With the adrenaline rush of the Super Bowl victory by the Denver Broncos fading but certainly not gone, legislative activity is picking up steam. I had four bills to present in committee last week and all passed the initial test of their first committee votes.
I was able to arrange for constituents to provide remote video testimony on several of my bills from the Fort Lewis College campus, bringing in perspectives from southwestern Colorado without the witnesses having to make the long trek to the Capitol to testify. I really appreciate FLC making citizen engagement at the Legislature easier for those from our corner of the state.
Nearly 20 people testified in support of the bill which would continue state funding of the wildfire risk-reduction grant program. Witnesses represented a wide range of interests including Firewise community groups, environmental organizations like The Nature Conservancy, the Realtors’ state association and representatives from city and county government and the county sheriffs. Also testifying in support of this important state program were many water utilities, including from Denver, Colorado Springs and Greeley, emphasizing the critical linkage of forest health and wildfire mitigation with watershed protection issues. I’ll now take the bill to the appropriations committee, seeking to provide this matching grant money.
My biomass energy bill, proposing to make use of the renewable energy standard multiplier already enjoyed by solar energy, also passed, with very strong testimony from the Colorado Renewable Energy Society and biomass energy experts along with the testimony from JR Ford, who has been working for years on this type of project in the Pagosa Springs area. The ability to make full use of the woody biomass in generating electricity in relatively small projects located in high wildfire risk areas of the state makes a lot of sense, including helping to improve public safety and forest health.
Unfortunately, one environmental group, Conservation Colorado, opposed the bill and seeks to have the bill killed. The basis of the opposition is the use of the increased multiplier for woody biomass projects. That position appears flimsy at best, since the group strongly advocated to use multipliers for solar energy and other renewable energy projects previously and freely admit that the multiplier helped make those energy sources economically feasible.
As pointed out by the biomass energy experts, the production of carbon-negative biochar from the woody biomass project provides carbon dioxide removal. No other renewable energy source can claim that benefit, and reducing the fuel load through an electricity generation plant surely is a much preferred alternative to the devastating impacts of poor air quality suffered during a catastrophic wildfire.
The nonpartisan scientific experts also vigorously disputed Conservation Colorado’s claim that the multiplier would dilute the renewable energy standard now in statute. One further point they made was that biochar provides the added benefit of being an excellent soil additive for agricultural production as it can restore nutrients to the soil that used to come naturally from the fire-adapted Colorado landscape.
I’ve offered to work with the opposition to this bill, but so far, not a single alternative approach has been suggested. As you can see, political sausage-making includes advocacy groups too, and I hope that common sense will prevail as to the many benefits of this bill.
Ellen Roberts represents Senate District 6 in Colorado’s General Assembly. The district encompasses Montezuma, Dolores, La Plata, Archuleta, Montrose, San Miguel, San Juan and Ouray counties. Contact her by phone at (303) 866-4884 or email ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us.
