Comparative Experience

Take A Look

This year's General Assembly composition is markedly different from the last. Democrats control the House with a tidy majority but still outnumber Republicans as they previously did in the Senate. Remember the basic differences between each chamber: in the House, there are 65 members each with 2 year terms; in the Senate, there are 35 members each with 4 year terms. All House members were up for re-election in 2012, only some Senate members were.

In The House

The following graphs compare the party composition of each chamber. Pay special attention to the staggering number of freshman (brand new members) in the House. 42% of both Democrat and Republican representatives are new to the legislature. While freshman are not unfamiliar with the process, they might be so with the plethora of issues that come before them. Unlike a senior member who has seen, for example, the numerous ways severance taxes are targeted to meet the needs of different stakeholders, a freshman might not have the same level of complex knowledge on the subject. They might have less informed opinions that can only be enhanced through years of experience, and they might not have the "political capital" necessary to achieve success with their own agendas.

One of the main reasons there are so many freshman this session is that House district lines (each representative's area that may vote for them) were redrawn as a result of the census. Many members also lost primary election battles within their own party, or were simply defeated by a newcomer of the opposing party. Term limits forced 8 members, 4 democrat 4 republican, out of the House. Democrat Nancy Todd made a successful run to the Senate, as did Republican David Balmer. That left a vacuum of 6 available seats to freshman.

In The Senate

The Senate in a much different story than the House. Here, some senators were not up for re-election in 2012 because their terms are staggered from one another (Senate seat X goes up for election in 2008, 2012, 2016 etc; Senate seat Y goes up in 2006, 2010, 2014, etc).  Because terms are 4 years long, with a maximum limit of 2 terms, the tenure of these members is more stable than in the House. Whereas representatives must run for re-election every 2 years, senators must only run every 4 (and really for re-election only once before they aren't allowed to do so again).

As a result, you'll notice more senior members with fewer freshman. Often, members like John Kefalas will transition from the House to the Senate by running for the vacated Senate seat. Kefalas ran for the seat formerly held by fellow Democrat Bob Bacon for two terms. Bacon could not run again because he was term limited. You'll notice there are some senators with more than 8 years of experience- that's because they were formerly representatives.

Does It Matter?

Yes. Members with more legislative experience are able to pull more political weight. They know how things get done, whose toes not to tread on, how to conduct a tight committee, how to use procedure to their advantage, and how to manage the pressure placed on them by constituents and stakeholders. Most importantly, senior members usually have good relationships with lobbyists and know the 'power players' of the game. Freshman still need to learn the ropes and may be susceptible to outside interests. More on that in a future post!  

Not quite... Pt. 1

Bills That Went Nowhere

We're now entering our third week of session and already the "bill body count" is beginning to pile up. Here's a quick compilation of what hasn't flown so far, you'll notice they are all Republican bills. With a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, that doesn't come as a surprise.

SB13-020 "Business Fiscal Impacts" by Sen. Ted Harvey.

This bill would have created a five day window for businesses to comment to the appropriate committee on the fiscal impacts of upcoming legislation. The immediate problem with the bill, as expressed by Democrats during its hearing, was that businesses would need to track legislation themselves and submit feedback on whether it would help or hurt them- but would that data be reliable, and how could it be verified? 

Most businesses however are in associations, and associations hire lobbyists to do just what the bill wanted. The lobby group keeps tabs on legislation to keep their clients safe. What Sen. Harvey proposed is already being done. On top of that, anyone can already testify before a committee to state whether a bill would help or hurt them. 

SB13-022 "County treasurer becoming the public trustee" by Sen. Lambert and Rep. Scott.

Remember my post on this one? I'll go into more depth on what happened to the bill, but it was pronounced "postponed indefinitely!" (dead) Thursday January 24th. For now, public trustees in second class counties will still be appointed by the governor. 

SB13-024 "Prohibit discrimination of labor union participation" by Sen. Hill. 

The bill would have simply made it illegal to require an employee to join specific labor unions. It was a classic Republican anti-union bill, now defeated by historically pro-union Democrats.

