• How Colorado's tax burdens rank nationally. TL;DR: Somewhere in the middle. (via @ariarmstrong)
• One third of college students in Colorado need remediation. This is a failing of K-12 schools, not colleges. One comment on the last paragraph: remedial courses rarely could towards graduation at four year institutions.
• Oh, good. Seven members of the Colorado Congressional delegation signed a letter begging for corporate welfare.

Everywhere else

• Obama is not backing down on his support for freedom destroying contraception mandates.
• Selling "used" MP3s is legal in the United States. It's a good ruling supporting the first-sale doctrine but there are a slew of consequences that could fall out of this.
• New Hampshire has passed regulation requiring the use of open standards for data retention and the consideration of open source software. Government records should not be locked in proprietary formats.
• Snipers want to watch the Super Bowl, too.
• Even more evidence that man-made global warming is a fraud.

"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election." -- Bill Vaughan

A bill to repeal Colorado’s “phantom carbon tax” was heard today in the Republican-controlled House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee. It’s the second time in as many years that State Representative Spencer Swalm (R-Centennial) has sponsored the pro-ratepayer legislation. Both times it was heard in the House Ag Committee. Last year, we documented how some Republicans in the committee voted to keep the carbon tax in tact, which is de facto support for the theory of man-made global warming.

The usual suspects, including Xcel Energy, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), lined up against relief for ratepayers this year.

Fortunately for ratepayers, the Independence Institute stood by their side and against corporate welfare. As I stated in my testimony in support of HB 1172:

It’s true that the carbon tax is not a line item on a ratepayer’s bill, but is in included in the modeling of costs for resource acquisition. Costs dictate rates. The higher the costs, the higher the rates. The higher the rates, the more Xcel Energy makes.

The “phantom carbon tax,” as we call it, increases costs and therefore rates. Xcel customers pay Xcel for a tax that doesn’t exist. It is a redistribution of wealth from ratepayers to shareholders. (Full testimony is below)

Conventional political wisdom suggests that most Democrats would support carbon taxes while most Republicans would oppose them, especially in an election year, and that a party-line vote would have moved this bill out of committee. But after close to two hours of testimony, no vote was taken. Vice-Chairman Randy Baumgardner laid over HB 1172 until a later date. Colorado ratepayers will have to wait a little longer to see which lawmakers have the courage to provide relief from needlessly high electric rates.

Two members of the committee were absent from today’s hearing, Republican Chair Jerry Sonnenberg and Democrat Wes McKinley, which didn’t shift the balance of power. The bill still should have moved out of committee on a 6-5 vote, unless someone doesn’t want this bill to go to the floor of the House for an open debate.

So the real question is how will the House Ag Committee vote on HB 1172? Will some Republicans turn their backs on ratepayers and throw their support behind carbon taxes, the theory of man-made global warming, and corporate subsidies as they did last year? And if some do, which ones?

Republicans members of the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee:

• Jerry Sonnenberg, Chair
• Randy Baumgardner, Vice-Chair
• J. Paul Brown
• Don Coram
• Marsha Looper
• Ray Scott
• Glenn Vaad

Democrat members include:

• Randy Fischer
• Matt Jones
• Wes McKinley
• Su Ryden
• Edward Vigil
• Roger Wilson

Any guesses on how the vote will go?

Testimony on behalf of

HB 1172 No Imputed Carbon Tax

February 8, 2012

House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resource Committee

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is Amy Oliver Cooke. I write on and direct the energy policy center for the Independence Institute, 727 E. 16^th Ave, Denver, CO 80203

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of HB 1172.

At the Independence Institute, we are agnostic on energy resources. It is our strong belief that the choice of energy resources should come from the demands of the free market, and not from the preferences of policymakers, lobbyists, or special interest groups.

HB 1172 is simple in nature, unless a carbon tax is passed at the federal level, ratepayers should not be disadvantaged financially by paying the phantom carbon tax to an Investor Owned Utility such as Xcel Energy.

History

We haven’t been able to find any other state that has a carbon tax in statute. Colorado’s is based in HB08-1164, which says the Public Utilities Commission:

may give consideration to the likelihood of new environmental regulation and the risk of higher future costs associated with the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide when it considers utility proposals to acquire resources.

