President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 05, 2013 10:56 AM UTC

Hickenlooper Signs Renewable Energy Bill Today

  • 34 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

hickclimate

UPDATE #2: From Conservation Colorado's Pete Maysmith:

“We applaud Governor Hickenlooper for signing significant legislation into law which will expand clean renewable energy to more of Colorado,” said Pete Maysmith, Executive Director, Conservation Colorado. “The Governor’s signature today reaffirms that clean wind and solar energy are a critical part of the foundation of Colorado’s energy future. This law will help foster the development of homegrown energy and incentivize energy sources that benefit our fight against climate change.

“This is also a job creator the law will attract new investment that will boost our economy and create good paying jobs throughout Colorado. Finally, let’s not overlook the fact this once again highlights Colorado as a leader we innovate and move forward on clean energy while other states are fighting back well-funded dirty energy attacks to their renewable energy standards.”

And John Nielsen of Western Resource Advocates:

"This is an important step for Colorado's burgeoning renewable energy industry that will benefit families and economies across the state," said John Nielsen, Energy Program Director for Western Resource Advocates. "Along with the news that Xcel Energy is dramatically increasing its wind portfolio in Colorado, this is an exciting time from renewable energy in the state. Renewables are not only important for clean air and clean water, but more and more people are recognizing that wind, solar, and other resources are a strong economic investment as well."

—–

UPDATE: The Denver Post's Mark Jaffe reports:

The bill was one of the most hotly contested of the legislative session, pitting environmental groups and renewable-energy companies against rural cooperatives and Republican lawmakers.

There were marathon hearings and floor sessions that stretched into the night.

"Well, let me think about this a little more," Hickenlooper joked as he signed the bill. "Voila, it's the law."

—–

Fox 31's Eli Stokols has the story:

After nearly a month of deliberation, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to take action Wednesday on a handful of controversial bills that remain unsigned.

FOX31 Denver has now confirmed that Hickenlooper will sign Senate Bill 252, which increases the amount of energy that rural electricity associations must draw from renewable sources. Backers of Senate Bill 252 had been cautiously optimistic Hickenlooper would sign it into law, but the governor’s office insists that a final decision wasn’t made until a meeting Wednesday morning.

A small signing ceremony and press conference at the Capitol is set for 12:30 p.m. Wednesday.

So far this month, Hickenlooper has signed nearly 100 bills into law, many of them at public events that have taken him to 22 Colorado counties.

But he has taken his time mulling over four final bills, including S.B. 252, which would require rural co-ops with more than 100,000 meters, and utilities that generate and supply electricity on behalf of member co-ops, to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2020.

As we noted yesterday, it always seemed strange that Hickenlooper might not sign SB-252, which was carried by Senate President John Morse and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino. If he was going to (once again) poke environmental groups in the eye and anger Democratic leadership, it would have made sense for him to kill the legislation before it got to his desk. We're surprised signing this bill was such an internal debate given that reality.

In the end, this is a decision that will please conservationists who have been much aggrieved during Hickenlooper's first term. It certainly won't put an end to tensions over energy policy in Colorado between the Hickenlooper and many in his own party, but it was a very useful political move. We suspect Hickenlooper knew this all along.

Tweet
Share

Comments

34 thoughts on “Hickenlooper Signs Renewable Energy Bill Today”

    1. Agree. Twice. 1. I bitch too much and 2. Hick signed a good bill.

      And even this: Although I believe a leader should be an educator for the electorate (If anything, Hick's been a mis-educator.) his maneuvering on issues pre-passage has been masterful and has shown him to be a more than competent leader behind the scenes. It's his Republican streak that jerks my knee.

  3. Now we can start addressing the 'real' wars in rural Colorado: extreme poverty (particularly childhood poverty), lack of jobs, the flight of our best and brightest from our communities, and the budget challenges of our many small-attendance education centers. With this new law we have before us the opportunity to build a new tax base, inspire entrepreneurship and re-invigorate a region rich in natural resources. Kudo's to the Governor for his decision to move us forward.