SB13-035 "Prohibit red light camera vehicle identification" by Sen. Renfroe and Rep. Humphrey.

It would have repealed the authority for local municipalities to use 'speed cameras' to catch a photo of drivers running red lights. What's important to note is that 'red light photo' tickets make up substantial portions of revenue for localities.

2012 'Red Light Photo Ticket' Revenues

HB13-1028 "Vehicle special license plate limit" by Rep. Scott and Rep. Priola.

Not even with Democrat Rep. Randy Fischer's support did this bill make it through its first committee. The bill would have limited those non-generic license plates we have in Colorado to 96 varieties. Currently there are 85. The reason it's popular is because the plates generate money, almost $100,000 per variety per year in extra registration fees that go to the highway fund. Police don't like the plates because it can be difficult to keep track of them all and spot the ones from Colorado from the ones that aren't. Rep. Fischer has been vocally opposed to the expansion of plate varieties because they must be legislatively created, something he and many other lawmakers from both parties believe is a waste of the General Assembly's time.   

HB13-1069 "Small business fiscal impact statements" by Rep. Navarro-Ratzlaff.

Very similar to SB13-020 by Ted Harvey, this bill would have required the legislative analysts that put together fiscal impact statements (the document recording how much money is at stake with each bill) to analyze how each bill would affect small businesses in Colorado, defined as 50 employees or less.

Renewable or Not, Pt. 2

Bill Number: SB13-003

Bill Title: Coal Mine Methane Gas Capture

Sponsors: Senator Randy Baumgardner and Representative Don Coram

Picking up where we left off, last year's bill to make the capture of coal mine methane a renewable, clean energy resource was preparing to enter the Senate side of things. After clearing the Republican controlled House, 1160 went to the Senate Local Government committee, controlled by Democrats. The bill was changed substantially in transition between the House and Senate:    

1. A Strike Below was used, which deleted everything in the House version of 1160 that was below the Enacting Clause. Basically, it wiped the bill back to a clean slate.
2. Starting over it defined CMM in section 123 of the RES to be absolutely a part of the "biogenically in geologic strata as a result of human intervention."
3. It added a new category to section 124 for "Greenhouse gas mitigation projects", CMM capture being included in it.  Part of the project status is producing clean energy.
4. Making the capture and energy production a part of section 124, it would be eligible for financial incentive from the state as part of the RES.
5. A compromise was struck to make each kilowatt hour of energy from CMM equivalent to 75% of a renewable kilowatt of energy under the RES. So only 3/4ths the financial benefit of what solar power receives.
6. Finally, mines that produce 90,000 cubic feet or less of CMM will be exempt from the sales tax of it.

Again, the same proponents supported and the same opponents opposed the bill as in the House committee. And again, some Democrats unsuccessfully tried an amendment that would force every part of the bill into section 123. Even though they outnumbered Republicans 3-2 one of their own, then Senator Joyce Foster, sided against them. 1160 passed with the above changes on to the Senate Committee of the Whole. 

The reason HB12-1160 did not become law is because leadership in the Senate killed it. By repeatedly postponing the third reading of the bill (when every senator votes on it), and eventually scheduling it for a date after the General Assembly ended for the year, 1160 was deemed lost. Scheduling like that is a legitimate maneuver for the Senate to prevent legislation from moving on.  

This year

Former representative, now senator, Randy Baumgardner is back this session to try again with SB13-003. His support in the House is fellow Republican Don Coram. The 2013 version of the bill is much of what the previous Senate version of 1160 was:

1. Make CMM capture a "Greenhouse gas mitigation project" in section 124 of the RES.
2. Each kilowatt-hour of energy generated from CMM is equivalent to a full kilowatt-hour for the purposes of compliance in the RES. (unlike the last try at 75% an hour equivalent). 

Now the big question is: with an even bolder, less compromising gamble on CMM this year, in combination with Democratic control in both houses and the executive, will this bill stand any chance of making it? Has Senator Baumgardner pulled together the necessary alliances? Has any new data surfaced which will make the move more appealing? 

