The Deerfield wind energy project on the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont is a step closer to reality. I wonder about the special use permit requirement that permits may be granted only if the proposed use cannot reasonably be accommodated on non-National Forest System lands.
Energy
Fracking on the Wayne National Forest – no significant impact
This story got me to look closer at planning for fracking on national forests. The reason the BLM can say this in their EA is arguably because a lease does not “authorize surface disturbing activities.” Here’s the way it works.
“The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to lease up to approximately 40,000 federally-owned minerals located in the Wayne National Forest, Athens Ranger District, Marietta Unit in Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio. This approximate acreage figure represents the total amount of federally-owned minerals that could be nominated and potentially be made available for leasing on the Marietta Unit. Industry uses the BLM Expression of Interest (EOI) process to nominate federal minerals for leasing. To date, industry has submitted over fifty EOIs for parcels located on the Marietta Unit totaling approximately 18,000 acres.”
“The proposed leases would provide the lessee(s) exclusive rights to explore and develop oil and gas reserves on the leases but do not authorize surface disturbing activities. Although there would be no surface disturbance from the action of leasing, the Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes a reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) to address the anticipated environmental effects from potential future oil and gas development. Before a lessee or operator conducts any surface disturbing activities related to the development of these leases, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must first approve an application for permit to drill (APD) as specified in 43 CFR 3162. In an APD, an applicant proposes to drill the well subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. Upon receipt of an APD, the BLM conducts an onsite inspection with the applicant and the landowner. The Forest Service and BLM would also conduct additional site-specific analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the appropriate consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prior to approving the APD.”
So for example, here are the effects of the proposal on “Recreation, Land Use and Noise:” “No direct impacts from leasing. Minor, short- and longterm changes to land use from reasonably foreseeable development activities due to conversion of undeveloped areas to areas that support oil and gas development. Future reasonably foreseeable effects minimized by stipulations and other Forest Service measures for protecting recreation resources. Noise levels would lessen during the production phase.” Another example – effects on air resources would be mitigated by “Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), best management practices (BMPs) and conditions of approval (COAs) at time of drilling.”
Where I come from, NEPA requires accounting for “reasonably foreseeable effects,” and I think that is what is being described here. And I think they meet the significance criteria in NEPA to require an EIS. I don’t see how BLM can rely on mitigating effects through “stipulations and other Forest Service measures” – unless they are known, in-place mandatory forest plan standards, or if they have been incorporated into the terms of the lease. The EA cites these requirements: “The following notifications and stipulations implement the standards and guidelines of the Wayne National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). These are in addition to the standard lease terms for oil and gas leases (BLM Form 3100-11).” All other sources of potential mitigation would have to be considered speculative.
There is another NEPA process at the permitting stage where these effects may be addressed. The EA states, “The lessee is hereby made aware that all post lease operations will be subject to appropriate environmental review and may be limited or denied by no surface occupancy stipulations.” In reality, once a lease is signed, what discretion does the Forest Service have to deny or severely restrict a permit? Maybe someone could refresh my memory on how this has all been sorted out in court.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission invokes forest plan in locating pipeline
Another example of how forest planning can influence major permitting decisions. (It’s especially nice to see the role of forest plans acknowledged by FERC.)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has asked developers of the planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline to consider an alternative route through the Monongahela National Forest that would veer southward from the currently proposed route, to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, including the Cheat, Back Allegheny and Shenandoah mountains, and use existing utility right-of-way corridors whenever practicable.
“Please note that we will not be able to consider construction and operation of any proposed action or alternative unless it complies with the National Forest’s LRMP, or Atlantic has documented that the U.S. Forest Service would amend a respective LRMP for activities deemed inconsistent with the LRMP,” wrote Kevin Bowman, environmental project manager for the commission, in the commission’s request for environmental information.
Bowman wrote that after commission officials consulted with Forest Service personnel and reviewed the Monongahela National Forest’s long-range management plan, “we have determined that alternative routes to the south of the currently proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline route may offer environmental advantages over the currently proposed route.”
