Colorado Capitol Report

The Colorado Chamber Leads Industry Efforts as Ozone Rulemaking Approaches Final Phase

This Capitol Report is brought to you by:

  • community-banks-of-colorado

State Policy News

CACI Leads Industry Efforts as Ozone Rulemaking Approaches Final Phase

Since June, CACI has been led industry efforts to respond to regulatory proposals to revise Colorado’s Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP).  CACI has filed for formal party status in the rulemaking before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to secure the ability to advocate on behalf of the CACI membership.

Revisions to Colorado’s Ozone SIP are required by the Federal Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) due to continued nonattainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard of 75 parts per billion in the Denver Metro-North Front Range compliance region.

Due to continued nonattainment of the 2008 Ozone standard in this region, the EPA took action to increase the nonattainment designation for the region from “marginal” to “moderate.”  Accordingly, the rulemaking is focused on implementing new and tighter regulatory requirements to further reduce ozone-causing emissions in the region.

In advance of the final AQCC rulemaking hearing in the regulatory proceeding, scheduled for November 17-18, CACI filed its “Prehearing Statement” that communicates the legal and technical concerns that CACI has consistently raised since the regulatory proposals were developed and advanced by the Regional Air Quality Council in June.

CACI’s filing highlights the most concerning elements of the proposed revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 7, most of which is a part of Colorado’s Ozone SIP.  CACI’s Prehearing Statement contains key areas of concern within Regulation No. 7.

CACI is working to persuade the AQCC that recent updates to the regulatory proposal, which are based on stakeholder input and negotiations with the Air Pollution Control Division, should be adopted, among other open issues

The Division, CACI and other parties do not agree on the issue of inserting certain major sources’ permit limits into the SIP as a part of meeting the “reasonably available control technology” (RACT) requirements for a moderate non-attainment SIP.  The Division continues to propose such an insertion of permit limits, and CACI opposes this on legal grounds.

The Colorado Air Quality Control Commissions’ online “ftp” file contains documents associated with the Ozone Rulemaking.

Since CACI was successful in advocating to delay the rulemaking hearing from October to November, CACI and individual CACI members have been able to use the additional time to continue negotiations with Colorado’s air-quality regulators.

CACI commends the efforts of Colorado’s regulators to engage in these productive negotiations and to seek and consider input from CACI and industry operators in the regulated community.

The negotiations have focused on ensuring that technical edits to the proposed revisions to the Ozone SIP both achieve the new environmental controls required by EPA and avoid unnecessary compliance costs and burdens for industry operators in such sectors as advanced manufacturing, aerospace, brewing, can manufacturing, electric utility, pharmaceutical manufacturing and oil-and-gas.

The nature and complexity of regional air-quality regulations focused on ozone reduction are such that a wide variety of industries could face stiff new regulatory requirements if their operations are simply located within a geographic region that has failed to achieve compliance with the prevailing Federal ozone standard.

Although the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Standard of 75 parts per billion remains in effect, the EPA last year finalized a new, even stricter ozone standard of 70 parts per billion.

CACI believes that, once this newer and stricter ozone standard is implemented in Colorado, nonattainment regions, or areas that have failed to comply with the existing ozone air quality standard, could potentially grow both in size and number.

Should additional regions face more severe nonattainment designations upon the implementation of the newer and stricter 2015 ozone standard, Colorado industries will face challenges to ensure that only fair and practicable regulations are adopted and that overly complex and burdensome requirements that could harm specific industries and Colorado’s economic competitiveness are avoided as much as possible.

CACI members with questions regarding this rulemaking process or any of the key issues that CACI has raised in the attached comment letter should contact:

Balloting Has Begun: Vote for Pro-Business Legislative Candidates!

On Monday, county clerks began mailing out more than three million ballots to registered Colorado voters.

The November 8th outcome of the state legislative races will determine whether or not CACI will face a Colorado General Assembly  controlled by one party in January.

To prevent that scenario, CACI in July endorsed a bipartisan slate of 53 incumbent and new legislative candidates and has worked hard for their election.

Republicans currently control the 35-member Senate by one vote, and the Democrats control the House 34 to 31.

CACI supports candidates who it believes will advocate policies that will create jobs and enhance the state’s economic climate.  The best chance for such policies to succeed is when the control of the legislature’s two chambers is split between the Democrats and the Republicans.  CACI and the statewide business community that it represents learned this lesson the hard way in recent years.

Control of the two chambers for the 2017 and 2018 sessions, however, likely depends on the outcome of a small number of key races in swing districts.  Below are five key races and the CACI endorsements that reflect CACI’s interest in maintaining a balanced legislature:

House

Senate

In addition, CACI urges its members to personally give to these endorsed candidates.  A corporation or a non-corporate business entity cannot give money directly to a candidate.  An individual can give a legislative candidate up to $400.

For news media coverage of CACI’s legislative candidate endorsements and more information about some of the key races, read:

“Colorado ballots hit your mailboxes this week.  Here’s what you need to know.” By Corey Hutchins, The Colorado Independent, October 18th.

“CACI Urges Members to Vote for Pro-Business Legislative Candidates,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, October 17th.

“Key Senate Races: Senate District 26,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, September 30th.

“Three Key Senate Races: Who Will Control the Colorado Senate in 2017 & 2018?” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, September 23rd.

“The big spending is on for state House and Senate races,” by Marianne Goodland, The Colorado Independent, September 21st.

“Union Small-Donor Committees Target Key Legislative Races,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, September 16th.

“Statewide business group seeks to keep Colorado Senate in Republican hands,” by Ed Sealover, The Denver Business Journal, July 26th.

For more information about CACI’s legislative-candidate slate, contact Loren Furman, CACI Senior Vice President, State and Federal Relations, at 303.866.9642.

Protect Colorado’s Business Climate: Vote Now on Three Ballot Initiatives!

CACI has taken positions on three ballot initiatives, two of which would harm the state’s economic climate and one that would improve it.

CACI urges its members to vote against Amendment 69, known as ColoradoCares, and Amendment 70, which would hike the state minimum wage.  To make it more difficult to place such anti-business initiatives on the ballot in the future, CACI urges its members to vote for Amendment 71.

Oppose Amendment 69

Amendment 69, which was Initiative 20, would create a quasi-public, single-payer, health-care system that would impose a $25 billion tax on employers, workers and taxpayers.  Here’s how the proposal is described in the Legislative Council’s fiscal analysis for its Blue Book:

Summary of Measure

Amendment 69, if enacted by voters, establishes ColoradoCare as a new political subdivision of the state to operate as a statewide system to finance health care services for Colorado residents. The measure establishes a board of trustees, initially appointed and then elected, to govern and oversee the operations of ColoradoCare. The board of trustees is required to seek federal waivers necessary to implement ColoradoCare and ColoradoCare operations may be terminated by the board if the federal government does not grant approval sufficient for its fiscally sound operation. Amendment 69 creates new taxes on most sources of income, redirects existing state and federal health funding to pay for the services and administration of ColoradoCare, and exempts ColoradoCare from constitutional limits on revenue. If fully implemented, ColoradoCare will pay for covered health care services for Coloradans who do not have other forms of health coverage and will provide supplemental coverage to persons who have other coverage.

This extraordinary ballot measure would eliminate private health-insurance and replace it with a state governmental, universal health-care system called ColoradoCare that also would swallow up much of four major, existing state-and-federal health programs.

The single-payer system set forth in Amendment 69 would be enshrined in the Colorado Constitution as a 12-page amendment (Article XXX) to the Colorado Constitution.  If Amendment 69 is approved by the voters, the political odds of it ever being changed by voters are slim to none, and the state will be left to deal with the enormous consequences—both intended and unintended—for years to come.

Amendment 69 would undoubtedly be the most massive, expensive change in Colorado State Government in recent decades, and the effects on the Colorado economy would be huge.  It would largely eliminate the entire private-sector health-insurance industry while creating a massive ColoradoCare bureaucracy.

At this point, no one has a “guesstimate“ of how much it would cost to shut down the private-sector health-insurance industry, laying off tens of thousands of workers, many of whom would then collect unemployment benefits, thus draining down the Unemployment Trust Fund.

Employers would be forced to terminate contracts with health insurers as well as to adopt a new system for paying premium taxes to ColoradoCare.  The cost to employers of transitioning from the current system to the ColoradoCare system would undoubtedly be in the tens of millions of dollars–but no one has an idea yet of the cost.

Once fully implemented, ColoradoCare would impose a “premium tax” on employers (6.67 percent of total payroll income) and workers (3.33 percent of total payroll income).  Wages, salaries and tips would be subject to the tax.

Anyone who has non-payroll income would be taxed at 10 percent.  Such income includes, according to the Legislative Council:

  • Business proprietors’ income, including farm proprietors’ income;
  • Capital gains; and
  • Pensions, annuities, and Social Security benefits, to the extent taxed by the state under current law.

Taxes would not be collected on total personal income greater than $350,000 for a single-income filer or $450,000 for joint-income filers.  These two limits would be indexed to calendar year 2017 but then adjusted annually according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI) in later years.

Of particular concern to CACI would be the impact of Amendment 69 on Pinnacol Assurance, a CACI member.  Here’s what the Legislative Council’s fiscal analysis says about Pinnacol Assurance:

Pinnacol Assurance. Pinnacol Assurance is the state-chartered insurer-of-last-resort for workers’ compensation insurance and provides coverage to over half of Colorado employers. Under Amendment 69, Pinnacol Assurance will no longer be required to provide medical coverage through its workers’ compensation policies. This will reduce its obligations to pay for workers’ medical claims. The indemnity portion of workers’ compensation policies, which pays for lost wages and other benefits, will remain under the purview of Pinnacol Assurance.

Amendment 69 is opposed by Coloradans for Coloradans, an issue committee whose co-chairs include Colorado State Treasurer Walker Stapleton and former Democratic Governor Bill Ritter.  The organization is backed by a coalition of business organizations, public officials, and community and civic leaders.  CACI urges its members to contribute to Coloradans for Coloradans. Contributions can be mailed to:

Coloradans for Coloradans
1660 Lincoln Street
Suite 1800
Denver CO 80624

Contribution can also be wired electronically to Coloradans for Coloradans.  CACI members who have questions about contributing to Coloradans for Coloradans should email Katie Behnke or call her at 303.807.4583.

Coloradans for Coloradans is an issue committee, #20165030100, registered with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.  An issue committee may receive unlimited contributions from an individual, a corporation or a non-corporate business entity.

For more information, read:

Blue Book, Colorado Legislative Council.

Blue Book Fiscal Impact, Colorado Legislative Council.

“ColoradoCares Long-Term Budget Shortfall Could Be in the Billions, Independent Study Finds,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, August 11th.

“Q&A: Amendment 69’s Impact on Employers and Workers Would Be Huge,” The CACI Colorado Capitol Report, June 10th.

Oppose Amendment 70

Amendment 70, which was Initiative 101, is a constitutional amendment initiative that would raise the state minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020.

The current minimum wage is $8.31, which is the result of a 2006 ballot initiative approved by the voters.  The Federal minimum wage is $7.25.

The named backers of the measure, Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, comprise some 35 organizations that include labor unions, liberal/progressive think tanks and social/economic-justice organizations.

Despite the name of the issue committee, however, much of the $3.1 million of funding for Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, as of September 28th, has come from out-of-state liberal/progressive organizations and unions.  The reason, obviously, is that the Democratic Party at both national and state levels has enthusiastically embraced increases in state, local and Federal minimum wages not just as a policy objective but, particularly in Colorado, as a strategy to increase Democrat voter turnout.

CACI opposes the measure for several reasons, including the following:

  • An increase in the state minimum wage should be statutory in nature and debated by the legislature and not enshrined in the State Constitution, where it will be virtually impossible to change;
  • The measure interferes with the “private right to contract” between a worker and an employer; and
  • Important sectors, such as hospitality, will likely be adversely affected if companies, especially small ones with thin profit margins, are not able to pass the increased labor costs on to their customers.

The issue committee that has been formed to oppose Initiative 101 is called Keep Colorado Working.  The committee’s registration number with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office is 20165031488.  An issue committee can accept unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and non-corporate business entities.  Contributions to Keep Colorado Working will be filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and, therefore, will become public.  CACI members should send contributions to:

Keep Colorado Working
2318 Curtis Street
Denver CO 80201

CACI members with questions about contributions to Keep Colorado Working should call Katie Behnke or Austin Metsch at the Starboard Group at 720.524.7332.

CACI members with questions about the minimum-wage issue should contact Loren Furman, CACI Senior Vice President, State and Federal Relations, at 303.866.9642.

For more information on Amendment 70, read:

“Minimum Wage Hike Qualifies for November, Ballot,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, August 11th.

Blue Book, Colorado Legislative Council.

Support Amendment 71

Amendment 71, which was Initiative 96, would make it harder to amend the Colorado Constitution through citizen initiatives.

The proposal has two main features:

  • Most significantly, the measure would require that a “petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least two percent of the registered electors who reside in each state senate district” for the measure to be placed on the ballot.  Colorado has 35 state senate districts.
  • The percentage of votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment would be increased from a majority to at least 55 percent; however, a proposed constitutional amendment that “only repeals, in whole or in part, any provision of the constitution” would still need only a majority vote to be enacted by the voters.

The proposal would not change the provisions governing initiated statutory amendments in terms of the requirements for signature gathering or the requirement of a simple majority vote at a General Election.

In addition, there would be no change in the ability of the General Assembly to propose to the voters any amendment to the Colorado Constitution upon a vote of two-thirds in the House of Representatives (44 of 65) and the State Senate (24 of 35).

The group advocating the measure is Raise the Bar.

Among the comments made by CACI members about this issue are the following:

  • The business community has to fight a number of anti-business ballot measures at virtually every General Election, with a price tag running into the many millions of dollars.
  • Once an amendment has been placed in the Constitution, experience over the past 30 years to 40 years shows that it is virtually impossible to change it.
  • Many of the issues concerning proposed constitutional amendments should properly be addressed by the Legislature in statutory form.

For more information on Amendment 71, read:

“CACI Supports Initiative to Tighten Requirements for Constitutional Ballot Initiatives,” CACI Colorado Capitol Report, August 19th.

Blue Book, Colorado Legislative Council.

Blue Book Fiscal Impact, Colorado Legislative Council.

What if . . . Colorado Was Forced to Pay EU Energy Prices??

A new report focused on the cost impacts of extreme anti-industry energy policies has been issued by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute on 21st Century Energy as part of the Institute’s “Energy Accountability Series.”

The report is titled:  “What If…the United States Was Forced to Pay EU Energy Prices?”

The report analyzes the economic impacts of certain policies that have been proposed and pushed by extreme anti-industry environmental groups and their political and elected allies.  The U.S. Chamber is utilizing this report, and the Energy Accountability Series, to highlight the benefits that the recent energy revolution has generated for the United States economy.  The report analyzes how the harnessing of the U.S. energy abundance in recent years has led to lower energy prices, increased job growth and economic competitiveness, and a rebirth of American-based manufacturing throughout the US economy.

The report sharply contrasts these benefits with the staggering cost and macro-economic impacts that anti-industry, anti-energy development policies have generated in European nations.  Key findings include:

  • European energy policies and prices would impose a $676 billion drag on the US residential sector and a $31 billion hit to the industrial sector on an annual basis;
  • The average American household would be forced to pay $4800 more per year, or $400 per month, for their energy than they do today
  • The increase in residential energy prices would have the effect of eliminating the equivalent of 7.7 million jobs in the United States, owing to depressed demand for labor. Separately, another 273,000 jobs would be lost due to the increase in industrial energy prices;
  • Lost labor income tied to the increase in residential energy prices would total $364 billion, in addition to a $17 billion loss on the industrial side – again, all on annual basis.