SB13-003 hasn't been scheduled yet, but I'm eagerly anticipating it. More on that as it happens, stay tuned!

Renewable or Not, Pt. 1

Bill Number: SB13-003

Bill Title: Coal Mine Methane Gas Capture

Bill Sponsors: Senator Randy Baumgardner and Representative Don Coram

 

Making Methane Green

SB13-003 encapsulates everything I love about watching legislation be made. It's chock full of complex gray area issues where you can't really be certain, despite your political persuasion, who is right or wrong. Just when you think you've arrived at understanding, another layer of intrigue is peeled away. 

This bill would define the capture of methane from active and inactive coal mines in Colorado to be a greenhouse gas mitigation project and to be a clean energy source, verifiable as a carbon offset for climate protection. Facilities that capture the methane and sell it to electric utility companies will receive financial incentives from the state toward fulfilling the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

Indeed the process is considered "green". One of the many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to locate the sources of pollution, from a vehicle's tailpipe to rotting garbage, and either clean it up or turn it into energy. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about five times stronger than carbon dioxide. You might have heard that stockyards emit tons of the stuff. What you might not have heard is that it comes from coal mining operations as well. 

When coal is mined from the earth the methane trapped in the seams is released. Ventilation is required for both active and inactive coal mines, with the possibility of fires and explosions if left ignored. Even mines that are decades old and considered inactive seep the greenhouse gas. Being able to capture that gas, in much the same way as methane is captured from landfills, is a viable method of turning a hazard into an asset. 

But all is not so simple. There are a few energy companies in Colorado that have looked into the technology of capturing methane from coal mines, but none have been very successful at it. Kickstarting new energy sources is not so easy, take wind and solar for example, both received ample government subsidies to get off the ground. Making coal mine methane (CMM) useful is also rare, only Pennsylvania and Germany have substantial facilities for doing so. 

The most crucial aspect of this bill is where exactly it will fit into law, specifically section 40.2.124 of the Colorado Revised Statues, the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES) I mentioned earlier. 

Past Attempts

This isn't the first time efforts to capture CMM have been up for debate in the legislature. Last session, then Representative Randy Baumgardner, he is now a Senator, and Senator Gail Schwartz introduced HB12-1160. 

1160's first stop was in the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources committee. Proponents of the bill, mostly energy companies, explained the ins and outs of why capturing methane is a win-win-win: it prevents a potent greenhouse gas from escaping to the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming, it provides a new source of clean energy, and it creates jobs. Who wouldn't love that? 

The Democrats in the committee, apparently. But not because they disagreed with all of the above. In fact they very much believed it would be great for Colorado's environment and businesses, but the sticking point came down to where it would be placed in state law. Like the current CMM bill this year (SB13-003), 1160 of last year would be written into section 124 of the RES. That section would specify CMM as an established renewable energy resource. 

Questions of job creation and job loss were brought up too. Energy companies in Colorado are mandated to meet a schedule of how much electricity sold comes from renewable sources. They are currently on track and exceeding the schedule of 12% renewable energy during 2011-2014. The mandate created the incentive for companies to invest in renewable resources and create jobs in those sectors. If CMM became a profitable resource, would it drain jobs from the other renewable sectors? Would companies pull 5% of their renewables from, say solar, and put them into CMM? Would this have regional consequences of job shifting, from the plains of wind to the western coal mines?

Overshadowing jobs, "Is CMM actually a renewable resource?" became the question of the hour in committee. In many ways it's not, testified the opponents of the bill, mostly resource and environmental advocates. Compared to wind or solar, energy sources that are limitless, CMM would eventually dry up. Renewable by definition means a source of energy that is not depleted by using it, but there is only so much methane trapped in coal seams. Additionally, human intervention (actually opening up the earth to mine the coal) unlocks the methane. In a way, it could be considered part of the coal itself. 

Section 124 only applies to established resources considered renewable. Essentially, 1160 would have classified CMM a renewable resource de facto, simply by placing it in that part of the law. 

