How much is seven square miles of inhabited properties, still polluted from a four day bath of toxic spewing in April 2025, worth? Apparently not all that much. A fine of $1.7 million to Chevron (which had an net income, i.e. profit, of $17.6 BILLION in 2024) would be little more than pocket change to them.
If that kind of grates you the wrong way, as it did me, you are not alone…and here is the testimony of another Front Range resident who expressed her outrage in this way (name withheld to protect the incensed):
Crumbs!!!
When are we going to stop crouching under the table of Oil/Gas/State Regulators while begging for crumbs?
Chevron’s fine for the “Galeton Geyser” that spread toxic chemicals as far away as four miles (as detected by CSU mobile monitors called out to the site that day in April 2025), will not be remedied by 1.7 million. Let’s not forget that the spokesmen for Chevron, at an emergency Galeton Town Hall meeting, assured the public that there’s no danger here, as the well was still spewing 100 feet in the air, in windy conditions, that lasted FOUR DAYS. Mobile air monitors from CSU were called to the scene that day and found high levels of toxins (think benzene, etc.) as far as four miles away. Chevron called the CSU monitors “poor methodology.”
As I raged about this injustice (yes, I’m calling out BOTH the ECMC and Chevron), I was reminded by another activist that “The SUNCOR spill several years ago that contaminated the Commerce City area profusely was fined something like over $9 million. An additional grant received in 2000 was for $1.8 million. So Chevron got off quite cheaply in Galeton.”
If the Galeton Geyser didn’t get the ECMC to act with equal justice, or recent health studies (McKensie) that support previous health studies of the negative impacts of living within six miles of an oil and gas complex don’t move our regulators to action, then we can be sure that they’ll do little if anything for the daily spills, leaks, road damage, and clogging infrastructure we already experience in towns like mine in Ault. Yet even when we do protest permits, the ECMC fails us, and when we later capture the pollution these permits bring on OGI images, only a third of complaints get any action. Why? Intended loopholes from bogus regulations and complicit regulators who refuse to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. Three years of data (2022, 23, 24) prove this case in Ault.
Now we witness a slap on the wrist by the ECMC toward Chevron. I’d like to slap them all (ECMC and Chevron) across the face for this injustice . . . but a slap is not enough.
The ECMC, by its very name (Energy Carbon Management Commission) serves the Industrial Carbon Complex, not the people of Colorado who pay their salaries. I can only hope that we get a new governor and revamp our state agencies, particularly by firing current state regulators, to best serve the public and protect our environment from the onslaught of dirty oil and gas development across Colorado. There’s no such thing as clean well pads. “Best Practices” is a myth used by industry to keep drilling the cheapest and fastest way possible. And setbacks won’t save us either. Don’t be duped by a new playground at your local school courtesy of oil and gas. If a fracking operation is within six miles of that playground, those children and locals are at risk.
Show some brass, ECMC!
Let’s Educate, Organize, Resist . . . Vote out the current government, fire its regulators, and ban the permits!
I must confess I feel the same way…and we will still need to continue our struggle against these state regulatory agencies who have kowtowed to this industry for far too long.
As many of you may know, the PRPA (Platte River Power Authority) is planning on building a 200 MWatt gas turbine plant over the objections of the local environmental community. We protested this strongly to the City Council of Fort Collins, and the Commissioners for Larimer County over the past two years.
I, for one, thought this was a done deal; but it turns out the PRPA must get one last permit before they are allowed to erect this testament to their folly; and this is a permit from the APCD (Air Pollution Control Division), the highest echelon in the air emissions permitting business in Colorado.
This issue may be a bit too “into the weeds” for most folks; but what is certainly of concern to anyone who breathes in northern Colorado, is whether the PRPA will build the gas plant. This hinges on some rather arcane technicalities, but fortunately the issue has been explained at length by Ethan Augreen, who is a City of Longmont Sustainability Advisory Board Member.
If you don’t have time to wade through that, here is the short ‘Cliff Notes’ version of the essential questions (supplied by Ethan):
what is the difference in a “major” and “minor” air permit w/r/t the EPA?
At an existing large power plant like Rawhide (already a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major source, the key question is whether a new project counts as a “major modification.”
If it’s classified as minor, the state handles it under a simpler construction permit process without full PSD review.
If it’s classified as a major modification, it triggers the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act.
PSD review requires:
Stricter emissions analysis
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review
More extensive modeling
Mandatory public hearing rights
Direct federal oversight authority (including potential EPA objection)
So the classification determines whether the full federal framework applies.
why would having the PRPA permit reclassified as “major” matter so much?
One important reason why it matters is that we would get a public hearing with the Air Quality Control Commission, which is a request that several commenters on the Draft Permit made, namely Barbara and myself.
Another super important reason is that the project would almost definitely end up with better pollution controls. That’s what Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review does.
Perhaps most significantly, it greatly increases the chances of killing the project and putting PRPA into the position of having to reassess with a new Integrated Resource Plan.
Basically, a major classification would slow the project timeline, require more detailed federal-level scrutiny, open the door to mandatory public hearing, and potentially expose additional legal vulnerabilities.
It doesn’t automatically stop the project — but it raises the regulatory bar significantly.
