Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

Take our Time with Energy Decision

Two weeks ago I wrote about Xcel's proposal to provide Boulder with lots of wind energy. I said that Xcel would be able to count that wind energy towards its legislated mandate to provide 30 percent of its Colorado electricity as renewable or recycled energy.

I received a couple of emails from folks who told me I was wrong. Xcel would sell the renewable energy credits associated with the new wind energy to Boulder, and Boulder would get the RECs.

However, the Colorado statute that mandates utilities to provide a minimum percentage via renewable and recycled energy doesn't mention RECs. It just says that the utility has to generate or cause to be generated the energy.

The Public Utility Commission rules that implemented that law say that a utility will use RECs to meet the mandate, but they don`t seem to say that RECs are the only way to meet the mandate.

Confused? According to Xcel, the interpretation of this requirement doesn't matter. They say that they`ve already gotten enough renewable energy lined up to meet the mandate without Boulder, and to meet it early. Whether or not they are allowed to count the Boulder wind toward the 30 percent, they are not planning on doing so.

They don't need us.


[more]

Zero net carbons

Xcel Energy has finally outlined a proposal to City Council for a new franchise agreement that looks like it meets the goals for Boulder's energy future. I'm not convinced.

It's actually quite slick, a virtual game of three-card Monte. Who uses the renewable energy? Who pays for it? Who gets credit for it?

Xcel already provides renewable energy. They have to by law. Under their Boulder proposal, they won't have to provide a single kilowatt-hour more. Xcel claims that this wind power generation capacity will be built specifically for Boulder, but that is disingenuous. It will still count against Xcel's statewide renewable energy mandate.

They think they've found a mark for their con game. Boulder citizens want more renewable energy, and Xcel management is betting we'll willingly spend more to get it. They've also used the classic con strategy of telling us the deal is off the table if we don`t agree by November.

With Xcel's offer we'd be getting the same renewable energy that Xcel already has to generate, but we'll be on the hook to pay for it while everyone else in Colorado will get a price break.


[more]

A Deficit of Honest Discussion

No matter which party is in power, the other party thinks that the budget deficit is a vital issue. The party in power, generally, considers it a lower priority.

But, at least for the time being, the GOP has convinced enough voters the issue is critical. So now both parties are talking about how to reduce our country's deficit spending.

Of course nobody is proposing anything that will seriously make a dent at any time in the foreseeable future. Each proposal simply reflects the ideological priorities of the proposer, and suggests cutting programs they don't like.

Anybody can play that game. See how easy it is to trim the deficit by $100 billion.


[more]

First Lucky Island

One thing seems evident when looking at the nuclear crisis at Fukushima Dai-Ichi (literally, Fortunate Island Number One, not to be confused with Three Mile Island).

If you are a fan of nuclear energy, that one thing is that even after one of the biggest earthquakes ever followed by a huge tsunami, the worst case scenario didn't happen. Nuclear is even more good-to-go than before.

If you are a nuclear foe, then what happened in Japan proves how dangerous this technology is. It is only pure luck and seat-of-the-pants management that prevented a complete meltdown and huge nuclear disaster.

I look at things differently.


[more]

How High in Boulder?

When I first saw Boulder Ballot Question 2C, I thought it was arrogant. I assumed builders were asking to be able to build up to the maximum height, and then add on extra for their solar panels. Why couldn't they just plan for the solar panels in their overall plans and build a bit shorter to allow for them?

But my assumptions were wrong. Question 2C is about the ability to add solar panels on top of existing buildings, buildings which were built before the concept of solar gardens was conceived.

Solar gardens, recently approved in Colorado, are a new way to provide solar energy to the masses. Build larger arrays, large enough for several families, on larger rooftops and other locations. Then, the people who couldn't use solar energy otherwise can take advantage of its benefits. People like renters, or people with shady lots.

Boulder Question 2C is a simple proposal and makes sense. Vote yes.

