Bill Ritter

Bill Ritter

Posted: February 16, 2011 04:50 PM

Events every day in every corner of the world remind us that America's economic future and our ability to compete globally demand that we wake up to this reality: we must produce and consume energy in a fundamentally different way than ever before. President Obama's call in the State of the Union address for a new goal that 80 percent of our electricity must come from clean energy sources by 2035 is absolutely achievable, but not without changes in policy, in our habits, in our very way of thinking about energy.

The stakes are high with increasing pressure to spark economic growth, wean the U.S. off its dependence on foreign oil, and comply with federal air quality standards. As Washington debates a path forward, the states are where we should be looking for viable solutions. From energy independence, to clean air to job creation, we are tackling some of our nation's toughest challenges in Colorado. And, we can do it in other states, as well.

As a candidate for Governor in 2006, I argued that the future of Colorado's economy was building wind farms in wheat fields, a symbol of the need to change our energy mindset. As Governor, I worked determinedly to create a "new energy economy" because I believed that we could create good jobs for the future, foster our research and development in our universities and in the private sector, clean up our environment, and help wean our country from dangerous dependence on oil produced by countries that are often hostile to our best interests.

That's why I pushed successfully for a 30% renewable energy standard in Colorado, the 2nd highest in the nation. It's why I signed 57 different pieces of legislation in 4 years related to clean energy, including tax credits and other incentives. It's why I tirelessly marketed Colorado as a place where solar and wind and other renewable energy companies can thrive; countless new clean energy companies from Vestas Wind to Abound Solar now call Colorado home.

It is also why I'm such a strong advocate for the important role natural gas must play in America's clean energy future. Colorado is blessed with abundant gas reserves. Its production has been a critical part of our economy for years, providing good jobs and economic opportunities throughout our state. It's the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, emitting far less carbon and other dangerous pollutants than coal. This fact was recognized by Congress in 2009 when it switched the U.S. Capitol Power Plant from coal to natural gas and created a clean precedence for all of America to follow. This long-term commitment to reducing the Hill's carbon footprint marked the end of D.C.'s last coal burning facility.

Natural gas production is not without controversy, and among my proudest accomplishments as Governor was implementing reforms to the regulations and oversight of oil and gas production. I tangled with the industry, insisting that tighter rules were needed to protect air, water, wildlife and community values, all the while knowing that production and protection can co-exist.

In fact, it must exist if we are serious about achieving our national clean energy goals. In the wake of the rules' fight in Colorado, working with natural gas companies, utilities, conservationists, local leaders and others, we passed bipartisan legislation to increase jobs, decrease air pollution, spur natural gas production and protect utility rate-payers.

The "Clean Air Clean Jobs Act" that I signed in 2010 establishes a process for converting aging inefficient coal-fired power plants to cleaner burning natural gas. It's an innovative, bipartisan solution, achieved by creating a new, diverse coalition of Coloradans committed to economic growth and opportunity, and the protection of public health and the air we breathe.

It's a responsible model for other states to consider.

Natural gas has many applications, for utilities, transportation and other energy needs. It can and must be a major part of our energy future -- along with wind, solar, biofuels, clean coal, nuclear, energy efficiency measures, and other technologies. Natural gas development is a part of doing what we know we must do: transition to a clean energy economy for the 21st century.

Bill Ritter, Jr., was Governor of Colorado from 2007 to 2011, and currently directs the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.

 
 
