When Gov. John Hickenlooper convened the task force to develop recommendations for regulating gas and oil development in Colorado, he was surely hopeful that the 21-member stakeholder panel would deliver actionable findings that unwound the tightening knot of local and state jurisdiction. Without a doubt, though, Hickenlooper’s intention in creating the task force was to avoid an ugly and costly ballot initiative fight over the issue. In that aim, the governor was wholly successful. In solving the issue at hand, the effort fell short.
It is not for want of trying, though. The task force consisted of gas and oil industry representatives, conservationists, local decision-makers, public-health experts and met under an aggressive timeline with optimistic goals. Over seven meetings, the panel visited gas and oil facilities across the state, heard testimony from those impassioned about the issue on all sides, and considered a wide range of options to find middle ground. Co-chairs Gwen Lachelt, a La Plata County commissioner with decades of experience advocating for more stringent regulations over gas and oil operations, and Randy Cleveland, president of XTO Energy, an Exxon Mobil subsidiary based in Dallas, ran effective sessions and conducted the task force with admirable diligence.
The crux of the matter is whether local entities – cities and counties – can enact regulations that supersede those of the state in regulating, or limiting, gas and oil development. In order to advance recommendations for further action, either by the Legislature or the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, two-thirds of the task force had to approve of a given proposal. Though the group passed along nine recommended actions, none addressed the interplay between state and local control.
For that, the task force itself cannot be blamed. Instead, look to the complicated and divisive nature of the issue. Put simply, energy companies do not want a patchwork of rules, particularly when some may prohibit the industry from accessing its bounty, some localities – their residents in particular – do not want such activity taking place within their boundaries, and the state does not want those cities and counties making rules that trump its own. Moving any one of those parties too far from its starting point is a Herculean mission.
Without any revolutionary recommendations from the task force, the parties to it – either specific appointees or the interests they represent – must now consider next steps. As expected, talk of sweeping ballot initiatives banning fracking henceforth and other such alarmist chatter have arisen since the group sent its recommendations to Hickenlooper on Wednesday. In response, of course, lawsuit threats have followed. More concrete – and hopeful, though just by degrees – is the legislative arena, where lawmakers can take up the issue on their own.
All of this suggests that the conversation is far from over, and perhaps as Colorado Oil & Gas Association President Tisha Schuller told The Denver Post, the task force is a component in an iterative process. “There are no simple solutions. The way the oil and gas industry is engaging is changing and will have to continue to change.” In the meantime, the panel’s recommendations that aim to include local governments more fully in the siting and planning of gas and oil development, provide more inspectors for facilities, and extend regulations that are set to expire are good, if not all-encompassing steps forward. For that achievement and the work it took to get there, the task force has served the state well.
