Colorado air board approves $13.5 million in new fees as regulatory mandates grow

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

This is another older, but still relevant article. The first link below is to a Sum and Substance article from late May that details how the unelected Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) doubled the amount businesses that have emission permits will have to pay for the pleasure of submitting reports to the body and being regulated by them.

Quoting:

“Emissions-producing Colorado companies from oil-and-gas drillers to manufacturing firms will see some of their reporting fees double over the next year, as state officials seek to make industrial leaders pay more for enforcement of the regulations that govern them. Members of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on Friday approved more than $13.5 million in fee increases meant to cover the gap between revenues and operating expenses for the Stationary Source Control Fund programs that seek to limit air pollution. They also streamlined some reporting requirements for businesses and asked Colorado Air Pollution Control Division leaders to be more transparent about how the increased revenues are improving services.”

If you read the article (and it’s worth the time to do so), you will see a couple of broad themes.

One, the companies that pay the fees didn’t fight the increase too much because it is their hope — along with the AQCC per the quote above — that the increases will actually smooth out the permitting process and lower the time and cost of doing their business.

Two, the reason for the fee increase is because of all the extra regulatory burden put on the AQCC from our state legislature. There were some interesting graphics in the article that are worth a share.

Screenshot 1, copied from the article but originally produced by the AQCC, shows the various laws that the legislature passed over the years which have added to AQCC’s workload.

Screenshot 2, likewise from the article/AQCC, shows the incredible growth in staffing at the AQCC in order to do all that the law requires of them. Another quote from the article gives the picture in words:

“The reason that fees are going up, APCD staffers explained, is partly because the division has been given so many new mandates in recent years by the Legislature. Two 2019 laws aimed at reducing emissions have spurred 50 rulemakings since 2021 adding air-pollution regulations on oil-and-gas producers, manufacturing facilities, large commercial buildings, landfills and even commercial users of lawn and garden equipment. Legislators also have established rules regarding environmental justice, the cumulative impact of multiple pollution sources and toxic air contaminants — contributing to a doubling of APCD staff since 2020 to more than 400 workers currently.”

The burden on both companies and Coloradans as consumers is bad enough, but the delays on top of the ever-increasing regulations strike me as adding injury to insult.

Think about it: how often do you hear companies being sanguine about paying more? If they’re willing to cash flow the cost (it will ultimately be us as consumers that pays the higher fees) so that they can simply get their government compliance over and done with, it’s saying something about this state and its business environment.

I suppose we’ll see if this particular bargain pans out. I cannot find the citation to an earlier newsletter, but I know I’ve heard this story before. Give the government more fees for faster turnarounds on permits. I don’t know how that one turned out.

I want to end with a quote from AQCC Commissioner Dan Blankenship in the article:

“‘I’m neither a fan of runaway government nor the spending that is associated with runaway government. But we have some of the most rigorous air-quality laws, and that comes at a price, which, according to the General Assembly, will be paid by the fee payers,’ Blankenship said. ‘If we don’t establish fees to cover the budget expenses, we put the APCD into a conundrum … If the division is unfunded, which of these mandates do they not comply with?’”

Putting aside Mr. Blankenship’s confusion about who pays fees (consumers), his statement points to a fundamental fault in our state’s governance and operation.

Anyone who’s ever had to deal with the government knows it all too well: “I understand the problem, but that’s more an issue for [fill in the blank]”.

The legislature turfs things to unelected boards and bureaucrats to (at least in part) offer them political cover. Theirs (the legislature’s) is to posture and tell voters all about how they’re working to keep our air clean.

It’s left to the government employees and unelecteds to come up with the regulations and assess fees, to be the public face of things. They are the ones lucky enough to hand us all the bill for keeping our air clean. What does that public face do when people see the cost and question it?

Why they turn around and say what Mr. Blankenship says: golly, I wish it were different, but our hands are tied.

Elections have consequences.

**As a quick aside, when you read about the state’s regulatory burden and companies leaving or not coming here due to that burden, this is a case in point.

https://tsscolorado.com/commission-approves-significant-increases-in-fees-for-emissions-producers/

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.