Democrats proposed an alternative route. In committee, Representative Randy Fischer moved an amendment that would put the bill in section 123, not 124, of the RES because capturing methane from coal mines might still be considered experimental. Section 123 is for "new energy technologies", not established ones, and while still being promoted by the state it would not provide the same financial incentives to companies capturing CMM as it would in section 124. Rep. Fischer made a strong case for placing the bill in section 123 from the following snippet of that law:

In its consideration of generation acquisitions for electric utilities, the commission may give the fullest possible consideration to the cost-effective implementation of new energy technologies for the generation of electricity from methane produced biogenically in geologic strata as a result of human intervention. [my emphasis]

Biogenically means once from living organisms, which coal is and therefore which the methane by that coal is, and the human intervention is the process of mining. The definition seemed to fit. In voting though, Democrats favoring the amendment to shift things to section 123 were outnumbered by Republicans favoring section 124. The bill passed the House committee on went on to the Senate, but not before many important changes were made to it. More on that in the next post!
  

Trust In Public Trustees

HB13-1049 by Representative Ray Scott and Senator Kent Lambert

SB13-022 by Senator Kent Lambert and Representative Ray Scott 

HB13-1051 by Representative Dan Pabon and Senator Lucia Guzman

Background:

In one of the Denver Post's biggest stories of 2012, it was found that almost every county with a public trustee appointed or reappointed by Governor Hickenlooper was involved in the misuse of public money. I won't go into the nitty gritty, you can certainly click the link above to do that, but the scandal broke on the heels of increasing scrutiny of the appointment system. 

For about the past 100 years, Colorado has had a system of the Governor appointing the public trustees of first and second class counties, of which there are 11 in the state (64 counties total). The other 53 counties are third class and have their elected treasurer act as the public trustee.  

At this point you're probably wondering, what is a public trustee anyway? Are they important? 

Colorado is the only state in the country that has a system of public trustees. It arose during the late 1800s when a bad economy forced many mining operations to foreclose. In order to facilitate the transaction of foreclosed property in a way that protected the rights of the borrower, the position of public trustee was legislatively created. With extra relevance since 2008, public trustees administer foreclosures, deeds of trust, and collect taxes on accounts for land purchase contracts within their county. 

Since 2010

Three years ago the foreclosure fiasco in Colorado was raging. Public trustees handled much more business than usual which brought them into the spotlight of public awareness. At the same time, salaries were increased from $43,500 to $72,000 exclusively for the 10 second class appointed trustees. (Denver county was later made first class with their elected clerk and recorder acting as the public trustee). 

In 2012, Representative Ray Scott sponsored HB12-1329 which had the original intention of changing many second class counties, those with an appointed public trustee, to third class counties, those with the elected treasurer acting as public trustee. The affected counties would have been Mesa, Weld, and El Paso. 

The bill was seriously derailed though. Instead of altering the mechanism for appointment, it instead created an auditing system for all public trustees. Third class trustees are now to adopt an annual budget and present it for approval to the board of country commissioners, but appointed trustees (second class counties) are only required to submit individual annual audits. 

Back at it

Representative Scott is back this session with two bills, one sponsored in the House (HB13-1049), and one sponsored in the Senate (SB13-022), both again attempting to change second class public trustees to third class, which would do away with their being appointed by the Governor. 

While the bills seem redundant on one another, the House version only changes El Paso and Mesa counties to third class; the Senate version transforms all counties except Broomfield and Denver to third class and tinkers with the salary scale. Instead of the aforementioned $72,000, the treasurers acting as trustees would receive a treasurer salary plus $12,500 for having both duties.

Also in the works is HB13-1051 by Representative Dan Pabon and Senator Lucia Guzman, two of the more influential Democrats in the legislature. It's a bit more complicated. Denver is a first class county which means their elected clerk and recorder acts a the public trustee. Their bill would make the elected clerk of Denver an officer equivalent to a second class county and would have that first class trustee execute a surety bond of $25,000 to protect their performance. 

