so it now is part of the constitution. * Amendment 23: Requires the state to spend more money on K-12 education, even during a recession. Thus in addition to the Bell’s recent report on what to do after Ref C’s (TABOR timeout) funds wear out, a DU panel will release an initial report tomorrow with their analysis and interpretation on suggestions for making a more controllable state constitution.  While critics will label any talk of reform as a tax hike, this is a desperately needed discussion that must be had, and a road the state needs to travel down.  If we care about issues like healthcare, education, roads, among others then we need to get the working document for our state government under control. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqK8 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqK8/commentary#comments Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:09:37 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqK8 KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqK8/ Like most people, when it comes to issues I know very little about, I tend to make decisions roughly 65% of the time with my gut. So when I first heard of a process that turned coal (the most polluting of fossil fuels) into a liquid fuel, my gut reaction was that this was probably not a good idea. To be honest, the other 35% of my thinking controlled by my brain thought is was even worse. The process of turning coal into liquid fuel requires heating coal to high temperature and pressure, converting it first to a gas and then to liquid fuel. Thus the massive inputs of energy needed for this process means that liquid coal currently produces double the greenhouse gas emissions of regular gasoline. But I held off strong criticism when I heard things like what the Denver Post wrote yesterday about a company called Rentech that is constructing a $50 million demonstration plant in Commerce City that will, among other things; display the coal to liquid process. Rentech proposes to remove carbon dioxide from the coal during the conversion process and sell it to be pumped underground for enhanced oil recovery. That sure sounded good. But my gut wasn't fully convinced. So I did a little more research. It turns out that this very issue was deliberated last summer during the Senate's Energy Bill debate. In testimony to a Senate Finance subcommittee in April liquid coal industry representative John Diesch stated; It runs cleaner than conventional fuels from petroleum, producing slightly less greenhouse emissions than conventional diesel when used in the same engines,…When compared to similar vehicles with gasoline internal combustion engines, there is about a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Thus Montana Senator John Tester (a liquid coal backer) tried to nullify environmental concerns when he stipulated in his liquid coal amendment that any project receiving "taxpayer support produce at least 20 percent less global warming pollution than gasoline over the lifetime of the product, and initially capture at least 85 percent of the carbon dioxide". So, when : (f)aced with the possibility that they might actually have to live up to their promises, the Coal to Liquids Coalition (an unholy alliance between the coal industry and some elements of the AFL-CIO) suddenly changed its tune. In an about-face, the members opposed Tester's amendment, despite the subsidies windfall it promised. Rather than touting their ability to make liquid coal clean as they had in their Senate testimony, industry officials now said it would be unfair to require them to live up to the environmental standards they themselves had promoted. Billionaire Richard Branson once stated that "I rely far more on gut instinct than researching huge amounts of statistics". When it comes to liquefying coal for automobiles I think my gut may be on to something. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKH http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKH/commentary#comments Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:39:10 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKH KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 130 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqKH/ How is it that voting, a basic constitutional right, is consistently such a problem for state's to figure out how to do well. You’d think that after the Florida election morass that happened in 2000, states would have be able to get their act together enough to create a voting system that efficiently works along with ensuring voter confidence in fair and impartial elections.  Apparently not…with Secretary of State Mike Coffman decertifying many of Colorado’s electronic voting machines it has created election turmoil over how to count votes next November.  Coffman’s decisions have put him at odds with many county clerks who want an all mail-in ballot next year.  However, this apparently was not the option Coffman preferred, because yesterday he recommended to the Legislature that paper ballots be used in the fall .    The result of this mire of voting uncertainty is a showdown this legislative session over election procedures in the centennial state.  Legislators have expressed mixed reactions over the debacle.  According to the Grand Junction Sentinel : Coffman's announcement on Wednesday followed one on Monday by state Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, calling for greater use of paper ballots. Gordon said he doubted the reliability of all electronic voting machines and called for legislation to avoid an election fiasco in November.   State Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, said he was all the more interested in carrying legislation this session voiding the requirement for state certification and allowing federally certified machines to be used, an effort that state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, endorsed.   Thus a variety of camps are already forming over which is the best method to use.  While an eager group of county clerks are understandably looking to institute an easier all mail-in ballot approach.  It’s important to remember that this would likely severely hinder voting in the 18-25 year old demographic.  These are people who move frequently and often don’t update their voting address as promptly as they should.  Under the current mail-in scenario, ballots would be sent to their last registered address.  If they’ve moved and forgotten to notify their county clerk- then no ballot.   Lets hope this group is kept in mind when the leg. Reconvenes in a couple of weeks.   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKv http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKv/commentary#comments Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:22:50 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKv KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqKv/ Governor Ritter issued his 120 day review of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) plan to open up the Roan Plateau to gas drilling yesterday.  The plan, which Ritter described as a "uniquely Colorado" approach , increased wildlife protection areas on the 70,000 acre plateau while also opening up other areas to drilling. Although there were some rumblings, the plan has garnered general approval from both the energy and environmental communities.  Ritter's approach to the Roan follows a general theme of finding what he terms "uniquely Colorado" solutions to environmental problems; in other words, a compromise.  He's used this terminology in issuing the state's plan for addressing climate change and his description of dealing with tailpipe emissions for automobiles.  It's a strategy that seems to be working to generally push an environmental agenda without getting pegged as being environmental.  In the case of the Roan dilemma, his plan increased the total size of environmentally protected areas on the plateau back to what the Colorado Division of Wildlife had originally proposed before the BLM dropped large portions of these ecologically sensitive regions from its development plan.       At the same time though, Ritter's recommendation of moving forward with drilling on selected areas of the Plateau was met with hearty approval from the energy community.  So it's understandable that environmental groups are expressing tepid optimism that the area can be both effectively protected and responsibly developed.  The plan, if done effectively, will supposedly allow for much less impact on the area than typical drilling efforts.  