Category Archives: APCD

APCD, AQCC, CDPHE, General Environmental Reference, New Gas Plant (at PRPA), Our Longmont, PRPA

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

Leave a comment

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.

 

Air quality monitoring, APCD, CDPHE, State government

And now, an update from our favorite adversary…

2 Comments
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 

Air quality monitoring, APCD, AQCC, CDPHE, ECMC, Environmental damage from O&G, Local government (city & county), Ozone pollution in Front Range, SB-181, Weld County

“The need to transition off fossil fuels”…a LTE hits a home run!

Leave a comment

In case you missed it, there was an impressive event that happened recently with regard to environmental activism: a Letter To the Editor (LTE) about the danger of fossil fuels was published in three local papers  — Greeley Tribune; Loveland Reporter Herald, and Longmont Call Times — simultaneously! This is an unprecedented accomplishment, which deserves some recognition.

The author, Carol Hawkins, has been part of the Larimer Alliance for some time; and during that time, has sought a resolution to her situation, but has come round to the same grim realization of others in the community: until the state regulators of O&G see the light, and begin to limit the issuing of new drilling permits, local residents are almost powerless to stop them. All that SB-181 accomplished, it would seem, it to guarantee at least as 2,000 foot setback from any new well.

Below is Dr. Hawkins’ LTE, taken from the Greeley Tribune, 11/19/25:

Colorado faces a difficult choice, transition off fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy or continue to jeopardize our environment and health. Transition will cause economic and social disruption for workers and communities.  Any “just transition” requires solutions that mitigate the negative consequences while simultaneously eliminating the deadly pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

I have lived in Weld County since purchasing my house in 2017. I lived in Maine at the time, near the end of an ”unexpected journey” watching my partner die from Alzheimer’s. I decided to move back to Colorado where I had family and a history of living in the state since the early 1970s. I wanted familiar surroundings. I searched online and found the perfect bungalow, my retirement home, in Ault, a rural town in a good location between Greeley and Fort Collins. I had no idea of the influx of fracking about to come. Shortly after moving, I received a forced pooling notice. I went from grief and PTSD to a sense of doom. Fracking! What did this mean for my quiet life and my health?

The facts about fracking and the impacts were easy to find, but fighting the frack hasn’t been easy. Weld County, otherwise known as “Welled” County, remains the most polluted and fracked in the state. My neighbors, many who work in oil and gas, are mostly working class, and others are first-time home owners looking for affordable housing or long-time residents. Local government is staffed by those who appear unaffected by fracking. When wells were drilled next to the Highland School campus, located in the middle of town, I called the Ault Town Office and Weld County Oil and Gas to question why the drilling was so close to the school when SB 181 called for 2,000-foot setbacks. The Ault Town Office said that they had no knowledge of drilling near the school, although it was happening just down the street, and the Weld County Oil and Gas Office laughed off my reference to SB 181 with the comment “those rules are easy to get around.” And I’ve come to learn that he is right. All you have to do is look at the loopholes. One is home rule, the other is reverse setbacks.

I then turned to the state and began to protest permits, but soon learned that state regulators and the governor support the fossil fuel industry. However, outside of Colorado, a global consensus calls for a “just transition” away from fossil fuels. The planet is heating, driven by greenhouse gases from extracting and burning fossil fuels like oil and fracked gas. Agreements from COP28 called for net-zero emissions by 2050.

Current research, developed by analyzing efforts toward a “just transition” around the world, provides principles that guide policy development: governmental support, dedicated funding streams, strong and diverse coalitions, and economic diversification to address the short-term impacts and long-term needs of workers and communities.

Colorado must come together around this framework of principles for a “just transition,” but the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will still disrupt existing economies, and some communities may face economic hardship due to the loss of jobs and tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry. However, we must make the hard choice to experience the gains from a clean energy economy and healthy environment.

Colorado’s current environmental damage and health impacts are not sustainable and challenge communities reliant on oil and gas to make the hard choice — we need a “just transition” off of fossil fuels. Stop the permits and clean up the mess while supporting displaced workers and disproportionately impacted communities, like Ault.