“It’s a very exciting development that FERC is concerned about impacts to one of the most ecologically sensitive sections of the Monongahela National Forest that is home to the protected West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the Cheat Mountain salamander,” said Judy Rodd, executive director of the Friends of Blackwater, part of a coalition of conservation groups monitoring the pipeline project. “It shows that FERC is paying attention to national forest issues and doesn’t want to make the national forests rewrite their management plans to accommodate the pipeline.”
(The part about committing to amend the plan makes me a little nervous, though.)
NSO Stipulations in Pawnee Grassland
You all know that I treasure the Denver Post for being western interior media and that I think it’s very necessary for the interior west to have a major media presence to provide some balance to the Coasts. Still I gotta say MOST ANNOYING ADS EVER.
Nevertheless, here is a story of a project I worked on before I retired (or maybe I worked with the NEPA for the exploration and this is the actual project, still I remember a few things about it.). I thought the Jeremy Nichols quote at the end was interesting.
The Forest Service’s recent “no surface occupancy” stipulation for developing oil and gas leases on more than 190,000 acres in the Pawnee National Grassland is receiving a lukewarm reception from energy industry officials and environmental groups.
This requirement will work for the majority of leases in the grasslands because most of the Pawnee Grassland is accessible by horizontal drilling from adjacent private lands, said Kathleen Sgamma, a vice president for the Western Energy Alliance, an industry trade group.
But the stipulation should not be considered a precedent for proposed oil and gas leases on other federal lands, she said.
“Pawnee is a unique patchwork of federal, state and private lands,” Sgamma said.
In October, the Forest Service announced it would impose the stipulation on proposed oil and gas leases following an 18-month study.
The “no surface occupancy” stipulation protects the Pawnee’s unique shortgrass prairie ecosystem and recreation opportunities, while still supporting the economic recovery of oil and gas, Glenn Casamassa, the Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests and Pawnee National Grassland supervisor, said in a statement.
The Forest Service should have extended its oversight to drilling sites on private land adjacent to the grasslands, said Jeremy Nichols of the environmental group WildEarth Guardians.
I’m not aware that the FS currently has regulatory oversight over what happens on private land, adjacent or not. Maybe there’s some new case law since I retired?
Pellet stoves: Hunks of burnin’ love from the Boston Globe
This is a heart and hearth-warming story, thanks to Forest Business Network. I like the (potential) connections drawn between East and West.
I have three babies. Two of them are children. One of them is a pellet stove. I love them all.
And while I probably would not throw myself in front of a train to save my pellet stove, I do feed it, clean it, and tend to it as if it were my offspring. And in return, it fills me with a warm feeling, just like my actual offspring do.
Having a pellet stove is a labor of love, much like parenting. And the effort is oh-so worth it.
She puts a 40-pound bag of pellets into the hopper at night and another in the morning.Chris Morris/Globe staff
Morris puts a 40-pound bag of pellets into the hopper at night and another in the morning.
Here’s why: Until three years ago, we were spending scary amounts of money to heat our 1860s farmhouse. The oil-burning furnace would be running, but we were still having to bundle up. Fleece became a second skin. That’s because if we set the thermostat above 62 degrees, the 250-gallon oil tank would run dry in less than a month. Most years, it was costing us $850-$900 a month to be cold — not to mention broke. Our windows aren’t old and drafty, the house is. And after adding more insulation wherever we could, and doing all manner of boiler maintenance, we came to the realization that nothing was going to make this great old 2,800-square-foot house we love so much feel tight, at least not without a major renovation and an overhaul of our heating system. And those things just weren’t in the cards.
Another for the pro column: It’s green. Pellets are made of wood, a renewable source, and have high combustion and heating efficiencies, which means they produce very little air pollution. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency says they are the cleanest of any residential heating appliances that burn solid fuel. The pellets are generally made of sawdust from lumberyards and sawmills, or the unused tops of trees that are cut down for logging, so they’re a recycled and reclaimed product. Not only are we feeling toasty now, we can also toast our environmental do-goodism.
Thinking of the plethora of dead trees we have along roadsides and other easily accessible places?