HB 1172 would change the wording ever so slightly to the PUC

may give consideration to the existence of new environmental regulation and the costs imposed by current federal law or regulation on the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide when it considers utility proposals to acquire resources.

When the 2008 bill passed, Colorado Conservation Voters explained it HB 1164 this way:

By giving the PUC the ability to use carbon as a value in resource planning decisions, HB 1164 represented the first time that the Colorado General Assembly took a substantive step forwards in giving regulators the tools they need to explicitly address global warming.

Three current members of this committee (Reps. Sonnenberg, Vaad, and Looper)  voted against that bill in 2008. I commend them for doing so. It is a selective, regressive tax – selective on resource (coal) and selective on customers (IOUs such as Xcel Energy), although pass through costs affect almost everyone in the state.

To tax or not to tax?

While it’s prudent for the PUC to consider the risks of Congress passing a cap-and-trade scheme that would put a price on carbon, it is, in equal measure, rash to include the cost of a federal carbon tax in resource planning that covers a time frame in which these costs don’t exist.

To its credit, the PUC staff registered second thoughts about the application of a carbon tax. Alluding to the $20 ton carbon tax during hearings for Xcel’s 2010 renewable energy compliance plan, PUC staff witness William Dalton expressed concern about “including costs that do not exist.”

Even Xcel Energy doesn’t believe that a carbon tax will be passed at the federal level any time soon.

As early as June 2010, Xcel petitioned the PUC for permission to renege on a commitment to build a 250 megawatt solar thermal power plant due to “changed circumstances,” among which the utility cited “the expectation that carbon legislation won’t be enacted for several years,” which would, “erode the economics of solar thermal” [Direct Testimony James F Hill, Xcel Witness, 4 June 2010, Docket 10A-377E]

In the 2012 Renewable Energy Compliance Plan, In Section 7 — Retail Rate Impact and Budget, Xcel acknowledges that I was correct in February 2011 when I testified in front of this committee on HB 1240, there would be no national carbon tax in the near future:

The carbon assumptions approved by the Commission in Docket No. 07A-447E assumed carbon regulation would be enacted in 2010; such regulation was not enacted and the prospects for near term carbon regulation appear to be slim.

Because Xcel assumes there will be no carbon tax in the near future, it presents a cost model that excludes the carbon tax and another model that does include the tax but not until 2014:

Due to the uncertainties related to the timing associated with possible carbon emission regulation, the Company did not include any carbon cost imputations in the model runs and other calculations set forth on Table 7-3. However, as discussed later, Public Service also presents with this Compliance Plan, as Table 7-4, a sensitivity case that assumes the same carbon imputation costs ($20 per ton, escalating at 7% annually) as approved in the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan but on a delayed implementation schedule of 2014.

The cost differences are substantial.

Colorado Legislative Council Staff wrote in the fiscal note for HB 1164, “the bill will not affect state or local revenue or expenditures, and is assessed as having no fiscal impact.” But including a non-existent $20 per ton carbon tax that adds millions of dollars to the cost of otherwise inexpensive fuels such as coal, has an impact on ratepayers. Currently, according to DOE statistics Colorado has the highest electric costs of any neighboring state, second highest in the Rocky Mountain West.

Conclusion

It’s true that the carbon tax is not a line item on a ratepayer’s bill, but is in included in the modeling of costs for resource acquisition. Costs dictate rates. The higher the costs, the higher the rates. The higher the rates, the more Xcel Energy makes. The “phantom carbon tax,” as we call it, increases costs and therefore rates. Xcel customers pay Xcel for a tax that doesn’t exist. It is a redistribution of wealth from ratepayers to shareholders.

If the state legislature wants to tax Coloradans to pay for global warming, they should make their case to voters  — all voters – and not just penalize Xcel Energy ratepayers, who have no other place to go, no recourse.

As I stated at the beginning it is the strong belief of the Independence Institute that the choice of energy resources should come from the demands of the free market, and not from the preferences of policymakers, lobbyists, or special interest groups and we believe that HB 1172 is consistent with that principle.

Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney in the later two states. In Colorado, it was closer but Santorum edged out Romney with a five point victory. In Minnesota, Romney finished third behind Ron Paul with Newt bringing up the rear and Santorum won every county in Missouri.

My home county went for Romney but Santorum had a pretty good showing. Gingrich only beat out Paul by three votes. Admittedly, Alamosa County isn't large so it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things but, hey, it's home.

Winning all three states will be a big boost to Santorum's profile. There's a slim chance that it could force Newt to reconsider but I doubt it. He'll hang in for a while especially since no delegates were awarded tonight. If he does, he and Santorum will continue to split the conservative vote while Romney walks off with the delegates. On the other hand, if Newt drops out, Mitt could be in for a fight and could quite conceivably lose. We saw that in Missouri where Newt wasn't even on the ballot. Santorum beat him by 30 points.

I'm not a huge fan of Rick Santorum's big government approaches to social issues but there's no doubting his conservative stances on Federal spending. I'll take him over Mitt Romney any day.

On to the links.

Colorado

• The ethics investigation of Laura Bradford began yesterday. I expect it to go through quickly with little actually coming of it.
• SB 35 would limit the liability of companies ferrying passengers into space.

Everywhere else

• How about a "Morning After" pill from a vending machine on college campuses?
• Oh, good. We're four months into the new fiscal year and we're already $349 billion in the hole.
• Who's up for a map of earmarks? (via Hot Air)
• Hey! Let's give control of the Internet to Homeland Security!
• Obama may be backing down on the his contraception mandate.

Updated 2011-02-08: Fixed stupid typo. Thanks gospelnews.

When the Citizens’ Budget first dropped, we found it was extremely popular with the Tea Party and limited government crowd. We ordered hundreds of physical copies and could hardly keep those puppies in stock! But when it came to our state legislature, there was hardly a peep. 2011 came and went and we wondered why no legislators jumped on any of our suggestions. Yeah, some of them are politically unpopular, but many of them are not. What gives?

But now in 2012 some brave state legislators have taken up the cause for fiscal responsibility! For a great overview of 3 bills working their way through the legislature thanks to our project, look no further than Wayne Laugesen’s op-ed in today’s Colorado Springs Gazette. Wayne praises our Citizens’ Budget and goes on to explain how our suggestions to shore up the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) made their way into 3 bills thus far.

The first is a bill carried by Rep. Chris Holbert of Parker. The bill “would cap the health benefit for early retirees at $230 a month and eliminate health care payments for retirees who have reached the age of eligibility for Medicare.” Secondly, we have Senate Bill 119 carried by Sen. Tim Neville of Littleton. His bill “would force the board of directors of PERA to adjust benefits in order to “maintain the long-term actuarial soundness of each trust fund.” Our Fiscal Policy Center director and lead author of the Citizens’ Budget Penn Pfiffner gives a great explanation of exactly what that means,

“Today, the PERA board tells state government to get the money it needs. This bill says they have to adjust benefits accordingly. Once taxpayers have made their contribution, it will be up to PERA to make it work. We would no longer be responsible for how PERA handles the money.

Finally we have a Senate Bill 82 carried by Sen. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch. His bill “would increase the age at which new public employees would be eligible for retirement benefits.” For example, today some new hires can plan on retiring at 58 years old thanks to PERA. Sen. Harvey’s bill would increase the age to 68 – the same as Social Security.

It’s exciting to see that the tremendous work our research team did two years ago is bearing fruit in 2012. We encourage all legislators to read their copy of our Citizens’ Budget (yes, you have one. If you can’t find yours, contact us immediately!) and take on the challenge to strike at the heart of our continued budget deficits. What’s the heart of our budget issues? As Penn Pfiffner says, “it’s a structural problem.” In other words, it’s time we discard all the accounting gimmicks we have to use each year to balance the budget. If the Citizens’ Budget were in charge, we wouldn’t need any tricks to fix a deficit because there wouldn’t be a deficit year after year.

Read more about the Citizens’ Budget project here.

On to the links.