Which is a good start; because it is the infrastructure that supports drilling efforts which is far more environmentally damaging than the actual drilling and piping itself.  Time will tell if this review is the course that the feds will take in developing the Plateau, but the Gov. has stated that the federal government seems to be supportive of the measure.  Let’s hope http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKp http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKp/commentary#comments Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:49:51 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKp KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqKp/ This week we sent out a letter asking Progress Now members to urge Governor Ritter to support protection of the Roan Plateau as he plans to release his 120 day review to the Bureau of Land Management.  Over 500 members responded by signing the open letter.  You can read the letter here We also have a sampling of just some of the comments that members left.   Douglas Schnitzspahn - Please consider the long-term effects of short-term thinking. The amount of natural gas that can be recovered form the Roan Plateau can never make up for the fragile, wild character of the place I want to be able to tell my children that you helped save this place for them and their children. Jane Shellenberger - I've seen photos of the drilling platforms already in the Roan Plateau area and know that many, many more are planned.  This would be an irreplaceable long-term loss for our state, and I don't believe the short term energy gain warrants it, especially since conservation measures are still not a priority. In addition to the wildlife, there are many native plant species that will suffer if drilling goes ahead as planned. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to restore native plant species once their habitat is disturbed and it is these species that the wildlife depends on. Nancy Zeilig - I'm so glad you're Colorado's governor. It's great to have a governor we can trust to act out of integrity. Les Gray - The Roan Plateau is a jewel.  Only a small percentage of existing leased land has been developed.  We don't need the Roan now and future drilling techniques may do less damage.  Mr. Bush has already handsomely rewarded his patrons; don't let them get the Roan, too.   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKC http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKC/commentary#comments Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:43:09 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqKC KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqKC/ According to "Looking Forward: Colorado's fiscal prospects after Ref C", 2007 was the heyday in state funds from referendum C and the state will need to seek additional funding sources to maintain 2007 levels of revenue.  Several organizations have released a new report detailing the expected economic pitfalls the state is likely to encounter as the financial cushion that referendum C provided begins to sunset over the next few years. The striking news of the report is that neither an extension of Ref C nor a rescission of the initial 1991 TABOR law will allow the state to maintain the current level of funding.  While the report bunts on taking a stance on a serious alternative to funding, the implication is clear….the state is going to need to look at reworking tax policy.  So what’s the solution going to be? The alternative then may be looking at a new tax.  In a state that is legendary for its anti-tax fundamentalism, then approval of a new tax to help support the general fund is questionable.  So what’s a state to do? http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqbY http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqbY/commentary#comments Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:00:37 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqbY KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqbY/ It looks as though the industry front group Americans for American Energy (AAE) is continuing with its push for making the top of western Colorado’s majestic Roan Plateau look like the maze of runways out at DIA. This week AAE is releasing a survey on how to spend the now debunked revenue estimates that they previously published.  Let’s just take a moment to recap this analysis:  AAE is releasing a survey to ask Coloradans how to spend money that AAE claims will be made off Roan Plateau lease sales.  However, these lease sale figures have been shown to be so grossly inflated that they hardly merit recognition.  On top of that, AAE refuses to release how or who it talked to get those numbers.   I often ask myself how I will spend the millions of dollars I pretend I’m going to make next year.  But since I’m not really following that pipe dream as reality, it would be neither practical nor productive for me to plan my finances around those estimate. This is probably why Evan Dryer from the Governor’s office stated regarding AAE that, “They are so far off the map when it comes to serious fact-based discussion that it is impossible to take them seriously," Dreyer said, referring to the AAE. "It is difficult to give anything they do any credibility because they are using a figure that is artificially inflated, presumably for political gain. They refuse to reveal the source of the (revenue) figure, the methodology. We haven't seen anything that comes close to that." So maybe the next survey that comes out should ask one question. Would you rather? A: - Have the money in your energy bill go toward investment in renewable technologies throughout Colorado. (or) B: - Have the money in your energy bill go towards paying off industry front groups such as AAE to rip up some of the last remaining wild places of the Western Colorado landscape We’ll work on getting that one out…….   KJ Meyer Director – Colorado Energy Watch www.coloradoenergywatch.com http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFM http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFM/commentary#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:18:39 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFM KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFM/ The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission released a preliminary set of new regulations that has industry officials worried; which might not be a bad thing.  After basically having the ability to regulate their own industry for years, the new commission has been changed to give more voice to other concerns such as health and the environment.  According to the Denver Post , the proposed rule changes stem from legislation passed earlier this year that expands the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from seven to nine members, while reducing the number of energy-industry representatives from five to three. While the rules are still being proposed, this can only be seen as a win for advocates of healthy and clean communities around Colorado’s oil and gas development sites. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFB http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFB/commentary#comments Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:17:20 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqFB KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 451 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFB/ Proponents of restricting oil & gas development atop Colorado’s majestic Roan Plateau got a nice holiday present this week in the form of nearly 42,000 public comments against a Bureau of Land Management plan to grant leases for the drilling the area.  In fact, all but seven of the comments that came back were against drilling on the Roan. You could build a small library with the comments against drilling on the plateau.  You could even put together a decent newspaper with the comments in support.  Maybe the feds will finally listen that the public doesn’t want to open up everything out there to oil and gas development. www.coloradoenergywatch.org http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqH9 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqH9/commentary#comments Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:38:55 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/americansforamericanenergy/CqH9 KJ Meyer KJ Meyer 4 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqH9/