The good news is oil costs are down so far this winter, so people might be feeling less pressure to scarf up all available pellets. And, according to Jennifer Hedrick, executive director of the Pellet Fuels Institute in Arlington, Va., efforts are underway to avoid a repeat of what LaFlamme dubbed “The Great Wood Pellet Shortage of 2014.”
“We have companies in the West that are helping in the effort to meet market demand in the Northeast,” Hedrick said.
Thank you, friends in the West. Your help means we will be able to continue to feed our big steel baby this winter, keep our other babies warm, and have some money left for Christmas presents — which will be opened in a warm house. Now that’s worth a toast.
Keeping our eastern friends warm.. seems win-win to me.
******
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Public vs. Private Oil and Gas
While we’ve been having this discussion about settlements, I’ve been thinking a couple of things and following the newspaper on oil and gas in Colorado.
Let’s say there is way “a” of looking at things. NGOs have policy objectives. Litigating on NEPA, NFMA and ESA is a way of meeting those objectives. NEPA is convenient because you can find holes if you are smart and careful enough. This can delay people or make them give up, or negotiate with you, or if you wait long enough the material can lose its value, or the price of say, coal, can be too low and the project will not happen. NEPA claims seem to be used as a tool to delay or stop projects or make plans more in line with the plaintiff’s views.
Way “b” is articulated by others on this blog better than I, but is along the lines of “the FS does not follow the “rules” and NGO’s make them enforce the rules (related to the environment). Environmental impacts are said to depend on the intensity of impact, the frequency and the area impacted, so I am curious why some NGO’s choose the projects they do to worry about enforcing the rules. For example, hazard tree projects are a yawn in Colorado and a Big Deal in Montana. It doesn’t seem to me to do with the environmental impacts being all that different, nor the quality of the NEPA documents. So there must be a different explanation.
I thought some comparisons with oil and gas in Colorado might be helpful. Here there is some on the federal estate as well as private. There is no doubt about the value of the jobs and the funds given to communities and states.
First, here is a settlement discussed for the Roan Plateau. Now if the BLM has been working on this for all these years (since way before I retired) it seems like they could have done any NEPA that a judge required. Seems more like “A” to me; see my italics as to those “in the room.” Here’s a link to the story.
A proposed settlement that could free up some oil and gas leases within the Roan Plateau study area for drilling and do away with others should not come at the expense of future mineral lease payments to local governments, Gov. John Hickenlooper has pledged.
“The Hickenlooper administration believes a settlement that allows some energy development to proceed while protecting other areas of the Roan Plateau is in the interest of all parties,” Henry Sobanet, director of Hickenlooper’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting, wrote to state Rep. Bob Rankin.
Rankin, R-Carbondale, has been working with the governor’s office on a deal to prevent future federal mineral lease dollars from being withheld from local entities in order to refund about $28 million to Bill Barrett Corp.
The proposed settlement involving Barrett, environmental groups and the federal government has been touted as a potential “win-win” by those involved.
The exception has been local governments, including Garfield County, which have asked that they be held harmless in the deal.
Of particular concern is the state’s practice of withholding future federal mineral lease dollars, including royalties from producing wells, that normally would be distributed to local governments to help pay for impacts from energy development, instead of asking those entities to refund money that already has been paid out.
The deal could end several years of litigation over natural gas drilling on the Roan Plateau northwest of Rifle, where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has reopened the federal environmental impact review that led to leases being issued in 2008.
Under the proposed settlement, Barrett would be reimbursed some of its federal leases in the more pristine areas atop the Roan Plateau.
In exchange, Barrett and other lease holders would be allowed to develop less-controversial leases, including in areas that already have active gas wells.
There is also an issue of oil and gas development and regulations for towns and communities. Recently it looked like Governor Hickenlooper tried unsuccessfully to broker a solution. But what was on the table was litigation and legislation. Now, this is under the state’s jurisdiction, hence the legislation alternative. Here’s the link to one story:
At the statehouse news Monday conference, Hickenlooper and Polis outlined the compromise, which involves four steps.
The governor create the commission to make recommendations to the legislature — by a two-thirds vote.
Hickenlooper had tried for months to broker a legislative compromise, but that effort collapsed in July.