Colorado

• State Bill Colorado has a handy, dandy list of what the General Assembly is up to.
• A state amphibian? Really?
• Ah, the joys of living in a rural area. Phone service was down for about six hours and Internet service was down for a couple more.

Everywhere else

• Do you "that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime [and] oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership),"? Congratulations. You might be a "militia extremest". (No militia membership required.)
• Obama: The economy still sucks but you should elect me again anyway.
• Good polling companies publish their data so that conclusions can be verified and so that any inherent bias in the sample is made public. The Washington Post and ABC are not good polling companies.
• Rick Santorum is surging going into today's caucuses and primary and Romney knows it.
• Business fees and taxes are always paid their customers. Always.
• Here's your look at what's scheduled in Congress this week.
• 71 percent of Egyptians are opposed to US aid to Egypt. I, for one, am more than happy to honor their wish.

King had earlier released a statement regarding his endorsement, saying:

“Governor Romney has the leadership qualities, experience, and credentials to make him best suited for carrying the conservative Republican banner into the November Presidential election, defeat Barack Obama, and put this great nation back on the path to prosperity and strength. We have a country to save, and Mitt Romney is the candidate best able to lead us in doing that.”

About 350 people were on hand to hear Gov. Romney at the standing room only rally at the Country Inn in Grand Junction. Another 200 or so stood listening outside on speakers set up for those people who were turned away at the door by Grand Junction fire marshals.

Most in the crowd were Romney supporters; a few, however, remained undecided and had stopped by simply to hear from one of the candidates in hopes of gathering enough information to make an informed decision come caucus time the following night. Some of these seemed to come away from the rally impressed by what they saw and heard.

Harry Benjamin, of Grand Junction, said he was not a Romney supporter before attending the event. But after hearing the former Massachusetts Governor speak, said he liked what he had heard.

“He is a successful manager, and that is what we need” Benjamin said.

Some attendees had been to Rick Santorum’s event in nearby Montrose two days earlier, and drew comparisons between the two candidates. Matt Soper, a Delta resident and recent law school graduate, attended both events and said that to him, “the difference between Santorum and Romney was the difference between someone running for governor, and one running for President”, saying that Romney’s speech, attitude and demeanor seemed to be more professional and ”presidential”. In terms of substance, Soper said that he was gratified to hear Romney honor the U.S. military in his speech, and speak on foreign policy, noting that “Santorum only spoke of the military when prompted by a question, and I found that rather disappointing”.

Followers of Romney’s rivals were present as well. Judy O’Dwyer, also of Grand Junction, said that she was a Rick Santorum supporter, but had come to hear what Romney had to say, and to see if she could concider him trustworthy. “I have my doubts about him; I don’t know if he is conservative enough for me” she said prior to the event. She did, however, go on to state that she would support Romney fully if he became the candidate.

Other opponents were not so accommodating. About a dozen Ron Paul supporters were on hand to protest the candidate at the event. Local Palisade peach farmer David Cox, a prominent supporter of the Texas Congressman, said that they were there to raise awareness of Romney’s support for TARP and the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in particular the controversial provision that allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens found to be enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the U.S., thereby, according to Cox, “eliminating the right of due process and habeas corpus”. Asked whether or not he would support Romney in the event that he won the nomination, Cox replied no, saying that he “cannot support any candidate that is in favor of presidential or military authority to arrest and detain civilians not engaged in a battlefield situtation under the law of war rather than the due process requirements spelled out in the US Constitution”. Cox told PPC that he was thrown out of the event; “I began raising my voice and informing people and that’s when the staff had me ejected”. No other incidents were reported.

Overall, however, the reception from the west slope to Mitt Romney seemed generally approving, and crossed demographic lines. Kristina Kelly, a young Grand Junction resident in her early 20’s, and Sheryl Wilson, a retiree, both touted Romney’s values and business experience as essential for leading America out of her current troubles. Fruita Iraq Veteran Sean Otto said Romney was the “only one who has a record for turning things around”, citing his history in Massachusetts, the Olympics, and in the business world.