Local Taxing Issues

For those of us living in Boulder, five of six local ballot issues this year include tax increases. Given the current financial conditions, we need to look closely at the short-term and long-term benefits of each before casting our ballots.

County Issue 1A's property tax increase was drafted in response to a confluence of three factors. State legislation required the county to spend down its human services rainy day fund; state funding for human services needs has been cut significantly; and, due to the recession, the rainy day has arrived.

Not only is it wise and humane to help people in our community who are feeling the worst pain of the economic downturn, the county is also required to do so by state law. This measure is responsibly crafted: It has a five year sunset, makes good use of public/private partnerships, and directs the commissioners to reduce the new tax as state funding is restored and conditions improve.

County Issue 1B is a new 0.15 percent sales and use tax for open space acquisition. Most people are not fans of higher sales tax, but most in the county like our open space.


[more]

Deepwatergate

Eleven men dead. Wildlife dying. Livelihoods lost. Beaches fouled. Oceans polluted. Unknown deep-sea impact.

Someone must be to blame.

Some say this is President Obama's Katrina. But what can he do but fly to the Gulf, sound sympathetic, and talk tough to BP? Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration knows how to stop the flow of oil, much less eliminate the oil that has already spilled.

Some environmentalists and scientists say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is to blame and should resign. After all Salazar's Minerals Management Service was responsible for regulating the drilling operation and screwed up. Literally. MMS staffers were partying and sleeping with the people they were supposed to be regulating. Talk about strange bedfellows.

[more]

Safe, Clean Nuclear Power

To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. - President Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address

Many environmentalists gasped when the President made this comment. We all know that nuclear power is neither safe nor clean.

Nuclear reactors are dangerous. They are subject to meltdown. They are targets for terrorists. Nuclear fuel is a safety problem from mining though transportation, and there is not nearly enough uranium available for widespread use of nuclear power. Nuclear waste is dangerous in even small quantities: There is no safe storage option, and it remains unsafe for thousands of years.

Plus, huge amounts of greenhouse gases are produced in the mining, enriching, and transport of uranium; the building and decommissioning of the plants; and the transportation of nuclear waste.

But what if these dangers and problems didn`t exist?

[more]

Burning Carbon to Save Carbon

The City of Boulder has been invited to make a presentation at the Copenhagen global warming summit. Pretty cool, huh?

It seems that some of the innovative things we've done have gotten noticed, things like open space, bike trails, and our climate action plan. Other municipalities want to learn from what we are doing.

Some naysayers here are saying that we should not be putting the CO2 into the air from flying two of our staffers to Denmark and back. They are also complaining about the $2,500 the city is spending on this.

(That's actually quite cheap, as the staffers are flying coach, bringing sleeping bags so they can sleep in private homes, and bringing bikes so they don't have rent cars.)

The money is coming out of the climate action plan budget, so if it furthers the goals of that plan the cost is not an issue. No other programs are affected.

If even one other city takes what we've done and implements it because of what we present, then the carbon savings from that one community will more than offset what's being burned for two airline tickets.

This was also unanimously approved by city council, from the most liberal to the most conservative. So obviously once you look at the tradeoffs it becomes worth it.

I hope this proves fruitful, and maybe even they'll bring back some good ideas from elsewhere.

Ideas that will, no doubt, inflame that same group of naysayers.

Climate Change causes Civilization

Here`s an intriguing coincidence.

Humans evolved about 200,000 years ago in Africa. For most of the time since, we have lived as hunter-gatherers. There were fits and starts at agriculture, but nothing really "took."

And then, starting about 10,000 years ago, we figured it out. We domesticated wheat, oats and barley, and other grains. We started herding cattle, sheep, and goats. We built villages and towns.

[more]

How Did I Do? -- Election 2009

First of all, I'm glad to say that all of my choices on the City of Boulder issues were agreed to by the voters. Four out of four, not bad.