    1. Rural communities will continue to lose the best and the brightest. And that means good jobs will continue to be scarce. The high-end jobs require a critical mass of supporting companies and of others with similiar skills. So you will contine to see a brain drain to Boulder, Denver, Ft. Collins, & Colo Springs.

      There's no way around it. I could not have created my company in a rural community or mountain town. The people I need to hire aren't in those areas. The companies I need for support work (like a co-lo facility) aren't there.

      1. With all due respect David, there could be a lot of opportuniteis for value-added agricultural enterprises that live in the nexus of the green economy and new, emerging crops and markets.  I agree with you, rural towns are rarely going to be a place for hi-tech to go – but the agricultural version of high-tech could provide a lot of opportunities  The problem will still be:  will the rural communities embrace the needed change?  Some will and some won't.  The ones that do will thrive. 

         

        1. Maybe but I'm not hopeful. There's a lot of studies that show you get an exponential increase in creativity based on the number of creative people in an area. There will be some "rural" areas that become centers for innovative rural enterprises. But they'll be the ones with a critical mass of people working on it.

          I understand the desire to turn rural communities into centers of innovative well paying jobs. But the small numbers make it very unlikely. Where I think the state should focus is on Greeley & Pueblo. They each have a University and a significant population. Those you have a decent chance of growing.

          1. I've heard there is this new thing called an intarwebs, something like that, which would let creative people put their creative heads together creatively and do all the brainstorming they can handle. And then they could go outside, ride their bike (or horsie?) with their kids down to the community center and spend some time playing, or watching team sports before going back home to work on the garden or whatever creative project they're doing because they want to. In those hours they don't have to waste commuting or hanging around an office because that's what everyone else everywhere thinks is the only way to do anything.

              1. I believe physical proximity, or crowded urban living conditions, has also been tagged by science as a cause of social aggression, crime, and that sort of thing. The more people you pack together in a given space, the more damage is done to quality of life issues.

                I guess what I disagree with is the presumption that the 'best and brightest' prove themselves so by moving away from small towns to big cities. A person's IQ score is not influenced by the population count of the place they've chosen to live.

    2. Well said, MB, and not just Colorado. Contrary to David, I de believe that with the right incentives, some good old fashioned Yankee engenuity, local control and local jobs can be maade more vibrant.

          1. David – I didn't take umbrage at your remarks.  There will be small handful of communities that figure it out.  Most of them won't.  There was a great study about a decade ago that showed you needed at least 3,500 people to just maintain a level of civil participation that yeilded a functioning government and enough people to contribute to social events and enterprises that give you a level of quality-of-life. 

            My hometown is only 2,000 people [Wray] but it is an extraordinary city that has managed to build some really quality infrastructure.  We received the All-America City Award in 1993 – the smallest town at that time to be recognized.  But again, we are an exception.

             

            1. No worries, I didn't think you did. (Email is a terrible communication mechanism for intent.)

              And yes a few will figure it out. But I'll bet you those that do will grow in size because it will attract others. And as you mentioned about Colorado Springs, even those with the critical mass can still blow it, so even harder for the smaller sized communities.

      4. Here's an article about this.

        This is seen most clearly in cities. While we know that the productive cities — those with universities developing scientific innovations, places patenting new ideas, and even those that have the largest number of creative individuals — are those that are in general more populous, the relationship is actually superlinear. Work by a team of scientists led by Luís Bettencourt and Geoffrey West has found that adding an additional person does not increase productivity of a city by a constant amount, it actually increases the productivity of city per person. In other words, it is as if everyone else in the city have themselves become more productive through the addition of each new person.

        Wanting the best for all communities and all people is a noble goal. But ignoring inconvient facts rarely leads to success.

