An extreme budget shortfall in Colorado has had the state slashing and cutting essentials, including Medicaid, from its general fund. This also happens to be the fund that Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission partially relies on. In a deft move, the commission unanimously voted to approve increases to permit and emissions fees to fully fund Air Pollution Control Division programs. The financial onus for its programs is now, fittingly, squarely on the very entities the division was created to regulate.
“Everything the division does is because of the companies that are polluting. This work wouldn’t even be necessary if there was nobody polluting—you wouldn’t have permit fees and oversight. This move took away the general fund contribution from the state and now the permit and emission fees fully fund that work,” explains Laurie Anderson, Moms’ Colorado Field Organizer, clearly excited about the turn of events.
Tell Your Governor: Lead on Climate Safety
Pushback was minimal
This funding switch was a collaborative effort in Colorado. “There really wasn’t much opposition to it, because there shouldn’t be. If you’re coming to the state and you are a high polluter and there’s a permit structure and an emissions fee, it’s reasonable to think this is part of doing business,” Laurie notes.
A coalition of organizations that work on methane, including Moms Clean Air Force, urged the commission to adopt these fees to fund the division’s programs. They wrote in a letter, “Coloradans living near emissions sources, including oil and gas facilities, are frequently exposed to odors and toxic chemicals that contribute to asthma, headaches, respiratory problems, and long-term health impacts. When accounting for the many associated medical costs, communities already pay the price for the negative externalities of pollution. The costs associated with controlling pollution should be borne by the entities responsible—not the general public.”
Coalition members also provided public comments in favor of the fees. “I don’t recall there being any negative ones; there is definitely a move in Colorado to more collaborative approaches where industry is involved,” Laurie says.
Fees have wide-ranging impact
Charging fees isn’t equivalent to huge amounts of pollution being cut. Laurie says there’s work left to be done. Still, requiring polluters to pay fees has a broad impact. Fully funding the Air Quality Control Commission makes critical outreach and engagement to disproportionately impacted communities possible. “It is bringing in the environmental justice components. It requires more monitoring. When you fully fund the commission, you actually recognize all of those benefits,” she says.
All states can follow suit
Paying to pollute is a quick thing for any interested state to implement. “We’re pleased and this is so common sense. Like, why isn’t every state doing this? This should be the norm,” says Laurie.
Colorado’s fee rulemaking is the most comprehensive nationally, but there are other states that have a polluters-pay model, including California, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon. If you’re interested in having your state follow suit, start with the state’s oversight body on air quality. “States should all have a regulatory body that oversees pollution. The question is, how is that funded? And what is the work they’re doing?”
Laurie says there’s no reason why any state can’t do what Colorado just did—and now they even have a roadmap and language to follow. “If you’re doing this work because of the industries that are polluting, that should all be covered. That’s like a no-brainer, no-nonsense step. These industries are fully capable of paying their own way. It doesn’t reduce pollution, it doesn’t prohibit them in any way shape or form from doing what they were going to do. It just requires they pay their fair share.”