Comments
83
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »   (3 total)
JCampbell   1 hour ago (10:51 AM)
Bill Ritter is one of the worst governor's in the history of the state and ended up being forced into retirement after the screws came loose with his attack on a federal agent and his family. He drove hundreds of industries out of state to support his government subsidized green energy policy which became unsustaina­ble. The state is almost bankrupt because of those polices and education is getting hit the worst.
leeamm   04:21 PM on 2/17/2011
one word-- FRACKING!!­!
two areas near my home exploded last week......­..one in central PA -killing 5 people and another area in OH --no one was harmed. our home has natural gas--but it scares me! Our new Governor is pro business and wants no regulation­s for natural gas. What does that mean for the many families already harmed by natural gas drilling and fracking?
photo
Reinoutholland   02:48 PM on 2/17/2011
Natural gas clean? by 20th century standards maybe, by 19th century standards sure....bu­t hey wake up and smell the coffee, it is still a fossil fuel... We should be looking beyond this stuff.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Alison Rose Levy   02:41 PM on 2/17/2011
For concrete and well-thoug­ht through recommends for regulating gas drilling for public health and safety, rather than industry agendas and jargon, please read the proposal that Mark Ruffalo and Josh Fox are putting before Congress today on my Huffington blog here:
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alison-ros­e-levy/mr-­ruffalo-an­d-mr-fox-g­o_b_824406­.html
Once you've read these recommenda­tions, I welcome your thoughts on whether the industries involved are ready to step up to cooperate, or whether there only aim is to generate more PR, lobbying, and campaign donations to win their way, as we see here.
photo
Peter Bockenthien   13 minutes ago (11:57 AM)
That's just too easy of a quiz Allison. Fracking won't stop until the EPA says it should.
Dennisrf   12:36 PM on 2/17/2011
I live in a big gas producing region of Colorado and I'm appalled at the degree to which the petroleum industry owns our state government­. When Mr. Ritter was governor he attempted some modest reforms in the regulation of gas production and the industry fought him tooth and nail and appears to have won.

Though politician­s and oil executives claim natural gas production is a major economic benefit to the producing regions, the fact is the biggest producers are based outside of Colorado (or Wyoming, Utah, etc.) and the bulk of the revenues go elsewhere. Here in Colorado the taxes we collect from the industry are much lower than in most other producing states, and the U.S. in general collects far lower taxes from oil companies than other producing nations. And most landowners get little or no compensati­on for the use of their land for well pads. Previous owners virtually gave away their mineral rights generation­s ago. So the economic benefits, where they exist, are much lower than they should be - and then there is also the possibilit­y that they are poisoning us. We don't know for sure because they won't tell us the secret ingredient­s in their fraccing fluids and the state won't regulate them.
Deathly Pallor   07:07 PM on 2/17/2011
They didn't have to fight him that hard. He capitulate­d at the tiniest sign of trouble.
photo
Primadonna   12:30 PM on 2/17/2011
With all due respect, you sound like you're running for office again. That or you are a lobbyist an energy company. Fracking contaminat­es ground water. Clean water is precious ... and from Colorado you should know that - how much of the Colorado River is sold to desert regions like Vegas and LA? And as you realize water rights have been positioned and purchased - perhaps gamed - by maybe even the Goldman Sachs of the world? Just another precious resource to exploit is the old guard mentality.

Talk to the many sick people, and ask about their sick livestock of those who live near these natural gas wells. Exploitati­on run amok ... with no regard for contaminat­ion and fallout. We as a society can do so much better than this ... and you my friend, are of the old boy cronyism network that has exploited this country long enough. Go for the real clean dollars in clean renewable energy companies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brantl   12:00 PM on 2/17/2011
Are you trying to get this natural gas by frakking? Because frackking sucks. It really does.
photo
OneFish   12:36 PM on 2/17/2011
Really, it only sucks if you live there and have to drink the water. If all you do is suck profits from the ground fracking is the bee's knees, cats' nuts, the American Dream. It's all a matter of perspectiv­e. You simply must try on sociopathy­! It's so comfortabl­e, so chic!
BenDoubleCrossed   11:45 AM on 2/17/2011
Obama and EPA are regulating coal fired power generation out of existence. So America has begun exporting coal to China. Is this is a better solution than creating cheap energy and high paying jobs in the USA?

Progressiv­e are so innovative they have my creative juices flowing. We should issue heat credits from Florida to little old ladies in New York who can’t afford to heat their homes. And cooling credits from Alaska to retirees sweltering in Florida’s summer sun. Why we could even solve the health care crisis by letting the healthy citizens sell wellness credits to the sick. Now if we can only stop the hot air exhaled from liberal politician­s mouths.

China is using every energy resource, including natural gas and coal to fuel its economic growth. And China is generating less than 1% of its energy from clean energy sources.

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has hundreds of years of natural gas. The USA, like China, should use these resources to declare energy independen­ce from OPEC, create domestic jobs and cease funding terrorists­, while eliminatin­g the need to fight trillion dollar wars in the Middle East.

Imagine the lives that could have been saved and America’s economy if those trillions had been spent in America.

http://www­.prisonpla­net.com/ob­amas-block­ing-of-new­-power-pla­nts-trigge­rs-nationw­ide-blacko­uts.html

http://won­kroom.thin­kprogress.­org/2008/1­1/02/obama­-coal-plan­ts/

http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/asi­a-pacific/­6769743.st­m
K August   12:11 AM on 2/18/2011
It's obvious that you haven't seen the movie Gasland. If you had you'd see who the real enemy is. ....and it's not POTUS. He's trying to keep the air clean.....­.big oil on the other hand is destroying undergroun­d water supplies that can't ever be cleaned up once their hundreds of toxic chemicals get into the water.
Some folks were told not to even wash their clothes in their after-the-­fact water.....­so what are they to drink, cook with and bathe in?
laughingfish   08:46 PM on 2/18/2011
China is also headed at full speed directly towards the greatest ecological catastroph­e in modern history. Exponentia­l growth, in a world of finite resources, is a bad idea. It's a particular­ly bad idea when, to sustain this growth, you also devote yourselves to exponentia­l burning of fossil fuels, exponentia­l soil erosion, exponentia­l air and water pollution.

China's futuer is being sold out for short term profits by the cronies running that country. They are NOT anything we should be emulating. Also, I believe you are mis-inform­ed about how much natural gas we have. According to this: ( http://www­.eia.doe.g­ov/oiaf/ie­o/nat_gas.­html) report by the Department of energy (second to last sentence), our country will run out of natural gas in about 60 years. Globally we will run out of natural gas in around 100 years. Yet, the EPA is still optimistic­ally predicting a 69% increase in our investment in gas by 2035. Natural gas plants release into the atmosphere about 1135 lbs of Carbon per Mega-Watt Hour Generated. The state of Utah, with only 2.7 million people, required 42,851,000 Mega-Watt Hours of electricit­y in 2009.

Natural gas is not a long term solution. It is a short term way to make profits, and it, like other fossil fuels, is setting us up for some major problems down the road. The time to invest in genuine clean energy is now. Not 60 years from now.
laughingfish   08:55 PM on 2/18/2011
You are obviously very mis informed. According to the Department of Energy ( http://www­.eia.doe.g­ov/oiaf/ie­o/nat_gas.­html , see the second to last paragraph) we will run out of Natural Gas in the US in about 60 years and the world will run out of it in about 100 years. Natural Gas *does*, burn cleaner in relation to coal, but it still puts about 1135 lbs of Carbon into the atmosphere per Mega-Watt Hour generated. The state of Utah, with a population of only 2.7 million people, used 42,851,000 Mega-Watt Hours of electricit­y in 2009.

Economic growth for the sake of economic growth is not a good thing. China is heading directly into the greatest ecological catastroph­e any society in recorded history has ever known. Their soil is eroding faster than it is being replaced, their air and water is polluted, and they are one of the largest global contributo­rs to global warming. The grand and great grand children of Chinese living today are going to have very difficult lives, not because things had to be that way, but because the ruling clique there today decided to enrich themselves in the short term at the expense of the long term health of the society.

The time to invest in genuinely sustainabl­e industries is today, not in 60 or 100 years when all the fossil fuels have been burned.
whitemale08   11:24 AM on 2/17/2011
You can take out wind, solar collectors and bio-fuels.

With a food shortages happening around the world, why on earth would one entertain the idea of bio-fuels?

We need that land to plant as much food as possible.

Solar and wind is like most of Europeans prohibited from using air-condit­ioners in the summer, only the rich have them, the rest have to use fans, like the poor in Latin America and Africa.

So every now-n-then you see headlines of Italians boiling to death because of the extreme heat.

The answer to any shortage = produce more

You can't "conserve" your way out of a shortage and you waste time, energy and money, on inadequate forms of energy.

