[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Report on NLC Conference and fracking resolution

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – A few weeks ago I attended the fall conference of the National League of Cities in Boston.  The most interesting and challenging sessions turned out to revolve around a resolution on fracking (hydraulic fracturing) that my EENR (Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee) committee recommended for adoption.  I’ll provide details below since I think they’re fairly interesting, but the quick summary is that we succeeded in getting the resolution passed, by petition at the business meeting and over considerable opposition.  While hardly aggressive in tone or anti-fracking in specifics (I’ve attached the final resolution), it was still rather a victory to get it passed.  I should also note that last year we got language into NLC Policy that supported full disclosure of fracking chemicals as well as more investigation into its impacts – but the resolution clarified these concerns and NLC’s requests for congressional action, and also clarified the role NLC lobbyists should play on this issue.
 
Besides the fracking issue, here are some comments on the conference and related NLC issues:

· I’ve been a vice-chair of EENR for two years, and was just appointed chair for 2013; policy committee chairs can serve for only one year.  As chair I’ve been invited to attend the leadership meeting with the NLC Board in early January.

· At the EENR meeting, the committee recommended changes to NLC Policy (generally this was simply a result of incorporating text from ongoing resolutions into formal Policy, as well as some reorganization).  We also renewed several resolutions – including two that I initiated a couple of years ago dealing with support for PACE programs and making it clear that federal regulations don’t preempt local building codes.  We also got updates on various federal issues.  I’ve attached three documents that provide updates on all of these issues.

· NLC decided to phase out the various CityFutures Panels (I was a vice chair of one of them), so I’ve at least tentatively joined the University Communities Council, which seemed like the best fit for Boulder.  I had a good discussion with that Council’s incoming chair and hopefully we can plan some interesting sessions.

· I took a tour of some of Boston’s “green” buildings (see greenovateboston.org).  They’ve done some pretty interesting things, including a “deep energy retrofit” of a good chunk of a very large affordable housing project.  Their Artists for Humanity (AFH) program – in its recent green building – is a rather remarkable effort that gets hundreds of at-risk teens into artistic endeavors.  I chatted with one of the city’s staff and learned that Boston has a 15% inclusionary zoning requirement
but they allow for rentals at 80-100% of AMI.

· I attended a number of conference sessions, generally in the areas of sustainability and technology.  In the latter arena – based, of course, on pretty limited information – it continues to feel as if Boulder is at least a little, and perhaps woefully, behind in using technology to provide two-way communication with residents.  Many cities appear to be implementing a variety of interesting applications (see the NLC.org web site for further information) that we should consider, something I think we currently have underway.  In the sustainability area, there is much work on energy efficiency in both the residential (using techniques similar to our EnergySmart) and commercial (using disclosure regulations, which Boston too is adopting) sectors, although nothing really stood out as being far out front.  Smart Grid technology came up several times – nothing particularly exciting other than, perhaps, what Tallahassee is doing with it unified electric/natural gas/water utility operations; I know and have spoken several times to their mayor and while it’s a bit hard to know just how effective their operation is or how it might relate to Boulder, it may well be worth some investigation.

· EENR’s fracking resolution was not the only controversy, although the other one was effectively delayed for a year.  The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Local Officials group (which is chaired by our local colleague Bob Gaiser, a councilmember from Broomfield) proposed two NLC resolutions: the first supported equal tax treatment for GLBT families; the second supported (I unfortunately don’t have notes on this so I’m not certain of the details) at least some form of recognition of GLBT couples.  The Policy Committee that should have weighed in on these issues did not do so, in large part due to getting it late in the year.  Both issues were taken to NLC’s Resolutions Committee, which is the formal body that determines which items go to the business meeting for adoption.  Somewhat surprisingly, the Committee supported both resolutions narrowly.  However, at a leadership meeting (which I attended) on the morning of the business meeting, the GLBT group decided to retract their resolutions and take them through the standard Policy Committee process next year.  There was much concern that these resolutions would severely split the membership, with some cities/states threatening to leave NLC, and I very much doubt either would have garnered sufficient support (2/3 majority needed at the business meeting).  But it seems very likely these will be on the agenda next year.
 
Finally, for those who are interested, here is the story of the fracking resolution.  I think it’s somewhat intriguing both as an inside view of how NLC works (or, sometimes, doesn’t), as well as just how controversial this issue is, even when the action being requested is very, very mild indeed.
 
EENR has worked on the fracking issue for at least two years, hearing from many interesting speakers, including scientists, regulators, industry officials, and environmental groups.  In Boston we heard a really fine presentation from the American Water Works Association, since one key piece of the resolution relates to the exemption that fracking has from the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Our committee has generally been supportive of some form of resolution, but has divided over the details – which were finally worked out earlier this year by a small subgroup.  In Boston we further amended the resolution, watering it down some more relative to the SDWA (I confess that was almost entirely my doing, but it was a strategic move that clearly paid off in the end), and then approving it unanimously.
 
I knew from last year’s NLC business meeting that controversial issues could be defeated on the floor.  At that time the EENR resolution on the Keystone XL Pipeline was fought by a semi-organized group of members.  As it happened, I was acting as the EENR chair at the time, and got caught up in an extremely mismanaged process (which NLC leadership and staff were rather embarrassed by).  In the end, the Pipeline resolution got more than 50% support (in a weighted voting process) but not the required 2/3 and so was defeated.
 
This year, I expected the same to happen with the fracking resolution.  To my surprise, we were stymied even earlier, when the Resolutions Committee defeated us by a single vote with, alas, a number of our supporters not present – but with a natural gas industry lobbyist quite present and quite clearly pulling the strings.  It was rather sleazy, actually.
 
So, we decided to petition our way back onto the agenda, something that we were told had almost no chance of final success.  We got our signatures fairly quickly from our committee members, who were all rather outraged at the process.  Our chair (and my good friend) unexpectedly needed to leave early, so once again I got to be acting chair.  Having learned from last year, I spent quite a bit of time talking with the NLC president (whom I know fairly well and who would be running the business meeting) and the parliamentarian about the process to be followed – and why we needed to “adjust” the rules just a little bit.
 
At the business meeting, our petition was brought up – and the petition signatures were immediately challenged (again, no doubt, with the lobbyist pulling the strings).  After a fairly long wait and a bit of scrambling, we were found to have sufficient “certified” signatures.  Then we needed 50% approval (in a weighted vote held after the voice vote was far too close to call) to even have a discussion of our resolution; luckily we won this, but it was very close.  Finally then we got to the issue itself.  As chair, I was first up and explained the EENR process, the action of the Resolutions Committee (none of this had been explained), the intent and actual (as opposed to misrepresented) content of the resolution, etc.  Quite a few current and past EENR members (several of whom now serve on NLC’s Board) spoke in favor, including even our most conservative member from South Carolina.  Several opponents spoke up as well, focusing mostly on issues like states’ rights and economic considerations; thankfully none of them were particularly clear or compelling.
 
And then there was a voice vote
and after a short pause the chair called it in our favor, rather to some surprise since it wasn’t really obvious that there was 2/3 support (even ignoring the weighted vote problem).  I expected that someone would call for a weighted vote, but either the opponents weren’t fast or savvy enough, or they realized that nobody wanted this to go on any longer, having now taken up the majority of the meeting.  So – a minor victory from the standpoint of actual impact, but I think a fairly major one in terms of keeping fracking on NLC’s agenda and beating, at least for now, the lobbyist and those who, clearly, want nothing, no matter how mild, to stand in their way on this issue.
 
--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fall 2012 hydraulic fracturing resolution final.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 92503 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121224/0086dbc4/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fall 2012 EENR executive summary.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 17957 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121224/0086dbc4/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fall 2012 Legislative Update - COC.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 25354 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121224/0086dbc4/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2012-2013 Supreme Court Cases.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23718 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121224/0086dbc4/attachment-0003.obj