I didn't do so great on the county issues. Issue 1A, the extension of the Open Space tax, failed by about 4 percentage points. It looks to me that this was partly because of the economy, partly because the County Commissioners did not do a good job of explaining why it needed to be renewed 10 years in advance of when the tax expires, and partly out of backlash against current open space policy.

However, if you look at that backlash, it seemed to come from both sides -- for example, one person commented that he voted against the tax because he wasn't allowed to mountain bike on county open space, while another said he voted against it because of too many bikes on open space. This sounds like a can't win situation. That's especially true since most of the folks who complained about the open space department seemed to be confusing the city's open space rules with the county's -- the contentious mountain bike rules actually are on city property. So, bottom line, lack of a good sales pitch by the county, coupled with ignorant voters who had to lash out against something.

The real puzzler was County Issue 1B, the extension of the ClimateSmart loan program, which lost by two percentage points. This program is already in place and has been enormously successful. It helps locals fund improvements that cut CO2 emissions. It adds to local jobs. And the best thing is that it doesn't cost anybody a nickle except the people who take out the loans.

It looks like 1B was caught in the backfire against 1A, as there was no organized opposition. Again, opponents seemed to not understand it, thinking it was a tax increase, and the county did not do much PR in advance of the election.

Both of these issues will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot, and the county will undoubtedly do a much batter sales job then.

Still undecided is Question 1D, the extension of term limits for DA from two to three terms. Latest results show that ahead by just 41 votes, too close to call with the last of the ballots still to be counted.

And that leaves me with the city council race. My endorsed candidate, Barry Siff, came in sixth in a race in which the top five get seats. He missed it by just 672 votes (not all votes have been counted, but there are not enough ballots outstanding to change the results).

Why did Barry lose? (Ok, best of the rest.)

As I see it, the biggest issue was the media and others who lumped the candidates together into so called "power blocks". There was the pro-environment slate, those endorsed by the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County, and there was the so-called pro-business slate. With his credentials, Barry could have been on either list. But because he has been a businessman, he was lumped in with the second group.

In Boulder, not being endorsed by the Sierra Club and being labelled pro-business are the kiss of death at the ballot box for many. Undoubtedly, he gained some votes by association with the business crowd. But he did not stand out from that group, and I think it was a net loss for him.

It would have been a better strategy, I think, for Barry to have tried to straddle both groups. He could have been the environmental candidate who actually knows how to pay for it, for example.

In any case, the fundamental makeup of council didn't change much, in spite of the loud voices of the mostly anonymous single-issue attackers.

So, Barry, have a well deserved vacation and when you come back think about whether there is some other way to contribute to this community and maybe get to be better known for the next election cycle (if you're still up for it).

Boulder County 2009 Ballot Issues

This year's county issues are pretty straightforward.

Issue 1A would extend a current 0.25% sales and use tax dedicated to open space acquisition, improvement, and maintenance. Without this ballot issue, the tax will expire in 2019. If this issue passes, that will be extended to 2034. This issue also authorizes the issuance of bonds, to be repaid from the revenue from that tax, and to be used for those purposes. I support the county's open space program, and this would allow it to continue. Some opponents question renewing this tax 10 years before it expires. But the fact is that the money from that tax has already been spent, by virtue of bonds already issued. The county's open space program cannot continue to grow without this additional revenue. Vote YES.

Issue 1B would authorize additional bonds to extend the ClimateSmart program. This program allows county property owners to use the county's credit rating, to effectively cosign, on loans to make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. There is no cost to taxpayers. I supported this program when it was first implemented, and I continue to support it. Vote YES.

Issue 1C would authorize new bonds to pay for energy efficiency improvements in county buildings. Some or all of these bonds would be very low interest federal Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, authorized under the recent stimulus bill. This is a smart long-term investment, takes advantage of a short-term opportunity, and is smart from an environmental point of view. Vote YES.

Question 1D would extend the term limit for the county DA from two terms to three. Several other county offices have already had this change approved. In general, I believe that term limits are anti-democratic. Having the option to suffer the overhead of a new DA every twelve years instead of eight would be a benefit as well. Vote YES.

