Part III: Talking about Colorado’s reliance on fossil fuel revenues

And Steve Fenberg shares that he sometimes thinks about what he can do to make himself a good ancestor

On Sept. 10, then-Senate President Steve Fenberg sat down with Allen Best of Big Pivots to talk about his eight years in the Senate, about what he learned as a legislative leader, his accomplishments, and the instances where legislation fell short.

In this, the third of the five-part interview, he speaks about resource adequacy, greenhouse goals in Colorado – and how he thinks of himself in the much bigger frame of his ancestors and descendants.

Let’s dig deeper into difficult parts of the energy transition. Colorado remains greatly reliant upon revenues from oil and gas extraction. The state land board, a major funder of state schools, has a record year for revenues in 2023 almost entirely because of oil and gas revenues. How can Colorado supplant its reliance on revenues from oil and gas extraction?

I think it’s happening. I think the question is, how do you make it happen faster? This seems like a relatively straightforward question, but (it’s actually) a complex one. It is not actually a climate or natural resources question alone. It’s a fiscal and constitutional question. And a lot of this has to do with TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights amendment to the state Constitution approved by Colorado voters in 1992), the way our finances have to happen in the state, and it makes it incredibly difficult to transition.

It will be almost impossible to cut off funding sources for public education without a very clear replacement. In some ways, that replacement has to be a constitutional change.

We are fighting over scraps when it comes to our state budget. It probably doesn’t feel that way to a lot of people, because we’ve figured out how to make it work in spite of this, and Colorado’s economy is very good and very strong. But the state, and therefore communities and public education, other public services, aren’t benefiting from that like they should.

And so it continues to make us reliant on natural gas, on marijuana sales, and tobacco. We fund preschool with tobacco. That’s where we are. Voters who approved that said, “Well, I don’t smoke. Sure, tax the hell out of smokers to pay for public education.” Would I rather do that than not? Of course. I ran the bill to implement universal preschool with the tobacco money.

Our state fiscal system is like an old ship, and we just are patching holes and figuring out ways to keep it afloat every single year. There’s always a crisis that we have to fix, and it keeps us from actually being able to solve the long-term problem of sustainable funding.

Are we willing to scrap TABOR? The answer is no. We will never scrap TABOR. No one wants to hear that. Well, not no one, but most people in my district don’t want to hear that. Question is, how do you change some of the requirements in TABOR to make it more workable? Because scrapping TABOR means saying, “Hey, voter, are you okay with us getting rid of your ability to vote on taxes and just allow me, the politician, to increase taxes whenever I want?”

They will never say yes. That probably wouldn’t pass in Boulder. So, the question is, “Hey, voter, can we tweak Section X on TABOR so that we can fund public schools?” So far they’ve said no, we cap out about 44% of the population to say yes to that.

Components of Colorado’s economy — and state government functions — remain heavily reliant upon fossil fuel extraction. Photo/Allen Best

As I am out and about, I hear three different criticisms of Colorado’s energy transition. One view holds that we’re moving more rapidly than maybe we should, because we might be wrong about some of this. After all, at one time, we thought building bigger and bigger coal plants was a good idea.

A second view is that we have a great danger in resource adequacy. There’s been a lot of national attention to this, not so much in Colorado.

And third, there’s the evidence that Colorado will fall short of attaining its 2030 goals.

Do you worry about these?

I think if any of them worry me, it’s the last one. I don’t think we’re moving too fast.

As for resource adequacy argument, I think we have to address constraints. There’s real stuff. It’s not made up. But it’s not keeping me up at night. I think we will figure it out. It will probably not allow us to move as fast as we would like.

Some of this comes back to the debate over the regulated monopoly, like the big bill we passed this year on distribution systems. It’s about recognizing that the utilities have not appropriately prepared for the future. And it’s not because they didn’t know they weren’t preparing for the future and they got caught off guard. They didn’t have the financial incentive to do so, and in fact, they had, I would say, the financial incentive not to do so until we paid them to do it, which is what we did.

In ways it’s like, wow, I’m not proud of that. In other ways, it’s like, well, there’s a real problem here, and my job is to solve problems, so I think we will figure the resource stuff out.

I am concerned about not meeting our goals. I’m much more concerned about the rest of the world not meeting its goals. If we approach meeting our 2030 goal and we get really close — maybe in some sectors we exceed it. In some sectors, we fall short — that doesn’t mean we failed. Because if we hit our goals, that also doesn’t mean we succeeded. I mean, the planet will still keep warming, so the goal is somewhat arbitrary. The bigger question is, weare we all fucked either way?

And that invites the question that I have quite often in my head is: How much can Colorado influence the national conversation, and hence the international conversation? Does that drive you a little bit?

Oh, yeah. It’s the only way to rationalize what we’re doing. I have had this conversation with the (Senate) minority leader many times where he says, “Look, I’ve come around, and I actually think you’re probably right, and I was wrong. Humans are causing climate change.”

It is crazy that in 2024 somebody is just now being like, “Maybe you were right. It gives me no gratification. It’s like, “Great, thanks, buddy, you know would have been helpful if you had that conclusion years ago.”

But his argument is, “What the hell difference does it make (what Colorado is doing) when China is building new coal plants every month.” Or, you name the example. And he’s not wrong. That is a logical conclusion. My response is, well, we have to do our part.

There is a bigger picture (of) influencing regional, national and maybe international practices. You can’t always connect those dots very cleanly, but I think it is drives many of us.

The other part of this argument — and I would use this with someone like the minority leader, (Paul) Lundeen, because I appreciate him, and I think he’s a thoughtful guy. I also know he’s a man of faith. I mean, he’s quite religious. I’m not.

When I think about these types of debates, I often think about my background, the Jewish thought of sort of repairing the world. Even if you don’t solve the problem, you have to do your part to prepare the next generation to continue taking the baton. It’s kind of like, look, how do you explain having faith in something that you can’t prove?

It’s similar to me. It’s like, well, I don’t know, maybe we are fucked, but I sleep better at night knowing that I’m at least doing my part to help the next generation take the baton to continue solving the problems, and that’s on climate, but also plenty of other issues that feel like lost causes.

Also in this conversation:

Part I: Steve Fenberg reflects on Colorado’s embrace of climate goals

Part II: On regulating oil and gas — and Xcel Energy, too

You bring up religion. I was thinking about it yesterday. I was at National Jewish for a visit with a doctor in a brand-new building. So what you just said about your faith and how it is part of who you are and part of what you do, is there anything more you want to explain about that.

Look, I’m not a religious person, so I can’t claim that I do what I do because of a calling from God. To me, it’s much more about my connection to my past, those who came before me. We think of ancestors and what they did to help us be who we are and get to where we are.

What we don’t do often is think of ourself as an ancestor to future generations. And I think that’s actually helpful context. How can I be a good ancestor? It’s like a weird thing to think about, but how can I be a good ancestor? To me, that’s where it helps me understand that my great, great, great-grandfather wasn’t thinking about me. He didn’t know who I was. But what he did helped the next generation and the next generation and the next generation get to where I am today.

And so, what can I do today, not from a religious point of view, but from a carrying on to help future people? How can I be a good ancestor to them?

In Part IV of the conversation with Steve Fenberg, he talks about the bill that he sponsored that he hopes his daughter will proud of when she is as old as he is now. It has nothing to do with energy or climate change.