Apparently it’s not about greenhouse gas emissions after all…

With all of the important local issues facing Commerce City – crime, infrastructure, housing, economic development, and, yes, air quality – one would think that our City Council members would have their hands full dealing with these issues. Sometimes that may include a trip to the State Capitol to advocate for the city on important issues like local control, transportation, and so forth.

Back on Feb. 13, two Commerce City Council members, Kristi Douglas and Renee Chacon, showed up (Douglas in person, Chacon online) before the House Energy and Environment Committee – to oppose a bipartisan bill including nuclear as a clean energy source.

For background on the bill: to deal with the impacts of climate change, the state has adopted ambitious clean energy targets, including a requirement to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2040, shutting down coal and natural gas electric plants and replacing them with solar and wind generation, while electrical demand simultaneously goes up from increased use of electric vehicles, electric appliances, and hi-tech industries. Without a clean source to provide reliable generation, this could be a recipe for disaster.

So, state lawmakers, from both parties, worked to introduce a bill to classify nuclear – a non-fossil fuel source that does not emit greenhouse gas – as an approved resource to meet both energy demand and the state’s climate targets, which is why it is garnering support from across the political spectrum – including staunch environmentalists like the bill sponsor Rep. Alex Valdez.

Sounds like a win-win … except to Council members Douglas and Chicon.

Again, with all of the crucial issues facing Commerce City, a bill to help the state feasibly embrace a clean energy future was what drew them out. Their testimony bordered at times on unhinged, rather than a rational presentation of an opposing argument.

Douglas, who identified herself as representing Commerce City on the council, and did not offer any disclosure that she was testifying not on behalf of the City but on her own accord – leading observers to conclude that she was presenting officially adopted City policy – suggested that if this bill were passed there “is going to be an uprising. Do not identify this form of energy as clean… it is not!”

Chacon followed up a little bit later, spending the first half of her allotted 2 minutes on her personal agenda. The 1 minute she dedicated to the actual bill was spent mostly angrily questioning the morality of business owners and expressing her vehement disappointment that Democrats would dare support this and run afoul of her ideals.

If Council members Douglas and Chacon hate nuclear energy enough to take the time to testify against it, more power to them. That’s what democracy is for.

But they should make very clear that if they do so, they are doing so as private citizens, NOT as official representatives of the City.

In any case, it seems to us that for all the caterwauling about Suncor and the impacts of climate change on the city, that they might be open to exploring feasible workable alternatives to keep our lights on – unless all the bluster about greenhouse gas is simply political convenience.