In a recent decision that has sparked significant debate, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission approved an emissions reduction rule for large industries. This decision has been met with strong opposition from environmental groups who argue that the rule weakens pollution control and overlooks the mandates of the Environmental Justice Act.
The Rule and Its Implications
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, during a rulemaking hearing, granted significant concessions to 18 major industries. These include notable names such as the Molson Coors brewery in Golden, beef producer JBS Swift, Leprino Foods in Greeley, and the Suncor Energy refinery in Commerce City.
The divide between environmental advocates and industry representatives was evident during the hearing. Environmentalists argue that state laws should not be compromised and industries must adhere to the set emissions standards. In contrast, industry representatives believe the new regulations are too aggressive and could potentially drive businesses out of the state to regions with less stringent environmental guidelines.
The Environmental Justice Act’s Role
The Environmental Justice Act mandates a 20% reduction in emissions from the industrial sector by 2030, using 2015 levels as a benchmark. According to state enforcement officials, the industries affected by this rule have already achieved a 12% reduction since 2015. This is just 1% shy of the 13% greenhouse gas emissions limit set for 2024.
However, industry representatives have voiced concerns about the feasibility of meeting future reduction standards. They have proposed a “cap and trade” system, allowing companies that fail to meet the standards to purchase credits from those that exceed them. Another suggestion from the industry was the establishment of a state-administered climate mitigation fund. This fund would allow non-compliant industries to contribute to emissions reduction programs in communities disproportionately polluted. The commission has adopted this latter proposal.
Environmental Groups’ Response
Environmental advocates have expressed significant concerns about these concessions. They argue that permitting companies to continue their polluting activities while financially contributing to mitigation efforts elsewhere does not address the pollution issues faced by communities surrounding these facilities.
Ean Thomas Tafoya, Colorado state director for GreenLatinos, expressed his frustration: “It is maddening to see the efforts to pass the Environmental Justice Act turn into an unjust rule filled with polluters’ requests.” He criticized the idea of allowing facilities to essentially “pay to pollute” rather than taking direct action to reduce their emissions.
John Jacus, an environmental law attorney representing several affected companies, countered this by highlighting the challenges of meeting the 2024 deadline. He emphasized the potential economic repercussions if companies were to leave Colorado due to stringent regulations.
Meghan Dollar, senior vice president for government affairs, mentioned that the Colorado Chamber of Commerce has been actively involved in this issue. She believes that the AQCC has tried to achieve long-term emission reductions while ensuring companies can comply.
However, environmental organizations remain unsatisfied. Olga Gonzalez, executive director of Cultivando, expressed disappointment, stating that the rule does little to address immediate air pollution concerns. Ian Coghill, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office, also emphasized that the rule fails to reduce pollution in communities most affected by industrial facilities adequately.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the new industrial emissions regulation underscores the challenges of balancing economic interests with environmental concerns. As Colorado grapples with this issue, it serves as a reminder of the broader challenges faced by societies worldwide in addressing climate change and environmental justice.
.webp)