Keeping track

Both of Rep. Scott's bills are being heard later this month. 1049 will be heard in the House committee Local Government, then Appropriations on Wednesday, January 30th. 022 will be in the Senate committee State, Veterans, & Military affairs Wednesday, January 23rd. Because Rep. Scott is a Republican, and both of those committees are chaired by Democrats, I predict some interesting action on them. Rep. Pabon's bill 1051 has not be scheduled yet. 

Stay tuned!

Social Media Privacy Protection, Pt. 1

Bill Number: HB13-1046

Bill Title: Employee User Name Password Privacy Protection

 

Sponsored by: Representative Angela Williams and Senator Jessie Ulibarri 

 

Committee Assignment: Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development

 

Some background

For the past few years, and especially during the past summer with notable stories in the news, employers have increased the practice of requiring employees and job applicants to give them access to their personal social media sites as part of routine background checks. 

Employers say it's necessary to see how people behave online, which could reflect their personality and risk level to the business, but opponents of the practice say it's a serious violation of privacy. 

In some instances the employer will look through Facebook or Twitter pages in the presence of the employee being scrutinized. In other cases, the employer demands the login information and digs through at their leisure, with or without the employee present. The level of investigation varies from checking recent status posts and pictures to reading every private message a person has ever sent or received. 

Hiring applicants are not excluded from this either. There are stories from across the country and across job sectors of people being rejected for a position because they refused to turn over their personal social media information. 

As the debate on the issue heats up, some states like Maryland and Illinois are reacting by passing legislation to prohibit employers from forcing, or even asking for, the surrender of usernames and passwords to log in. 

In Colorado

Social media privacy has become enough of an issue for our lawmakers to take action. Introduced in the House, HB13-1046 will prohibit employers from asking for, or threatening for, the login information of employees and current job applicants. Check out the exact bill language:

AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT REQUEST OR REQUIRE THAT AN EMPLOYEE OR APPLICANT DISCLOSE ANY USER NAME, PASSWORD, OR OTHER MEANS FOR ACCESSING THE EMPLOYEE'S OR APPLICANT'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT OR SERVICE THROUGH THE EMPLOYEE'S OR APPLICANT'S ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE.

There are limitations though. 

This bill will not prohibit an employer from browsing social media pages that are readily available to the public. If your privacy settings are loose, and compromising pictures or statements by you are there for all to read, it can still be considered a factor in stopping that promotion in the works or preventing your hire.

What's more, an employer may still launch an investigation against you if there's suspicion you're involved with "unauthorized downloading of proprietary information" or other illegal activities. Part of the investigation could involve surrendering social media login info. 

Although the bill allows an aggravated employee or hiring applicant to file a civil court action against an employer who violates this law, would a rejected applicant realistically take the time and spend the cash to protest their case in court? And what would be their chances against the legal team of a large business that turned them down?  

Tracking the bill

HB13-1046 has been assigned to the Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development committee chaired by none other than Rep. Williams... the sponsor of the bill! When the chair of a committee hears their own legislation odds are good it will pass approvingly. 

I'll keep you updated as it moves along. Stay tuned!

Where Do Avalanches Belong? Pt. 2

Bill Number: HB13-1057

Bill Title: Retain Avalanche Information Center In The Department of Natural Resources

Sponsored by: Representative Diane Mitsch-Bush and Senator Jeanne Nicholson

Committee Hearing: House Appropriations

 

The House Appropriations committee is the second stop for this bill. Recall earlier that it's being sponsored by Representative Mitsch Bush in the House and successfully passed through the House committee Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources.

This morning’s hearing on the bill lasted about two minutes. Before Rep. Mitsch Bush was able to even describe1057 Rep. Sonnenberg moved to send it to its next stop, the Committee of the Whole.  

All this travel through committees might have you confused if you’re unfamiliar with the process. Now it’s off to a third committee called “the whole”? Let me take a moment to explain what that is.

After a piece of legislation survives the committee hearings in its current house, either the House or the Senate, it heads back to the originating body to be reported and deliberated by all the members at once. Having all the members of a house able to comment on the bill at once is called the Committee of the Whole, or CoW. It’s a chance for members who weren’t in the committees the bill traveled through to chime in or seriously argue against it, but it’s also a platform for adding amendments to the bill.