Keep on Clunkin'!

The cash for clunkers program may be many things. However, environmentally friendly isn't one of them.

Look at it this way. Suppose you trade in a car that gets 18 MPG for one that gets 28 MPG, and that you driver 12,000 miles per year. Also, assume that you will keep the new car for the typical six years.

For each of those six years, you will be burning 428 gallons of gas instead of 667 gallons. You save 238 gallons per year, or about 35% of the gas you would have burned.

A study by Toyota showed that as much as 28% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the life of a car occur during its manufacture and its transport to the dealer. That means that up to 38% more CO2 is generated than the CO2 generated from the burning of fuel during normal operation.

So, you emit 35% less CO2 during operation, but the act of buying a new car results in up to 38% more CO2 just to get you that car.

Ignoring the economic impact, the very best thing you can do is keep driving that car until it doesn't go any more.

The only exception I can think of is if you put lots and lots of miles on your car every year and plan to keep it a long time. Then, it might make more environmental sense to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car, and donate your old car to charity.

But scrapping the old car, as is required by law under this program, is pure waste.

How to Save the World

Dr. James Hansen spoke on "Climate threat to the planet: Implications for intergenerational and environmental justice" to a packed Macky Auditorium on April 9, as part of the Conference on World Affairs.

Way back in 1988 Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified about climate change to Colorado Senator Tim Wirth's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, bringing the issue to the public eye.

At CWA, Hansen presented a target for what needs to be done, scientific rationale for that target, and a step-by-step plan for getting there. Not bad for a 50 minute talk.
[more]

The Only Way to Stop Global Warming?

I write quite a few essays about global warming. These include several ideas on how individuals can help address the problem. But I'm not naive enough to think that even a significant minority of well-intentioned consumers doing what they think is right will have a measurable impact.

Some of my Libertarian-leaning friends say that the solution should be left to the free market. (At least they are mostly agreeing that the problem is real.) But here's the problem with that. Given enough time (say, 100,000 years), the free market will arrive at a solution. But in the meantime, lots of people and species will suffer, and most of them are not directly related to the companies and individuals causing the biggest impacts. You see, the flaw in this thinking is that spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is definitely impinging on others' rights, and the free market should not allow individuals or companies to infringe on the rights of others in the name of profit, even if those others are not yet even born.

One politically popular approach is cap and trade (carbon trading). Here, companies are issued the right to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. If they emit more, they have to purchase the right to do so from someone else. If they emit less (or if they remove carbon from the atmosphere), then they can sell the credits.

The problem with cap and trade is that it assumes people and companies have the inherent right to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, impacting future generations around the globe. That would be like saying that, since there are 16,000 murders per year in this country, we are going to cap and trade permits to kill people. The permits will be issued proportionally to the number of murders you committed last year. If you kill more people next year, you will have to buy more permits from someone who came in under their cap. (Have no fear, each year we will cut the number of permits issued. By the year 2050 we will only be allowing 10,000 murders per year -- uh, subject to change based on input from organized crime's lobbyists.)

I've always thought that a carbon tax (actually a tax on any greenhouse gas emissions) is the ideologically best way to approach the problem. You charge a tax for any fossil fuel burned. It can be charged when the fossil fuels are mined, when they are burned, or any point along the supply line, but we would need to be consistent so they are charged exactly once.

You may ask, what about other countries? This will have no impact on China, India, or any other part of the world that may be contributing significantly to the problem.

I have two answers to that. First, we slap a tariff on all imported goods and services, proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases used to produce and ship to the U.S. If the producer can provide proof that they have an equivalent tax in their home country, this tariff will be waived. And second, if this program is successful, it can provide a model for other countries, and a useful tool in negotiating international agreements.

There's one more big problem with a carbon tax, and this is where I got stuck. Such a tax is highly regressive. The people who will suffer the most are those that already can't afford the gas to drive to work and the energy to heat their homes.

