And now, an update from our favorite adversary…

See the link to the article below

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:

 Colorado’s air pollution permit backlog grows despite tens of millions of dollars in state

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 ]

Greetings Mr Booth
Many thanks for the fine article in today’s Sun, Colorado’s air pollution permit backlog grows despite tens of millions of dollars in state investment. The shortcomings of the CDPHE in addressing our poor air quality are too little known to the general public.
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. 
Again, thanks for your fine article. 
Best, 
–Rick
——————————

Rick Casey 

2 thoughts on “And now, an update from our favorite adversary…”

  1. Very informative. You break down the problem of air pollution (fossil fuels and state regulators) and pose a real solution: Measuring the air pollution with monitors that can identify sources but will also require our state agents, CDPHE and ECMC, to enforce the law and fulfill their obligation to reduce air pollution, at it’s source. Voters need to hold these state agents accountable and demand a paradigm shift: transition off of fossil fuels. I sure would like to see a Bolder Air Monitoring system down the block from me, at the local school, where they’re adding on an elementary school that will place small children even closer to the giant Chevron site (within a mile). Research proves the health impacts of living too close to wells. How do we get these air monitors at schools in disproportionately impacted communities like Ault? It starts here, in the oil fields, in the school yards that face damaging impacts.

    1. A good suggestion, Carol, but a Boulder AIR station is meant for regional monitoring, and too costly for such a site. However, an on-side monitor, based on canisters, are more cost effective for such purposes. The Ft Collins air pollution department has applied for an EPA grant to provide this at DICs (disproportionately impacted communities) here. You could mention this to the school board in your community, if you think that would be productive.

      Appreciate your acknowledgement of the difficulty of what we are up against when a state regulatory agency will not obey the law itself. Our only recourse is to raise awareness in the community, and get others to hold them to account.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *