The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Carbon neutrality won’t be required of mega-projects in Gunnison County under the Special Development Project Regulations, at least not yet.
The Gunnison Board of County Commissioners decided to change the language in the resolution to require that large projects only meet the carbon emissions standard of other, smaller projects, but resolved to tighten the regulations for everyone over time.
The decision came after hearing some well-argued concerns from proponents of some potential mega-projects at a public hearing on the resolution on Tuesday, August 25.
In a letter from Perry Anderson, director of community relations for the Mt. Emmons Moly Company, which is proposing a molybdenum mine near Crested Butte that would be governed by the resolution, the issue of requiring carbon neutrality is taken up first.
After acknowledging the need to address the release of greenhouse gas emissions, Anderson writes, “The Company is concerned that the Planning Commission is attempting to solve this international issue in a two sentence provision in the Resolution.”
He goes on to say, “The Planning Commission has not considered how this new standard [of carbon neutrality] would stifle economic diversity and development in the county.”
The concerns Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) expressed with the provision were about feasibility rather than philosophy. CBMR has proposed an expansion of their facilities onto neighboring Snodgrass Mountain, which could require approval under the SDPR.
CBMR director of planning John Sale said, “We’re interested in finding ways to reduce our carbon footprint, but the term ‘carbon neutral,’ as it is used in the resolution, is so wide-ranging. How do you accomplish that?”
In the final weeks before the Planning Commission sent their version of the SDPR to the BOCC for adoption, the provision requiring carbon neutrality was included after much debate among the planning commissioners.
The provision simply says, “Proposed projects shall be carbon neutral,” meaning there can be “no net contribution into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide or other gases that when emitted into the atmosphere trap heat,” as a result of the operation.
One of the champions of the provision on the Planning Commission was Rich Karas, who stood up to defend the consistency of the resolution with the BOCC’s stated goals, the way it was written.
“I think we need to take a look at the philosophy of this regulation. The county has adopted a strategy to reduce overall emissions to 2005 levels and more than 15 percent from where they are today,” he pointed out. “The big projects should not impose a burden on residents of the county. I feel there is no solution but to ask carbon neutrality of big projects.”
He also explained the Planning Commission’s rationale that there are markets for purchasing carbon-offsets, which provides a way for project proponents to meet the standard.
Planning commissioner Ramon Reed told the BOCC, “This is probably the single place in the entire document that there was some considerable discomfort among members of the Planning Commission.”
Reed said he was one of the uncomfortable planning commissioners but did not think not including the provision—when it was ultimately the BOCC’s decision to include it or not—was worth holding up the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the document.
The BOCC elected to possibly amend the SDPR to say that projects applying under the resolution should meet the county’s current environmental standard, whatever it is at the time the application is filed.
That way, the commissioners said, the requirement of big projects would be no different from the standard for other development projects. The commissioners hoped it would serve as motivation to take a fresh look at the way carbon emissions are handled in the Land Use Resolution, which sets the standard for most development in Gunnison County.
