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.
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.
We received the following comment from a subscriber who had an exchange with their state senator, Senator Byron Pelton, by calling his office in regards to the Galeton blowout. He returned her call with additional comments; we have chosen to publish this exchange in the larger interests of informing the community. (You can check out Senator Pelton’s wikipedia bio here.)
Senator Pelton,
Your comment that our air pollution comes from China is false. If you’re going to represent communities under ozone alerts and declared by the EPA as a “non attainment zone” for air quality, I suggest you educate yourself. While you admit your bias, that you were able to acquire large sections of land because you leased your back yard to oil and gas development, you don’t have the right to pollute the larger community. Those oil and gas wells are a major polluter to our environment, particularly in “Welled” County.
AI Overview:
Yes, air pollution from Beijing can reach Colorado, but it’s not a significant factor in Colorado’s air quality compared to local and regional sources. While Chinese pollution is transported across the Pacific Ocean and impacts the United States, including the West Coast, the primary contributors to air pollution in Colorado are local emissions from vehicles, industrial activities, oil and gas production, and weather patterns like inversions.
1) Beijing’s pollution and its impact:
China is a major emitter of air pollutants, and some of these pollutants are transported across the Pacific Ocean, affecting air quality in the United States, including the West Coast.
2) Major sources of pollution in Colorado:
In Colorado, the main contributors to air pollution are local sources like vehicle emissions, industrial activities (including oil and gas production), and the impact of weather patterns like inversions, which trap pollutants near the ground.
3) Impact of Beijing’s pollution on Colorado:
While Beijing’s pollution can be a factor in the overall air quality in the United States, it is not the primary driver of poor air quality in Colorado.
4) Comparison of air quality:
Denver’s air quality can be worse than Beijing’s on specific days, especially during rush hour or due to local inversions, but on average, Beijing has a higher number of days with poor air quality, according to a 9News article.
Please educate yourself on air quality issues in our district. Bias has no place in our politics and your bias in favor of oil and gas is clouding your thinking and misinforming the public, which I will call out every chance I get.
