3/6/13

Senator Angela Giron and Senate Bill 63


Senate Bill 63 would have added to the definition of "recycled energy" ... the energy that is produced by a generation unit with a nameplate capacity of not more than 15 megawatts that combusts gas generated from synthetic gas derived from waste.

This is nothing new. We kicked it around back in early 2011, when HB1001 was a hot item. As you can see, this was something that could have really kicked up the jobs here in The Smile Hi.

But Senator Angela Giron and her accomplices on the State, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee killed it; it isn't even going to be allowed out of committee.

Then, over on her blog, Giron presented some of the most childishly inadequate 'reasoning' as to why she voted against SB 63. Clearly, the people of Senate District 3 were not expecting any adult leadership when they elected Giron.

So I sent this email to Giron, asking her to give me the benefit of her thinking in voting against Senate Bill 63.

+++

Good day to you, Senator Giron,

I'm curious as to why you voted against Senate Bill 63. I have read your blogpost on this:

• Good leadership requires a long-term vision – changing the definition of our RES for one project is short-sighted when we consider the 17,000 jobs that our new energy economy has already brought to Colorado. Yes, 17,000!
• Protect Pueblo – I would never risk the recovery happening right here in Pueblo, at Vestas. This bill represented a threat to a market that our future and the future of our children depends on.
• Environmental Conservation- the burning of waste material, such as landfill trash, is highly suspect as a renewable energy and a case was not made for awarding renewable energy credits to a resource derived from the additional burning of fossil fuels.


but I must confess to having some difficulty in understanding your thinking. Please explain to me what changing the definition of RES as delineated in SB63 has to do with 17,000 jobs 'our new energy economy' has already brought to Colorado. Is changing the definition somehow a threat to those jobs? If so, would you explain to me in what way that is? Will the inclusion of a new source of energy drive existing industry from the state? And, will you share with me the source of your figure of 17,000 jobs?

Can you explain to me how SB63 presented a threat to Pueblo? Would so many people flee the city and county of Pueblo seeking employment further east that Pueblo's economy would be crippled? How did you determine the level of this threat, much less its existence?

How would the burning of this waste material present a threat to the environment? Would it be open-air burning? Would there be insufficient filtering and scrubbing by this process? How did you determine this would be a threat to the environment, more so than Comanche 3 belching gases into the air of Pueblo County?

And lastly, perhaps you would share with me the reason for an energy bill being presented in the State, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee rather than the Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy committee.

The more cynical among us might think that we're seeing a bit of political vindictiveness from your office, given the fact that Otero County tends to vote Republican. I am sure that is not the case, and eagerly await your response.

Thank you.

+++

'Show Some Love' is the title of Giron's blogpost on the matter. 'Show Some Love?'

Giron should be ashamed to show her face anywhere east of the Pueblo County line, much less ask the people of southeastern Colorado - and our elected representatives - to 'show her some love.'

Update: As of noon 03.07.2013, Giron has not responded to my request for clarification of her thinking.