“This may be the template for what happens in the rest of the country,” Hickenlooper said, noting similar conflicts are roiling in Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania. “This is the way we do things in Colorado. We work through our differences and difficulties. Maybe no one is perfectly happy, but it serves all parties.”
Polis said it was “better to address these issue in rule or by legislation, but if that doesn’t work, you’ve got to go to the ballot box.”
Private land.. many people including diverse representatives of the public need to agree. Public land.. NGO’s Barrett, and the feds need to agree.
Study finds transatlantic pellet trade results in SIGNIFICANT GHG REDUDUCTIONS over fossil fuels
Selected quotes from Biomass Magazine article summarizing a joint study conducted by U. Ga., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Yale:
– “A new study … has determined that the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of a unit of electricity generated in the U.K. using imported wood pellets is at least 50 percent lower than the GHG intensity of grid electricity derived from fossil fuels”
This study addresses the shortcoming of previous studies as follows: “those studies have typically assumed the feedstocks for pellet production were sourced from either nearby forest for from a wood processing facility located at a fixed distance to the pellet plant. The researchers also stressed that existing studies have considered only one harvest cycle when determining GHG savings, which has raised concerns among environmentalists and others.”
– “the researchers determined relative GHG emissions savings for electricity generated in the U.K. using imported wood pellets under 930 different scenarios. The analysis considered three types of woody feedstocks, two forest management choices, 31 plantation rotation ages and five power plant capacities. Depending on the power plant capacity and the rotation age, the results found relative per unit GHG savings in the range of 50 percent to 68 percen”
– “According to the information published in the study, the results of the analysis contradict the general belief that the use of wood pellets from 10 to 15 year old pine plantations in the southern U.S. do not provide GHG savings in Europe. Rather, GHG savings were found to be at least 50 percent, even at lower rotation ages.”
The full study can be found on IOP Science/Research Letters
Beware of Zombie Lawsuits: Reporting by the Fairfield Sun Times
I am not sure I understand all this, but I really like the fact that the writer, Darry Flowers, took the time to delve below the surface and do some digging ;). A curious story. I also liked how he explained the legal terms (the people on this blog can check if he’s correct). My favorite sentence is italicized. The whole story is here and an excerpt below.
The meeting was cordial. When Mark Bodily presented a slide in his presentation that implied that the Blackfeet were present when the Rocky Mountains were created, Lease operator Joe Large, with RPM Geologic, challenged the assertion. Large stated that the Rockies, from a geological standpoint, were created “54 million years ago” and pointed out that no humans were present at the time of their formation.
After a brief exchange, Bodily told Large he was applying “Western” science, with Large responding that there is no such thing as Western science, only science.
During the presentation by a Forest Service staffer, the reason for the continued suspension of the leases in the Badger – Two Medicine area were said to be the result of a “pending lawsuit” by several environmental groups against the Forest Service. The lawsuit challenged the process by which the lease was granted.
After the meeting, the Sun Times asked for, and received, confirmation that a 1993 lawsuit was the reason for the current suspensions.
Finding it odd that a lawsuit in a Federal Court would still be pending after 21 years, the Sun Times searched legal databases for any current litigation regarding the lease. Other than the current suit before the D.C. District Court filed by Sidney Longwell, no cases were found. The Sun Times asked Ms. Strathy, via email, to provide details on the case. She responded with a copy of the original complaint: National Wildlife Federation, et al v. Dale Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, et al. Filed in the U.S. District Court in Great Falls, the case was heard before Senior Judge Paul G. Hatfield.While the Sun Times is still working to acquire a complete copy of the case, the litigation appears to be a tactic by the plaintiffs and defendants to delay the drilling of the approved well.
The Sun Times was able to obtain a copy of a fax that was sent from the “USDA FS Lewis & Clark NF,” according to the heading inserted by the fax machine at the Forest Service office in Great Falls. The 21 page fax was sent at 14:20 (2:20 p.m.) on February 20, 2002.
Pages 20 and 21 of the fax are the dismissal, with prejudice, of the lawsuit. The dismissal was signed on March 10, 1997 by Judge Hatfield.
