Category Archives: Allied organizations

Wrapping up the 2026 Legislative session…& the LA as well?

Why this post?

The Larimer Alliance (LA) is changing, and this post is an explanation, a plea and a testimony that I hope will lead to your continued support.

The LA got its start in 2019 primarily focused on local implementation of local regulations of O&G. Once that effort became fairly settled with the adoption of local rules that more or less guaranteed that the chances of any new drilling in Larimer County were pretty minimal, our focus became air pollution from Weld County. This is still a major concern, but other changes in the regulatory landscape have caused our mission to evolve as well. We now see our mission as more of one to keep our community informed how this regulatory landscape is evolving at the state level, because that is what directly affects us here in Larimer County. Keeping you informed about events, about informational meetings, and when your input could help with putting pressure on state representatives, is the role of the Larimer Alliance now, as we see it.

Why keep pushing for such reform? Because there is every reason to hope that further reform is possible; because it is still very much needed; and because the current situation at the national level demands action at the local level. What we cannot accomplish in D.C. under the Trump administration, we can, however, accomplish in Colorado at the state, county and local levels.

As you may have been observing at the national level, the Trump administration is becoming more unpopular with each passing week; and our not-so-beloved Governor Polis has been making similar missteps in his popularity contest. So, depending on who is elected, there is reason to hope that there could be substantial changes in O&G regulation in Colorado.

The LA would like to continue to keep you informed about state and local issues with O&G regulation, so that you can make more informed choices at the ballot box during elections. As well, we seek to inform you with stories and evidence that you can use to contact your representatives, and participate in the democratic process yourself. Because that’s the only way we’re really going to achieve real reform: by helping each other achieve our greater goals together.

2026 Legislative wrapup

This information comes to you mostly due to the wonderful work of Jan Rose, who is a registered lobbyist for CCLC, the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate (see colivableclimate.org. Full disclosure: I am the webmaster for them too.) She works quite hard at keeping the activist community informed about developments at the state legislature, and fighting (i.e. lobbying) for bills supported by the CCLC. For a detailed report from Jan on the 2026 session, see here.

In a nutshell, the 2026 session was largely a bust for environmental issues, as the opposition to them was strong. An unholy alliance between the O&G industry, the utilities (i.e. Xcel), and the labor unions united to quash any progress on environmental bills, while pushing their own agenda.

One of the biggest late-session fights involved a proposed constitutional amendment backed by the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado (see www.advancecolorado.org) that would create a constitutional “right” for consumers to use natural gas. Critics argued that it could undermine future local electrification or climate policies; personally, it strikes me as highly unsuitable for a state constitutional amendment, and would likely have been declared unconstitutional when legally challenged. It is quite astounding what Republicans think should become law.

Democratic lawmakers discussed legislation to counter or limit the effects of this proposal, but eventually backed away from a more aggressive response. That retreat was widely viewed as a sign that legislators were reluctant to engage in a direct statewide political battle over gas access during a difficult economic and energy-cost environment.
A striking development this session was the collapse of major data-center regulation proposals. According to reporting from Colorado Politics and environmental-policy groups, lawmakers killed competing bills that would have imposed stronger oversight on large energy-intensive data centers.

STAR, or Save The Aurora Reservoir

After winning an important procedural victory in December 2025 hearing before the ECMC (Energy and Carbon Management Commission) against the Sunlight-Long wellpad, STAR suffered a substantive defeat in April 2026 when the drilling project was ultimately approved. The broader Lowry Ranch project includes more than 160 wells on state-owned land, some near and underneath the Aurora Reservoir itself (!).

The residents of STAR have no intention of giving up, however, and will continue its resistance to this invasive project at every opportunity. For more information, see their website at savetheaurorareservoir.org and their Facebook page.

This is an example where sustained grass roots support matters, because the commissioners are appointed by the governor for staggered four year terms. Interestingly, the commissioners’ terms are not published anywhere, but here the best information I could find about this important topic. Given how many commissioners could be elected by the next governor, it shows how public pressure could help tilt the balance in favor of commissioners with a stronger support actually fulfilling the ECMC’s role: protecting the environment from the O&G industry, and not “fostering” it:

CommissionerRole / background seatMost recent known appointment or reappointmentLikely term expiration
Bernie BuescherChair / public policyAppointed during Polis administration after SB19-181 restructuringLikely 2027 or 2028 (unclear from public records)
Jeff RobbinsOil & gas / technical expertiseReappointed June 2024 by Gov. PolisLikely June 2028
John MessnerLocal government / land use expertiseReappointed June 2024 by Gov. PolisLikely June 2028
Trisha OethPublic health seatAppointed June 2024Likely June 2028
Karin McGowanEnvironmental / wildlife expertiseEarlier Polis-era appointment after ECMC transitionLikely 2026 or 2027

Larimer Alliance wrapup: the LA at a crossroads

In this year of grim politics, the LA must face its own grim prospects: to be or not to be? The LA is down to just myself and Ed Behan to carry on this effort — and I have recently moved to Minnesota for personal reasons.  Due to a declining need for it, we decided to close our website, both to conserve costs and reduce the maintenance effort. On the plus side, we have received some generous donations, and can cover our expenses through 2027.