I pondered this last issue long and hard until I ran across this idea from Jim Hansen. Dr. James Hansen is none other than the scientist who first brought climate change to the attention of the U.S. Congress in the 1980s, and he continues to be active in the field.

Dr. Hansen suggests (actually demands) a carbon tax, but he adds a twist: 100% of the revenue of the tax is refunded immediately to the citizens. People would receive monthly direct deposits into their bank accounts. None of the received new tax money would be spent by the government. Instead the money would be divided equally among every man, woman and child.

How does that work? Say this new tax causes massive inflation (after all, the companies paying the tax will just pass it on to consumers). People might be paying $1,000 more per month for home heating, electricity, gasoline, and goods and services produced using these resources. But, the same people would be seeing the same $1,000 appear like magic, like clockwork every month.

If I'm a smart consumer, I'm going to figure out how to cut back on my energy usage and set aside some of that new money to make my home more energy efficient, or buy a plug-in hybrid, or any number of investments designed to allow me to live more efficiently and hence spend less money.

And, if I'm a smart business, I'm going to figure out how to get some of that new money. I'm going to start selling some of those energy-efficient products. And it won't be something goofy like carbon credits. Instead it will be something that will actually cause less greenhouse gas emission.

How much money are we talking about? Well, one estimate was that it would take an investment of about $100 per ton of carbon dioxide to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Each person in the U.S. emits about 22 tons of CO2 per year. So, we're talking about new taxes (and new dividend checks) of about $200 per month per person, or $800 for a family of four. Most of the cost for the typical family, I assume, would be in the form of higher prices for energy, and for good and services produced using fossil fuels. That cost would be offset by direct deposit of an approximately equal amount each month.

Of course, we'd need a scientific panel to determine the correct amount of the new tax for each product or service, as this should not be a political decision. And we would likely want to phase this tax in over a small number of years.

Is this the best solution? I don't know. But it seems to me that we need to be thinking about radical ideas such as this, instead of relying on do-gooders, relying on the free market, or relying on the ability of politicians to solve this in a timely manner. Because a timely manner is the thing that is most important.

How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

I will Gladly Pay You Tuesday for a Solar Panel Today -- Boulder County Issue 1A

Issue 1A is a rather clever way to help people afford renewable energy systems (primarily solar) and energy efficiency upgrades for their homes. The county, using its credit rating and ability to sell bonds, borrows money at a decent rate. Homeowners can access that credit to pay for green upgrades to their homes. So, even if the upgrade doesn't pay for itself for several years, the homeowner still gets a positive cash flow starting on day one. The debt is applied to the home, not the homeowner, meaning that if the home is sold both the debt and the energy savings go with it. There is no tax increase and this does not impact anybody who does not agree to participate.

Sounds like a win-win, except for one big concern. With our current credit crisis and the poor economy, this measure would provide another way for people to go into debt. My hope is that when the county program is put into place they create standards to measure the proposed improvements and the expected payback. The last thing people will need is something that will add $100 dollars/month to their mortgage payment (via escrow) and save them only $10/month in energy costs.

That said, if this program is well administered it could be a very positive way to encourage capital-intensive home energy improvements.

Vote YES on Boulder County Issue 1A.

Oil for Roads or Oil for Colleges? Colorado 2008 Amendments 52 and 58

When companies in Colorado take nonrenewable resources out of the ground (such as coal, gold, oil and natural gas, but mostly from natural gas), they pay a severance tax in order to compensate the state for the permanent loss of those resources. This is on top of the income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., that they pay to do business in Colorado. The rate is between 2% and 5%, but with tax credits and exemptions it actually works out to an average rate of 1.3%. This is the lowest effective severance tax rate in the large-producing western states region.

The revenue gained from the severance tax is split evenly between the local governments affected by the extraction and several state programs. The bulk of the state money is spent on water projects, but some of the revenue is spent on wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, invasive species such as pine beetles and zebra mussels, soil conservation, renewable energy, and a few other priorities.