        1. Cities like Colorado Springs are even struggling with this [a self-inflicted wound IMHO].  I do a little work south of Monument Hill and there is perpetual whining about how they can't keep their young people there.  In fact, any creative young soul with more than two firing neurons that wants to live in Colorado more often than not lands "north" of Monument Hill.  I found Colorado Springs to have so much potential – but unfortunately living under the control of city fathers who look and act a lot like a certain rural electric organization in our state.  What??  You mean young people have a problem with a 50-year old coal plant in the middle of our downtown development that we want to spend tens of millions of dollars to rehab so we can keep it belching crap into the atmosphere for decades? This militay 'green thing' is just a passing fad.  Green, trimmed grass in our parks? 

      1. more than crubs, but not a meal. just a course. O&G, fracking, even elec cars are part of the meal. this is a positive bill and I'm glad it is signed

        1. Any bets the rural electric utilities don't try to kill it by dragging their feet and obstructing it's implementation ala Republicans and the ACA?  The best case scenario is short term price pain but potentially more stable long term prices.

          Unfortunately it will be another piece of evidence that there is some kind of rural vs urban war going on and rural residents aka Republicans are being persecuted for living in small communities.  No expectations on my side that they are going to appreciate the progress made in their time to convert our communities to a more sustainable economy and lifestyle.  It will be reminecent of those folks who fought the designation of land for National Parks in their folly and short sightedness.

          1. This is probably worth a broader post of its own, but the rural vs. urban Colorado "war" is pretty ridiculous. With 90%+ (and growing) of the population along the Front Range, if there is a war on rural Colorado — it's absolutely not a battle they can hope to win.

            1. Really, the "war" is not urban or Front Range vs. rural.  Instead it's a battle between the 19th century and 21st century — and both are well-representated in rural Colorado.  The one thing the 90-percenters along the Front Range need to remember is that they really, really like to recreate in rural Colorado – so they'd better help preserve our water and scenic vistas, not to mention keep the highways and byways in shape.

               

              1. You're absolutely right, Realist. If people over on this side of the hill are scratching to survive, there won't be a lot of hospitality. Moreover, when things are tight, the allure of the gas patch, oil shale or the latest well-paying jobs that will last'' mantra will find willing listeners.

                 

                1. When has the Western Slope (its media, its state and local reps, and most of its people) not been completely in the pocket of the Oil and Gas Industry?  Aren't you proposing a scenario that's already happening?

  5. As we noted yesterday, it always seemed strange that Hickenlooper might not sign SB-252, which was carried by Senate President John Morse and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino. If he was going to (once again) poke environmental groups in the eye and anger Democratic leadership, it would have made sense for him to kill the legislation before it got to his desk. We're surprised signing this bill was such an internal debate given that reality.

    I think Hick is very uncomfortable when he can't be everybody's favorite nice guy. That's what the silliness with the oft repeated fracking fluid (but not the fracking fluid actually in use) drinking anecdote was about, an attempt to turn the controversial issue into something cute and amusing like his successful campaign ads, to soften the blow.  

    He doesn't care much for a lot of  his own party's agenda, being  the kind of old fashioned Main Street Republican that's gone extinct in today's GOP, but he really, really wants everybody to like him. As often happens to people in leadership positions who want everyone to like them, he's increasingly managing to annoy everyone.

    While he's pretty much bullet proof for re-election, it's fortunate he has no shot at getting close to a serious presidential run because the last thing anyone needs is a Commander in Chief  who hates to make a tough decision a lot of  people might not like.

        1. According to radio FM 90.1 interview I heard last week may 29 on "Colorado Matters" the delay was due to negotiations over rules of implementation of the legislation.  I don't know how this works but it sounded like there were continuing discussions about exactly how the bill would be put into effect.  Nonetheless at that time Hick indicated that he was going to sign the bill.  You can hear his comments ~80% of the way in the attached podcast:

          http://www.cpr.org/#load_article|Governor_Defends_Dunlap_Decision_Responds_to_Lobato_Verdict

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

105 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!