But in order to maintain an active presence, the LA needs some actual volunteers willing commit some time and help with the following activities:

  • to serve as “officers” both in pragmatic day-to-day, week-to-week planning, scheduling, and action, as well as filling formal positions in our organization as a 501C4 non-profit: Chair, Secretary & Treasurer
  • monitor the news and social media for issues related to LA’s mission, protecting the public from the O&G industry
  • post to our blog and/or Facebook page about such news
  • assist with the (rare) public events when the LA mans a booth with other environmental groups
  • encourage others to contact their elected representatives about specific upcoming votes
  • help mentor occasional student interns

Here are the benefits of such volunteer work:

  • build community awareness on these issues
  • network with other local activists and learn about Colorado’s vibrant environmental activism, both local and statewide
  • help create the political will to influence our elected representatives
  • foster relationships with these representatives
  • foster relationships with local news media groups and personalities
  • learn about the nuances behind how the  O&G industry operates and is regulated
  • have greater peace of mind that you are helping to create positive change!

Without some other volunteers stepping forward to help with this effort, the LA may have to shut down…which would be a loss to the local community, as there aren’t any other similar non-profits based in Larimer County.

But my hope is that the rest of 2026 will see a resurgence of activism with the approaching mid-term elections, which has sure signs that a change is in the air!

–Rick Casey

Another fracking LTE appears in….Greeley?

I was surprised to see a byline “Fracking fight” in the Greeley Tribune Letters To the Editor section recently (March 21, 2026), but there it was:

Work to monitor fossil fuel sites slow, but hopeful

 

After blinking my eyes in disbelief, I was pleased to see that the author was our friend in Ault, Carol Hawkins. She also pointed out how much work that Andrew Klooster with Earthworks has done over the years. She has worked closely with him to document many emissions violations in Weld County; and notes that the response rate of the ECMC to such complaints has increased from about one third to fifty percent in 2025.

Small steps towards progress; but, yes, it is indeed hopeful, and I hope it continues.

Update on the PRPA turbines — we’re not giving up!

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.

See his excellent article on his Substack post (Feb 2026): FAQ: Clean Air Act Violations by PRPA’s New Rawhide Gas Project

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.

 

The fate of the Aurora Reservoir began today…

Today the public comment period on the State Sunlight ECMC Decision Hearing began. It was hard to listen to…both physically, emotionally, mentally…

I joined the meeting when it started at 10:30, but it wasn’t long before the meeting itself was postponed to 11:15, due to absentee members.

Once it started again, the public then had to endure over an hour of testimony (including a lunch break) from the operators. The reader for this task spoke like he was reading a dictionary, and it was just about as interesting. Through all the verbiage, I basically heard assertions that, yes, the operator has complied with the rules and regulations, and, yes, all the experts we’ve hired assure us that this 32 wells to drilled on the Sunlight well pad are going to be totally safe. Funny…his delivery did not inspire the least confidence in what he was saying.

So, it wasn’t until well after lunch that the public — the citizens living near the reservoir who are going to be the most affected by all this drilling — began to have their say….and it went on and on and on…because over thirty people had signed up. This went on for over two hours, I believe…and though I did not hear everyone, I heard enough.

But it wasn’t until I went to the website for activist group leading the residents, STAR, for Save The Aurora Reservoir (savetheaurorareservoir.org), that I came across a startling image that conveys the horror and desperation that these residents are feeling.

[Note: click images for larger view]

Here is a Google map image of the reservoir, the nearby neighborhoods where many of the residents who testified live, and the nearby open lands where the drilling is proposed to occur:

Aurora Reservoir, and nearby neighborhoods

And here is a schematic of roughly the same area, showing the proposed horizontal drilling would be done:

Proposed fracking wellbores

 

One can well understand the anger, the frustration, the disbelief, and the sheer justified outrage that so many of those who testified directed at the ECMC commissioners. It is indeed hard to believe that that the Sunlight pad, the one that is directly southeast of the Reservoir, is proposed to be drilled right under the residential areas! 

This does not feel like any kind of fair process; it feels like economic slavery under an oppressive regime that bows to the wishes of corporate greed of the oil and gas industry.

The hearings will go on for two more days…I can only pray that these commissioners will take to heart the pleas I heard today from these residents.

Here are more screenshots of the Zoom meeting, with some of the more outspoken persons who testified:

The ECMC Commissioners
Screenshot
Screenshot
Showing Randy Willard with STAR
Showing Bobbie Mooney with 350 Colorado
Screenshot
Screenshot

The Larimer Alliance will report the outcome. Though this is happening some distance from Larimer County, this could happen near us, such as the Century pad being proposed in Windsor; so it behooves us to pay attention to how these Commissioners make their decisions.