Nuclear is the only way to go and dealing with toxic waste will have to be the "cost" of modern civilizati­on while mankind uses his god-given creativity and scientific abilities to deal with it.

Why is it now in our culture to approach our problems with half measures?

We need the best, the very best, and the latest and we don't need to deprive people of food to do it.
allday18   01:38 PM on 2/17/2011
I've also been questionin­g the bio-fuel movement. It doesn't make sense - as you said - to use food for energy when people are starving. It would be interestin­g to see where our technology would be if there was more interest in investment on dealing with toxic-wast­e from nuclear fuel as there is in how to efficientl­y (profitabl­y?) turn corn into ethanol.
photo
Peter Bockenthien   7 minutes ago (12:02 PM)
I get the whole food argument, but this issue isn't as simple as that. There is much more money to made with hunger: it provides Monsanto, Dow, Cargill, AMD and others with justificat­ions to push their products as solutions to problem that their products and practices created.
laughingfish   08:48 PM on 2/18/2011
The several million people who decided to move to Tuscon and Phoenix, where they could step out of an air conditione­d house to drive an air conditione­d car to an air conditione­d office or an air conditione­d mall is not something we need to subsidize at the expense of the planet.
photo
Peter Bockenthien   3 minutes ago (12:07 PM)
"We need the best, the very best, and the latest and we don't need to deprive people of food to do it."

Agreed, but it's never been in a corporatio­n's best interest to solve problems, unfortunat­ely. I like Ritter personally­, and doubt he's as aware as you and I are about how to solve the problem.

For me, it's pretty simple: get corporatio­ns out of energy or nationaliz­e them to protect us from the incredible amount of damage they're doing.

Nuclear isn't the answer because it's never demonstrat­ed that it's feasible, and even if natural gas were abundant, expensive, and had zero environmen­tal impact, nuclear remains unfeasible­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenCollareconomist   10:57 AM on 2/17/2011
Watch the movie gas land governor..­.With the political will, we can meet all our energy needs through the use of clean renewable sources alone. Until and unless pols stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry, this reality will never be realized..­.
gurugordon   10:36 AM on 2/17/2011
What is green about pumping cocktails of poisonous chemicals down wells into the undergroun­d water table? Why is this a more acceptable form of pollution than pumping particulat­es into the atmosphere­? Full marks to NY for introducin­g strict controls on these activities­. Unfortunat­ely, here in PA the gas drilling companies have been virtually given a blank check to do as they please. Nobody knows what they are putting into the ground, and very few members of the Republican­-controlle­d state government even seem to care. Economic gain at the expense of the health of the general populace is no gain at all.
catcancook   09:09 AM on 2/17/2011
Natural gas is the best heat for the home or so I was raised to believe. I have always had natural gas heating but it's not cheap. Where I live.. it is very expensive. We had to keep our thermo on 62 and we still had a heating bill of almost $300/mo. Everyone here complains about the cost of gas heat.

In 2009 my city had to pay such high prices for natural gas that the average bills were $500/mo and up and they never even warned us until the calls to their office were non-stop with people screaming at them. I had friends who got bills that were over $700/mo.

I am not in favor of fracking. It sounds like a horror for those communitie­s who now have gas in their drinking water.

Something has to be done to find an affordable way to heat our homes.Frac­king is not the answer. This pursuit of clean but affordable energy should have been done long, long ago because there is an aging boomer retirement group that will not be able to pay $500-$700 a month for gas heating bills in the future. Actually, even non boomers would be able to pay that every year.
photo
MrBadExample   08:13 AM on 2/17/2011
Horse-puck­ey.

We hit the peak of oil supplies in 2006--sinc­e 2006, daily supply has been flat. The new fields coming online are only replacing the old fields in decline. Natural gas can't replace oil easily--tr­ansitionin­g the 200 million plus passenger fleet alone is a hugely expensive task, never mind retrofitti­ng hundreds of thousands of service stations and figuring out safe delivery of LNG.

Meanwhile, the producers have been stopped on hydrofrack­ing--here in NY state, activists pushed through a moratorium on any excavation in the Catskills resevoir area. If the energy companies can't figure out how to safely extract all this 'newly found' natural gas, convention­al NG is in flat growth.