Amendments are tweaks and changes to the bill that might alter tiny details or reverse the entire intention. Often members opposed to a bill will offer an amendment that “de-fangs” the bill's enforcement measures, or one that even benefits their own legislative agenda. If a bill is sponsored by a member of the majority party in that house you can almost certainly bet nothing ill will befall it.

Back to our avalanche center bill. It’s headed to the CoW for debate tomorrow morning. Since it’s sponsored by Democrats, the House is controlled by Democrats, and nothing so far has impeded its progress, I would be very surprised if 1057 ran into trouble at this point. After the CoW it will be voted on by all the members Thursday morning.

More on that as it happens.

Where Do Avalanches Belong?

Bill Number: HB13-1057

Bill Title: Retain Avalanche Information Center In The Department of Natural Resources

Sponsored by: Representative Diane Mitsch Bush and Senator Jeanne Nicholson.

So what’s up with this bill? It’s one of the first pieces of legislation this session to make it to committee, scheduled for today, and it’s “part two” of a bill that was passed last year.

Background:

Last year the Colorado Geological Survey, known as the CGS, was scheduled to transfer from the Department of Natural Resources to the Colorado School of Mines in January 2013, as a result of bipartisan bill HB12-1355. The reasoning was that since the school handled so much of the data concerning geology in Colorado, it only made sense that they should have the CGS too. Money wise, federal dollars are granted to the CGS so it can operate- about $5 million for 36 full time employees. To operate the CGS, the School of Mines would receive those federal grants.

What does the CGS actually do? It’s responsible for determining the development of natural resources and promoting economies dependent on them. That applies to mining (minerals and coal), oil drilling, lumbering, water use, basically anything that can be done to the land.   

They are directed to draw up maps and surveys, and compile basic information to be used by consultants, industry, local governments, even environmentalists. The people and organizations that end up shaping the way Colorado’s land is used. Natural geological hazards are something CGS is mindful of too, which brings us to avalanches.

In last year’s bipartisan bill the Colorado avalanche information center, CAIC, inside the CGS, was set to be transferred to the school as well. CAIC is actually pretty important. It produces daily updates for snowboarders, skiers, snowmobiliers, snowshoers, and local communities on the conditions of the snow and mountains. Additionally, CAIC offers training for anyone from children to wilderness experts on how to avoid, and survive!, avalanches. They must charge a fee, through the county the lessons are held in, to offer the training courses.

In this year’s bill, sponsored solely by Democrats, CAIC will not be moved along with the CGS but instead kept by the Department of Natural Resources…the very department originally ceding the entire CGS to the School of Mines. 

Monday's hearing on the bill:

This bill was introduced in the House and assigned to two committees, first the Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources committee, second the Appropriations committee. Both are chaired by Democrats which means they will likely be favorable toward a fellow Democrat’s bill.  As procedure goes, the House Sponsor of the bill, in this case Rep. Mitsch Bush, presents it to the committee and summarizes why it’s necessary. Today she brought with her some witnesses to help make the argument, Andy White and Ethan Green, both from the Department of Natural Resources.

Their reason for retaining CAIC with the DNR was simple enough: because CAIC must charge a fee for conducting training on how to avoid and survive avalanches, that money is funneled through county level administration before it gets back to the DNR. If CAIC were to move with the CGS to the School of Mines, the whole pay organization structure for the training classes would be thrown into disarray. Instructors wouldn’t receive paychecks for months on end, and those daily avalanche updates that keep Colorado natives and tourists safe might be disrupted.

After minimal deliberation on the matter, all committee members (Democrats and Republicans) voted in favor of the bill heading to its next stop, the Appropriations Committee.  That means it survived. 

What’s next for HB13-1057?

Even though there is no fiscal impact to the state if CAIC stays with the DNR, Appropriations is still the next destination. The Appropriations Committee usually hears bills dealing with changes in revenue, but more on that another time. If the bill survives that committee it still has a long road ahead of it before Governor Hickenlooper signs it into law.

Stay tuned!