Judge Hatfield’s order reads, “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [Court] Clerk administratively terminate this action in the records, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen the proceedings for good cause shown, for the entry of any stipulation or order, or for any purpose required to obtain a final determination of the litigation.”
The order continues, “If, within SIXTY (60) days of a determination by Congress as to whether the properties involved in this litigation should be included in a wilderness designation for the area, the parties have not reopened for the purpose of obtaining a final determination herein, the action shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 10th day of March, 1997.”
While the Forest Service claims the case is pending, the cover letter of the fax, in a handwritten comment from a Forest Service staffer, reads “…here is probably the most pertinent correspondence since ’96 or so…” Another faxed page uncovered by the Sun Times seems to indicate that the office for Lewis and Clark National Forest received the Judge’s dismissal on March 20, 1997.
The judge’s order has two parts, both dismiss the environmental groups’ case, but the first part of the order states the dismissal is without prejudice. To dismiss a suit without prejudice means that the plaintiff in the case may bring the matter before the court again.
In the second part of the order, Judge Hatfield has given Congress sixty days to begin the process to make the properties a wilderness area. Congress did not approve the request by Senator Baucus. As a result, the case – after the sixty days – became dismissed with prejudice, the legal concept of res iudicata, meaning that the matter cannot be raised again by the same parties.
Whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice has no bearing on the fact that the case itself no longer has any legal bearing on the suspension. Sun Times contacted the Clerk’s office at the Federal Court in Great Falls to further confirm the case’s status. According to that office, the case is closed, and has been moved to the Federal Court Archives in Denver, Colorado. The office did confirm that the case was dismissed in 1997. Asked if, within the sixty days after this judge’s order any subsequent complaints were filed that are affiliated with the case, the clerk said that the case was closed. Since the judge’s order in 1997, “there has been no activity with this case.”
If the case was closed in 1997 and no litigation has been undertaken since, this may raise questions about the statute of limitations and how it may affect any further legal challenges to Mr. Longwell’s drilling permit.
Small Woody Biomass Plants in Colorado
Most of the discussion in Colorado these weeks have been about the green (Cannabis) and the blue and orange (Broncos). Of course, the winter sky is blue, living trees are green and dead trees are orange, at least for a while. Here’s an article in the Sunday Denver Post Perspective, by Allen Best, about some new biomass plants in Colorado.
For most of the last decade, Coloradans have been talking about how to make good use of their mountain forests, dying and gray. Something is finally happening.
In Gypsum, 140 miles west of Denver, a biomass mill began operations in December, burning wood to create 10 megawatts of round-the-clock electricity.
In Colorado Springs, the city utility began mixing biomass with coal in January to produce 4.5 megawatts of power.
In Pagosa Springs, a 5-megawatt biomass plant may be launched next year, producing one-sixth of the baseload demand in Archuleta County.
And at Xcel Energy’s headquarters in Denver, environmental officials are sorting through proposals for a 2-megawatt biomass demonstration plant. The utility wants to understand the technology, the problems and promises.
This isn’t much electricity compared to the 1,426 megawatts generated by the Comanche coal-fired complex at Pueblo and the 1,139 megawatts at Craig. But biomass plants can and should be part of the electrical mix. In providing a market for woody material, they can make forests less vulnerable to fires like the ones that have killed nine people and destroyed 1,164 homes along the Front Range over the last two years.
Biomass also displaces burning of fossil fuels, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. That’s worth something, maybe a lot to Glenwood Springs-based Holy Cross Energy, which is paying extra for the electricity produced at Gypsum to help reduce its carbon footprint. It expects to be at 23 percent renewables later this year.
Colorado environmental groups, however, are skeptical that biomass plants will actually lower carbon dioxide emissions. “We’re saying we want to see the analysis of greenhouse gas impacts,” says Gwen Farnsworth of Western Resource Advocates.
Biomass clearly can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing fossil fuels, says Keith Paustian, a professor of soil ecology at Colorado State University. “There are questions as to what degree you do that, and obviously, you want as low a carbon footprint as possible,” he says.