[Carol Hawkins is a retired English professor who moved back to Colorado from Maine in 2017. She was served a forced pooling notice in 2018 and has been part of the resistance to fracking ever since. Her focus centers on health impacts and damage to our environment, with a particular interest in health care and job training for displaced oil and gas workers, along with support for disproportionately impacted communities like hers in Ault. Dr Hawkins noted that all three papers are owned by a single company, which could be a factor in her LTE appearing in all three simultaneously.]

APCD, CDPHE, CO state regulatory agencies, ECMC, General Environmental Reference, Wild Earth Guardians

What this presentation showed about the APCD & ECMC…& what it means for our strategy

Leave a comment

There was a Zoom presentation made by Kate Merlin, staff attorney for the WildEarth Guardians, on July 11, 2025, to the Salon duc Tape, a long running local community discussion group, on the topic of  “The Impact of Oil and Gas Production on Colorado’s Air Quality.” I thought it was stunning, and one of the most impactful Salon’s I had ever seen (and I’ve seen nearly all of them, since I’m the webmaster.)

Here is a photo of Kate starting her presentation:

Kate Merlin at Salon duc Tape, June 13, 2025

Click the picture to go the 39 minute recording in the Salon duc Tape archives.

While you might think this would be a boring topic, what Kate presented was nothing less than a bombshell that exploded the myth that our state agencies are protecting our air quality. It was a deep and authoritative ripping apart of the last couple of decades of data about air pollution from the oil & gas (O&G) industry published by the state — for which they should be held to account.

My hat is off Kate for providing us with this information with which to confront these agencies about the inconsistencies in their annual data. With a J.D. from Vermont Law School, and an LLM in Natural Resources Law from the University of Colorado Boulder, a B.S. in environmental science from Northern Arizona University — plus doing a three month trek with the National Outdoor Leadership School, my old alma mater as well (go NOLS!) — she is eminently qualified to question these reports from the APCD (Air Pollution Control Division), and the ECMC (Energy and Carbon Management Commission).

While the content of the presentation is rather in the weeds, as it needs to be, none of it really requires much more than understanding what MMT CO2eq means: million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, a standard unit for comparing greenhouse gas emissions on a uniform basis. After doing the conversions so as to be able to compare one year to the next, what these agencies did was pretty simple in layman’s terms: they fudged the numbers. One cannot say that they lied exactly; but they did go back and change data from one year to next, so as to make themselves (and the Polis administration) look good in hindsight. Since these numbers are buried in reports that the public seldom reads, and only a few experts ever consult, they are unlikely to get noticed — until someone like Kate Merlin comes along.

Far from serving the public, and protecting our air quality, what these fudged numbers show is a consistent pattern of subtly misleading the public about the “improvements” in our air quality, while protecting the O&G industry from closer scrutiny — and keeping the relationship with the Polis administration in a rosy glow — no matter how much damage is being done to peoples’ lungs and brains who have had to breathe this increasingly polluted air for decades. As Kate reminded the audience at the outset, the area of Colorado north of Denver has been out of EPA compliance for summertime ozone since 2004; and the first state measurements about high ozone in this area were made as early as 1987. In other words, this has been a known problem for a long time; and precious little progress has been made, official Colorado announcements notwithstanding.

What this amounted to was making a baseline number lower as time progressed, so that in the later years, improvements in reducing emissions suddenly appeared; or, as Kate put it, these agencies “never miss a target, as long as they moved.” Another common phrase that describes this in sports language is “moving the goal posts.” The slide deck that accompanied her presentation is available at the same link as the presentation, which contains 33 slides, all full of exquisite detail that prove her points, except the first and last, opening and closing slides that show nice pictures — one from Alice in Wonderland, the last of, I assume, a Colorado river at sunset, both quite appropriate.

One final detail that I should note: Kate requested to the Salon if she could make this presentation in rebuttal to a Salon presented just a few weeks earlier by two staff members from the APCD & CDPHE. (See “Air Quality and Ground-Level Ozone in Colorado“, April 13, 2025), Ms Merlin refers to their presentation as more or less “propaganda”, and in light of her analysis, I’d say that’s about right.

But who am I to judge? Please take a look for yourself, and make up your own mind. We at the Larimer Alliance intend to use these data to make our case to our legislators: we need real data about what’s in our air, and we needed it about ten years ago.