Is this classification tied into Colorado’s statewide GHG reduction program somehow?
Indirectly — but not directly.
PSD classification is based on federal Clean Air Act criteria (primarily criteria pollutants like NOx), not directly on Colorado’s statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets.
However, Colorado’s broader decarbonization planning — including the anticipated retirement of the coal unit — interacts with how emissions are calculated for netting and applicability.
So while the classification isn’t technically a GHG compliance decision, the retirement assumptions and emissions accounting intersect with Colorado’s climate policy framework.
Will there be repercussions to PRPA if this reclassification occurs? If so, how? When?
Yes — procedural and practical, not punitive.
If reclassified as major:
PRPA would need to undergo full PSD review for this project.
The permit process would likely be delayed, possibly for as long as 9 to 12 months.
Additional technical demonstrations would be required.
There might be greater litigation exposure.
It would not impose fines or penalties — but it would change the regulatory pathway and timeline.
PRPA could take a financial hit on the project, but it might be much less bad for ratepayers than letting the project continue on its current path.
What really matters to the public is not wasting money (if the project can be stopped) and getting stronger controls on pollution.
Earlier this week, the Colorado Sun provided a valuable public service by keeping us updated on what’s going on at our favorite state regulator, the CDPHE, otherwise known as the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, and our other favorite bête noire housed within it, the APCD, or the Air Pollution Control Division:
I sent a letter to Mr Booth about this (reproduced in full below), in which I thanked him for the fine article, but at the same time expressed my dissatisfaction with what was missing from his report…which we at the Larimer Alliance have been repeating since oh, at least, 2020.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…🙄
The newsworthy bit was the backlog for air emissions permit applications has grown, which happened because of the EPA downgrading of our air quality in 2022 from “serious” to “severe”. This downgrading of the air quality triggered a section of the regulations that states that more, and smaller scale, point sources of air pollution would need to file for emissions permits, and start reporting them.
Which raises the interesting question: does reporting the amount of emissions means that the pollution gets reduced? I have long wondered about this question; but never got around to actually asking it of the CDPHE/APCD…until now. If I get a reply from them, I will be sure to share the results here.
However, I’m not holding my breath, as I have lived with the equivocating language coming out of these agencies — in which they will avoid, evade and obfuscate the question beyond recognition in order to avoid their civic duty to actually protect the environment — that I do not expect any change in their behavior until there is a drastic change in the politics behind it…which is why this activism continues.
Rather than reporting the facts and figures of the article, which you do for yourself, I will point out that the $20 million additional state funds that the Polis administration extended to these agencies in 2022, in order to allow them to deal with the increase in pollution permits, is probably not going to help matters. These agencies are not likely to change their spots anytime until forced to do so by political change. They will continue to avoid, evade and obfuscate ad nauseum.
What they could have done to really start to reduce our air pollution is actually start measuring it. In order to do that, they need to actually build the air quality monitoring equipment that can do this. The existing monitoring stations are not anywhere near capable of doing this. The existing monitoring stations mostly exist to allow the state to say they are measuring ozone; they do not exist to measure the ozone precursors, which come from two primary sources: 1) oil and gas operations, and 2) vehicular traffic. A tiny fraction of the state monitors can detect some of these ozone precursors; but these have been installed only recently, it would seem, as an afterthought, and are certainly not the purpose for which the overall system was designed.
In my humble opinion, just part of that $20 million would have been much better spent by standing up three or four Bouder AIR monitoring stations (see bouldair.com) and if and only if something would actually be done with the data — such as identifying where the precursors are coming from, identifying those point sources by combining regional monitoring with better on-site monitoring. Neither alone is sufficient for meaning pollution reduction. And none of this has any meaning or purpose unless the spirit of the law is enforced: by actually reducing our air pollution.
Even better would be to measure and transparently report how our environmental quality and health are improving — which is the real point of reducing our pollution, right?
In a word, simply informing the public how much we are getting polluted — and telling us to stay inside on bad pollution days — is not enough. We need hard data — quantitative and publicly transparent data — in order to believe our state agencies are actually helping to protect the environment and human health. Words are not enough.
[My letter to Michael Booth, reporter at the Colorado Sun, Feb 5, 2026 ]
I appreciated as well the excellent coverage of attorney Jeremy Nichols’s valid criticisms of the lack of action by the CDPHE when issuing their emission permits; they could be doing so much more than they are.
Speaking from years of observing this issue, I would like to point out a critical missing piece of the puzzle from this critique of the CDPHE and how it is addressing our air quality; namely, the measuring of it.
All of the figures mentioned (such as “…the amount of released nitrogen oxides, a key precursor to dangerous ozone, to 156 tons in 2023 from 276 tons in 2011…”) are based on models, not actual measurements. Those models are based on data. Those data are provided by the O&G industry. We are suspicious of those data, their models, and just about everything else the CDPHE does, who seem totally captured by the O&G industry they are ostensibly regulating.
At the Larimer Alliance, we have been advocating for years that the CDPHE needs to measuring our air quality through direct air sampling, and publishing those results in a prompt and transparent manner — which has been technically possible for years. But they have stonewalled us and other environmental advocates, safely hiding behind their bureaucratic walls.
I intend to post to our blog soon on this article, and will let you know when it is published.