Paustian hopes a more detailed accounting of carbon impacts will be a byproduct of the $10 million research project he is leading. The project, the Bioenergy Alliance Network of the Rockies, seeks to examine the potential for conversion of the 22 million acres of beetle-impacted wood in the Rocky Mountains into bioenergy.
An even broader fear among some environmental groups is that public lands will be managed to feed the hunger of biomass plants, instead of the bieomass plants being a useful tool for curbing fire risk. “We don’t want the tail wagging the dog,” says Sloan Shoemaker, director of the Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop.
If Eagle Valley Clean Energy, developer of the plant at Gypsum, sticks to its projections, that won’t be a problem. It insists that at least 30 percent of wood will come from landfills, another 20 percent or more from private lands, and a minimum of 40 percent from state or federal lands.
As far as I know if the question is “environmental impacts of burning wood that is dead and would give off greenhouse gases anyway, compared to coal and natural gas, it seems like it has been studied, in fact, quite a bit.
What the big biomass controversies I’ve seen are about “if people convert lands to grow biomass energy” or other “ifs” about biomass sources that are not considered to be “residues.”
Western Resource Advocates works against coal and natural gas, which are our current main sources of energy here.
I also appreciated Sloan’s comment. It seems to me you can work with “fear of getting too large” pretty easily by only using small sized units and putting a cap on the total. But if it’s about trust, maybe not. I have to note that back when I worked on bark beetle residues, DOE was supposed to help the FS with this, but focused their work on giant-sized solutions, not small or mobile technologies.
Best’s last paragraph..
In other words, biomass plants aren’t the answer to everything that ails us. They won’t immediately turn our forests green, nor will they alone replace the fossil-fuel plants that are fouling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
But biomass has another attribute. Think of it as the energy equivalent of community agriculture. The 20th century was all about bigger and more centralized production of everything. This creates huge supply lines, mile-long coal trains going to plants, and high-voltage power lines leaving them.
It’s easy to think of water originating in the tap, electricity in the outlet, without broader consequences. Smaller sources of power generation, close to their locations of use, keep us in touch with the spider’s web of our relationship to the energy we use.
You could probably say that about local wood products as well..
Elections Have Consequences: EPA Version
I am posting this because, while some may be shocked, it seems to me that this is what actually happens. You can get all the advantages of learning this, without having to live in Washington D.C.!
People get elected. They have friends who helped elect them. Friends want favors. Agencies grant them. Scandalous, or the natural consequences of a Presidential election? I think it might be interesting to talk about where the line should be. What do you think?
And for those who wonder about how EPA is related to forests.. well here are a few examples. 1. Review of FS and BLM NEPA documents 2. Carbon accounting 3. Forest roads.
Here’s the link to the story and below is an excerpt.
The documents also reveal some of the internal deliberations behind recent controversial EPA decisions, such as the locations of public hearings on an agency rule imposing stringent emissions limits for power plants.
The agency came under fire from legislators representing coal-producing states for holding those hearings far from regions where most of the nation’s coal is produced.
“Instead of the EPA holding a coal hearing in the heart of Coal Country, Kentucky, he has chosen locations such as San Francisco and Washington, D.C.,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said at the time.
McConnell accused EPA of “once again showing its contempt for Kentucky’s coal miners and their families.”
Emails released by EELI show that EPA decided on the locations for those hearings after consulting with leading environmentalist groups that advocate the complete phase-out of coal power.
“San Fran and Seattle would be friendlier forums but CA has no coal plants and WA is phasing out its one plant,” noted EPA region 8 administrator James Martin in an email to Vicki Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
“Choosing either may create opportunities for the industry to claim EPA is tilting the playing field,” Martin told Patton. “Denver would not have that problem.”
The EPA would later deny that Martin used a personal email for EPA business. The FOIAed messages reveal that that was not the case. His email to Patton was sent from a “.me” address.
Martin also advised Patton that hearings in Denver could be used to pressure the natural gas industry. “The gas industry has way more presence here, too. One last point in its favor–it will make Roy Palmer nervous!” he wrote.
Palmer is an executive at Xcel Energy, a leading natural gas utility in Colorado.