For West Slope voters, Romneys biggest applause line came when he spoke of energy, an issue critical to the economy of the region rich in natural gas, coal, and oil shale. In a speech that mostly stuck to the script of his last several appearances, Romney criticized Obama’s record on energy policy, noting that the current President has kept hundreds of acres off limits for production, while subsidizing so-called “green energy” boondoggles – contrary to his call in the State of the Union speech for an “all of the above” policy.

Romney’s promises to reign in the EPA and to help facilitate domestic production of “energy secure and independent from foreign cartels” met with approval from West Slope residents. Harry Benjamin, when asked if Romney’s message appealed to the average west slope voter, replied “Yes, especially based on what he said about energy.”

Norm Franke, President of Alpine Bank in Grand Junction agreed. “Romney does appeal to people on the Western Slope when he talks of energy development” he said. “Romney told the audience the right things. It will be nice if he will do them.”

Oh hey there! I’m glad you asked. Our Energy Policy Center director Amy Oliver has been hitting the energy and environment issues hard lately. You should take a look at our Energy Policy Center’s webpage to stay on top of Amy and Michael Sandoval’s work. For example, when President Obama came to town to talk about his “comprehensive” view of energy, Amy and Michael put together a nice article translating his rhetoric into real life language – that real people speak! Additionally, Amy sat down with my main minion Justin Longo to discuss Obama’s energy policies and figure out how his “green” energy favoritism gets twisted into an “all of the above” approach he claims to have. You can hear Amy translate and discuss Obama’s energy policies here on iVoices.org.

Let’s bring energy policy even closer to home shall we? Amy and Michael also tackled the upcoming energy legislation before our Colorado representatives in this year’s legislative session. What’s some of the good? What’s some of the bad? And you know there’s going to be some downright ugly when it comes to energy policy in Colorado… so what’s that all about this year? Amy gives a run down of some of the more important legislation in this iVoices.org podcast with Justin. You might be surprised at how great some of the good stuff is. (Hint: Rep. Spencer Swalm is on an energy tear this year!) Likewise, the bad will bad and the ugly… expensive.

Colorado

• Sen. Tom "Big Government" Massey's school trans-fat ban is "unnecessary" say school lunch officials. No, not because schools are capable of making the choice themselves. (They are, by the way.) It's because the Feds already beat them to it.
• If you've ever thought that lawmakers had to be drinking to come up with some of these bills, you may be right.
• Hey, let's let the government hide information because it's more secure. Here's a basic lesson learned in computer security and applicable everywhere. Security through obscurity doesn't work.

Everywhere else

• Government funded "green jobs" training is about as successful as every other government funded program.
• Feds to airlines: Don't show customers how much they're paying in taxes.
• RNC delegate rules favor Romney?

"I believe that every human has a finite number of heart-beats. I don't intend to waste any of mine running around doing exercises." -- Buzz Aldrin

Colorado

• Sen. Tom "Big Government" Massey's school trans-fat ban is "unnecessary" say school lunch officials. No, not because schools are capable of making the choice themselves. (They are, by the way.) It's because the Feds already beat them to it.
• If you've ever thought that lawmakers had to be drinking to come up with some of these bills, you may be right.
• Hey, let's let the government hide information because it's more secure. Here's a basic lesson learned in computer security and applicable everywhere. Security through obscurity doesn't work.

Everywhere else

• Government funded "green jobs" training is about as successful as every other government funded program.
• Feds to airlines: Don't show customers how much they're paying in taxes.
• RNC delegate rules favor Romney?

"I believe that every human has a finite number of heart-beats. I don't intend to waste any of mine running around doing exercises." -- Buzz Aldrin

Colorado

The Legislature skipped down yesterday to avoid the storm. I, for one, will enjoy the peace.

Everywhere else

• You thought social programs and the welfare state were expensive before. Just wait until they're run by the UN. Of course, they want a progressive global tax to pay for it.
• And Komen Foundation's decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood lasted all of two days.
• If you still had faith in the public school system, this should take care of that for you.
• Sen. Harry Reid: Budgets? We don't need no stinking budgets! Any Democrat who claims to be for financial accountability who supports ignoring this legal requirement is a liar.
• The Obama administration is looking at dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• Republicans have finally gotten around to challenging Obama's "recess" appointments in court.