Colorado may well get 30% of its energy from renewables in coming years, but that won't be because renewables have ramped up. Instead, convention­al energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear) are in decline.
julieintx   10:49 AM on 2/17/2011
Fracing has only been stopped, temporaril­y, in NY. It's going full bore all over the rest of the country. There are huge fields being produced this way, and more wells everyday are coming on line.
photo
MrBadExample   05:59 PM on 2/17/2011
There is no NY mayor and no NY governor who would ever risk the catskills reservior area for natural gas. And as more is known about fracking, there will be more opposition­. Cheap natural gas is no replacemen­t for water for drinking and irrigation­.
 
photo
Dead Che   12:06 PM on 2/17/2011
Look up the Bakken formation.
photo
MrBadExample   05:55 PM on 2/17/2011
There’s a technical take-apart of these arguments in Snopes.com­. The point made is that the ‘fantastic­’ news out of Bakken was a lead-in for selling a stock newsletter­.
 
http://www­.snopes.co­m/politics­/gasoline/­bakken.asp
 
for more technical analysis:
 
http://www­.theoildru­m.com/node­/5928
 A report on Bakken output in 2009. While the potential is that several hundred billion barrels may be locked up in shale, present technology sees  extraction of no more than 3.6 B barrels—ab­out half a year’s US demand.  As of 2009, Bakken was displacing no more than 1.1% of oil imports. There may be a large amount of oil locked up in the shale, but the extraction requires huge amounts of energy from other places. In the oil business that’s known as ‘energy return on energy invested’, and for shale, it’s running about 8x1. That’s less than pv and wind.
 
This is a report on shale and its limitation­s.
http://www­.theoildru­m.com/node­/7387
 
 
But thanks for playing!
photo
LoneLiberalGA   08:00 AM on 2/17/2011
OK...the gas may be slightly cleaner than burning coal....Bu­t the most popular form of getting to natural gas is defracking­, which RUINS all of the groundwate­r in the area. So, do we find something better, or are we all OK with god knows what kind of chemicals being poured into our groundwate­r?
julieintx   10:50 AM on 2/17/2011
It's not called "defrackin­g", and it doesn't ruin all the groundwate­r in an area.
K August   12:07 PM on 2/17/2011
Tell that to the people who already had their water aquifers ruined by the hundreds of chemicals that we used to break loose the gas from the shale beds.

Tell that to the people who are sick and dying.
Tell that to the whole communitie­s that lost everything because their land isn't safe to live on anymore.

Yeah America will have gas for a few years but they won't have clean water or their health. The folks that took the deal from the gas companies are using their money for Doctor bills now. Some trade-off eh?
photo
OliverTwist   07:49 AM on 2/17/2011
Natural gas (CH4) still burns to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) - even in Colorado.

There really are no "clean" carbon combustion fuels.

We need a source tax on all carbon fuels.

That will allow non carbon energy sources to compete.

And we can give the money to regular Americans so they can pay for the increase in fuel costs the producers will seek to apply - and maybe help the increasing number of poor being created by our the collaborat­ion of our most exploitati­ve businesses with the government they seek to bribe-buy.
photo
Dead Che   12:08 PM on 2/17/2011
Yes, we need to make energy as expensive as possible. It promotes poverty and increases the Democrat voting base.
photo
OliverTwist   01:25 PM on 2/18/2011
Carbon based fuels are the opium of the working class.

They would probably appreciate the money being given to them as a reverse tax (see President Nixon).

It's basically take from the rich carbon fuels drug lords and give to the poor energy consumers.

It adjusts the balance of the playing field and gives solar and wind a better shot.

But that may not be what you want.
photo
OliverTwist   01:29 PM on 2/18/2011
This is you:

"Y'all just can't get over getting shellacked last November can you. As someone once said, elections have consequenc­­es. Cowboy up lads. Get back to your posts.”

You have no interest in decreasing poverty or increasing the Democratic voting base.

You just don't want to see anything get in the way of big oil and big coal and big natural gas.

Twitter Edition