Over the next 10 days, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will hold hearings on rules intended to dramatically change how it does business.

The hearings on mission change, alternative location analysis and cumulative impacts of oil and gas activity will continue throughout the fall.

Up until last year, the job of the COGCC was to foster oil and gas development. Under Senate Bill 19-181, the COGCC is now required to regulate oil and gas in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare, wildlife and the environment.

The rulemaking on mission change will be the first for the newly reconstituted commission, which went from a volunteer board to a professional, full-time paid group on July 1. The prior commission began working on those rules last year.

Monday’s hearing kicked off with public comment from the four Democratic lawmakers who sponsored Senate Bill 19-181. And they came ready for battle.

Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg of Boulder challenged prehearing statements submitted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association on just who controls oil and gas decisions: the COGCC or local governments.

COGA’s statement, submitted July 31, claims the draft rules on mission change “violate the intent and language of SB 19-181” by allowing the COGCC to “override a local government’s siting decision and its regulation of the surface aspects of oil and gas development.”

COGA’s statement claims that under SB181, local government land use regulation of oil and gas is not preempted by state regulation in the same area. The law also “re-emphasized local government’s primary authority over land use issues.”

Not so, said Fenberg. The draft rules on mission change “capture the spirit and intent” of SB181 but COGA’s statement runs counter to that, he said.

The industry’s claim that SB181 grants local government exclusive authority is incorrect, Fenberg explained. The section of law referred to by COGA is not intended to give local governments that authority. Instead, the law makes it clear that state regulations are the “floor,” and local governments can exceed those regulations if they so choose.

Fenberg pointed out that some of those who objected to SB181 during its passage last year objected on those very grounds. He cited the testimony of Weld County Commissioner Barb Kirkmeyer, who said that if the state government wanted local governments to have more control lawmakers would have written it into the bill.

An Aug. 14 letter submitted by House and Senate Democrats said both the COGCC and local governments had “independent and coequal land use authority over oil and gas development.” The law allows local governments to have stronger regulations than the state but does not allow those local governments to set up weaker regulations. “Oil and gas development must satisfy both local and state regulations in order to proceed.”

The letter was signed by 17 of the Senate’s 19 Democrats and 24 of the House’s 41 Democrats.

On the other side Monday: county commissioners and town managers from oil and natural gas-producing counties that claim they should have more authority on land use decisions, their fears about the future of the industry and what it could do to an economy already hard hit by COVID-19.

Rose Pugliese, a Mesa County commissioner, said the duty of elected officials is to protect public health, safety, welfare and the environment, but they need a good balance between the high-paying jobs that support the community and protecting the environment.

“We are in the best position to understand our local communities and how to work with our neighbors,” she told the commission.

Several testified about the tax revenue that oil and gas produces for their counties, even in counties where agriculture dominates. Others asked the commission to consider that a “one-size-fits-all” approach doesn’t work for rural communities that don’t struggle with the kinds of air pollution problems experienced by those who live on the Front Range.

Yuma County Commission Chair Trent Bushner pointed out that 54% of the assessed valuation in his county comes from oil and gas, despite the fact that Yuma County is the second highest agriculture-producing county in the state.

“Cows don’t care where oil and gas is sited,” Bushner told the commission. In Phillips County, in northeastern Colorado, 22% of the tax revenue comes from oil and gas, according to Commissioner Terry Hofmeister.

Lisa Piering is town manager for Rangely, home to the Rangely oil field, one of the oldest in the state. Oil and gas has supplied a great life for local families, she told the commission. Oil and gas has coexisted with her town for 55 years without difficulty or any safety concerns. “We love our way of life and what we have,” which includes air cleaner than what’s found on the Front Range, she said.

“We are not the Front Range, we don’t have the huge population and shouldn’t be governed by those policies.”

Ed Ingve from Renegade Oil and Gas challenged the authority of the commission to even hold the hearings, pointing out that the commission’s make-up doesn’t fully follow the law. SB181 requires that no more than three appointees can be members of the same political party, and that membership shall be appointed taking into account “geographical representation of areas of the state with high level of current or anticipated oil and gas activity.”

The commission has no representation from counties with substantial oil and gas activity, much less the state’s biggest oil and natural gas producing counties, Weld and Garfield, Ingve noted. Weld County, according to the US Energy Information Administration, produces nine out of 10 barrels of oil in the state.*

Polis has also left out Republicans. Three of his five appointed members are Democrats, the other two are unaffiliated.

It wasn’t all positive from those who support the changes, either. Several mentioned that the law doesn’t establish a setback distance from oil and gas activity and want the commission to take a tougher stance on that issue, perhaps as much as 2,000 feet.

But there was also plenty of support for the new commission and for making the changes mandated by SB181. Elise Jones, a Boulder County commissioner who spoke on her own behalf, said oil and gas development has changed greatly in the past decade, with fracking activity coming much closer to homes, schools and neighborhoods. Drilling sites are ballooning, she said, to include dozens of wells. There are health risks associated with how close those sites are to homes, Jones said. That’s what drove the passage of SB181.

The hearing continues Monday evening with more public testimony. Tuesday will feature presentations from the oil and gas industry, environmental groups, local government representatives and wildlife organizations.

Correction: a previous edition incorrectly stated the commission had nine members; that was its membership prior to July 1.