Specific Colorado-based impacts can be seen on this state fact sheet.   The report estimates that implementing European energy policies in Colorado would result in over 84,000 jobs lost, an annual decrease in our state GDP of $6.8 billion, and increased household energy costs of $4730 per year.

The series also analyzes the impact of extreme environmental proposals to ban all energy development on federal lands.  The report’s Colorado Fact Sheet estimates that the Colorado impacts of this policy could include:

  • 50,000 lost jobs,
  • $8.3 billion reduction in state GDP
  • $124 million reduction in state energy royalties.

To access the entire Energy Accountability Series, please visit Institute for 21st Century Energy’s series website:  http://www.energyxxi.org/energy-accountability

A new report focused on the cost impacts of extreme anti-industry energy policies has been issued by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute on 21st Century Energy as part of the Institute’s “Energy Accountability Series.”

The report is titled:  “What If…the United States Was Forced to Pay EU Energy Prices?”

The report analyzes the economic impacts of certain policies that have been proposed and pushed by extreme anti-industry environmental groups and their political and elected allies.  The U.S. Chamber is utilizing this report, and the Energy Accountability Series, to highlight the benefits that the recent energy revolution has generated for the United States economy.  The report analyzes how the harnessing of the U.S. energy abundance in recent years has led to lower energy prices, increased job growth and economic competitiveness, and a rebirth of American-based manufacturing throughout the US economy.

The report sharply contrasts these benefits with the staggering cost and macro-economic impacts that anti-industry, anti-energy development policies have generated in European nations.  Key findings include:

  • European energy policies and prices would impose a $676 billion drag on the US residential sector and a $31 billion hit to the industrial sector on an annual basis;
  • The average American household would be forced to pay $4800 more per year, or $400 per month, for their energy than they do today
  • The increase in residential energy prices would have the effect of eliminating the equivalent of 7.7 million jobs in the United States, owing to depressed demand for labor. Separately, another 273,000 jobs would be lost due to the increase in industrial energy prices;
  • Lost labor income tied to the increase in residential energy prices would total $364 billion, in addition to a $17 billion loss on the industrial side – again, all on annual basis.

Specific Colorado-based impacts can be seen on this state fact sheet.   The report estimates that implementing European energy policies in Colorado would result in over 84,000 jobs lost, an annual decrease in our state GDP of $6.8 billion, and increased household energy costs of $4730 per year.

The series also analyzes the impact of extreme environmental proposals to ban all energy development on federal lands.  The report’s Colorado Fact Sheet estimates that the Colorado impacts of this policy could include:

  • 50,000 lost jobs,
  • $8.3 billion reduction in state GDP
  • $124 million reduction in state energy royalties.

To access the entire Energy Accountability Series, please visit Institute for 21st Century Energy’s series website:  http://www.energyxxi.org/energy-accountability

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact CACI Director of Governmental Affairs, Dan O’Connell, at [email protected] or 303-866-9622.

CACI and NFIB Host Event Discussing Economic Impacts on Small Businesses

On October 26th, CACI and National Federation of Independent Business are partnering with Visa, a CACI member, to discuss the current state of the small business economy, trends in consumer spending (national and local) and how public policy changes might affect both.

The guest speakers for this event include:  Chief Economists William Dunkelberg (NFIB) and Wayne Best (Visa).  The details regarding this event are as follows:

University of Denver              Wednesday, October 26th, 2016

The Cable Center                          5:30 – 6:00pm (Reception)
2000 Buchtel Boulevard              6:30 – 8:00pm (Dinner/Program)
Denver, CO 80210

The reception and dinner will be provided at no charge to a CACI member, and if you are interested in attending, please RSVP by contacting Stacy Jenkins at (866) 307-2846 or by email at [email protected].