With the current energy boom, severance tax collections are expected to increase significantly in the next few years, although of course there are no guarantees.

There are two measures on the Colorado ballot this year that would affect the severance tax, and they need to be considered together. In fact, if both pass, there are contradictory provisions and it is not clear how they would be resolved.

Amendment 52 is a constitutional amendment, which means its provisions would likely prevail in court and would be harder to change. It would not impact the money provided to local governments. But in the portion allocated to state programs, the amount spent on current priorities would be capped at the prior year's amount plus inflation, and the remainder would be allocated to transportation projects. Within these transportation projects, special emphasis would be placed on reducing congestion on I-70, the major east-west highway in the state that provides the majority of access to the mountain resorts.

So, this amendment would be enshrined in the constitution, making it impossible to change without another vote of the people. It would potentially conflict with and trump another legally passed measure. It would remove revenue from a number of important state spending priorities. Some of there priorities are likely to need more money because of rising energy costs and global warming, such as water projects (global warming is predicted to increase droughts in this state), invasive species (pine beetles have already laid waste to the pine population on the Western Slope and have begun to make their way through the Front Range), renewable energy, and low-income energy assistance. And it increases spending on roads, which will only exacerbate the energy and global warming issues. Not only that, by focusing on a single transportation corridor, I-70, the interests of most of the state or ignored for the benefit primarily of the ski industry.

Oh, and once the state legislature sees this new revenue stream for transportation, what's to stop them from decreasing its allocation from the general fund?

I don't see a single reason to vote for Amendment 52.

Amendment 58 approaches the severance tax issue from a different angle. First, it increases the effective severance tax rate by making three changes. Currently, companies can apply a large chunk of their property taxes to effective eliminate a big chunk of the severance tax, and this amendment would eliminate that tax credit. The amendment applies the severance tax to a number of smaller wells currently exempted. And it changes the multi-level tax rates (between two and five percent) to a single level (five percent), while exempting smaller companies from the tax.

Plus, Amendment 58 is a statutory amendment, meaning that the state legislature can adjust this as necessary when things change over the years.

So far so good. There really is a cost to the state when companies permanently extract natural gas from beneath our ground, and companies are largely not paying that cost. This measure would fix that. Even after the increases, our effective severance tax rate would remain the third-lowest among the large-producing western states. Nobody is going to stop drilling or significatly raise natural gas prices.

Amendment 58 also changes how the severance tax revenues are spent. Sigh. I knew this wasn't going to be so easy.

Amendment 58 takes 44% of future severance tax revenues and splits them according to the old formula. According to projections, over the next four years, these older priorities should get about the same amount of money as they do today (because the expected increase in extraction and the increased effective tax rate would make up for the loss of 56% of the total income).

This 56% would be split among a new set of priorities. Most of the money, 60% would be applied to a new fund providing college scholarships to low and middle income Colorado residents. The remainder would be spent on wildlife habitat, energy efficiency and renewable energy, transportation projects in areas affected by the oil and gas industry, and small community waste water and drinking water projects.

Who can argue against college scholarships, especially given that the state has hugely cut spending on higher education? The other priorities all seem good. It is more earmarking, but at least we're earmarking a revenue stream that has historically already been earmarked.

So, this one has a new revenue stream I can live with and reasonable, albeit earmarked, priorities. And some of the new priorities actually help with energy and climate change issues, which is where the severance tax revenue should be spent if it has to be earmarked.

Vote NO on Amendment 52.
Vote YES on Amendment 58.

And, whatever you do, don't vote for both of them!

The Buzz Is: I'm Not Driving Enough

I try my best to avoid driving as much as possible. Riding my bike, walking, taking the bus, whatever. But this is ridiculous.

I went to fill my gas tank tonight, opened up the cover to the gas cap, and was confronted with a wasp nest. It has obviously been there a while, as there were dead insects strewn about inside.

Some people claim they've been stung by the high price of gasoline, but I think I have them beat.