Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label

News Feed
Saturday, April 19, 2025

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking. The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Read Next Renewables surged in 2024 — but so did fossil fuels Matt Simon Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100 percent by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. Read Next Efforts were underway to prevent CO2 pipeline leaks. The Trump administration quietly derailed them. Tristan Baurick Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66 percent to 80 percent of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37 percent and 43 percent, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. Read Next The Hidden Cost of Gasoline Kate Yoder The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.” Copyright 2025 Capital & Main This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label on Apr 19, 2025.

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.”

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.”

The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought.

The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale. 

Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking.

The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness.

“The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.”

Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office.

Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution.

Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September.

Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100 percent by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work.

The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email.

Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results.

The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College.

Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.” 

A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66 percent to 80 percent of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37 percent and 43 percent, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.  

“These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.       

In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise.

The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.  

“The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.”

Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures.

Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified.

“This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.”

Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.”

“Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.”

Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed.

“I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee. 

“Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.”

Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label on Apr 19, 2025.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.” The post In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label appeared first on .

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking.   The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26% by 2025 and 50% by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100% by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. A bright yellow warning label on a gas pump in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo courtesy the city of Cambridge. Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66% to 80% of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37% and 43%, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.”   Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

Oil company fined record $18 million for defying state orders to stop work on pipeline

The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission's largest.

In summary The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission’s largest. The California Coastal Commission today fined an oil company a record $18 million for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill nearly a decade ago. The vote sets the stage for a potentially high-stakes test of the state’s power to police oil development along the coast. The onshore pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015. Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to restart the Santa Ynez offshore oil operation. The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist orders and continuing its work. “Our orders were valid and legally issued, and Sable’s refusal to comply is a refusal to follow the law,” said Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who also is a member of the Santa Barbara City Council. “Their refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.” “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted. As a kid, I was traumatized by the ’69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.”Carol Millar, Santa Barbara County resident The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair and maintenance work. At a 5-hour public hearing in Santa Barbara today, more than 100 speakers lined up, many of them urging the commission to penalize Sable and stop its work. Some invoked memories of the 2015 Refugio OIl Spill as well as the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill caused by a blowout on a Union Oil drilling rig. Public outrage over that spill helped shape the environmental movement, led to the first Earth Day and contributed to the enactment of many national environmental laws. “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted,” said Santa Barbara County resident Carol Millar. “As a kid, I was traumatized by the ‘69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.” Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, said the commission was overreaching because of the spill caused by the previous owners. “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region,” he told commissioners. “It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill. It’s not about the restart of the pipeline …it’s not about the future of oil production or fossil fuel in California.” “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region. It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill.”Steve Rusch, Sable Offshore corp. In repairing the former, corroded pipelines, the company is seeking to restart production of the Santa Ynez oil operation, which includes three offshore rigs, according to an investor presentation by the company. Operations stopped after the 2015 spill.   Sable had been excavating around the former pipelines and placing cement bags on the seafloor below its oil and water pipelines. The Coastal Commission’s fine levied against Sable is the highest ever levied against a company, according to a commission spokesperson. The commission voted to lower the $18 million fine to potentially just under $15 million if Sable complies with the state’s orders and applies for a coastal development permit. Beginning last year, commission staff charged the company with multiple violations of coastal laws, including unpermitted construction and excavation along a 14-mile oil pipeline on the Gaviota Coast, including areas offshore. The enforcement division of the commission said Sable undertook major work at multiple locations without securing the required coastal development permits. The company dug large pits, cleared vegetation, graded roads, placed concrete offshore among other work, according to a presentation by the staff today. In its presentation, commission staff said these actions went beyond routine maintenance and amounted to a full rebuild of the pipeline. Coastal Commission officials emphasized that the work posed serious risks to the environment, including wetlands and other sensitive habitats, potentially harming protected species, including western pond turtles and steelhead.  “The timing of the implemented development is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season,” said Stephanie Cook, an attorney with the commission. “This work has a high potential to adversely impact these habitat areas.” The staff said it spent months trying to get Sable to cooperate but the company provided incomplete or misleading information. “The timing…is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season.”Stephanie Cook, Coastal Commission Attorney Rusch, in a statement issued after the hearing, said the company is conducting routine pipeline repair and maintenance, and said the actions were allowed under old permits issued by Santa Barbara County. The work is taking place in areas already affected by previous construction and use, and the company says the state cannot override the county’s interpretation of its permits.  “Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner,” Rusch said in the statement. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.” However, the validity of the county permit for the pipeline is in dispute. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a February vote did not approve transferring the county permit to Sable, the new owner. The vote was 2-2, with one member abstaining because the pipeline runs through her property. County officials are still trying to decide their next step. One concern of county officials is whether Sable has the financial ability and adequate insurance to handle a major oil spill.  The pipeline dispute comes as the Trump administration moves to boost domestic oil and gas production while sidelining efforts to develop wind and solar.  Several workers who said they were affiliated with the company spoke out in support along with others who said the company would boost the local economy.  Evelyn Lynn, director of operations at Aspen Helicopters in Oxnard, said she supported Sable’s efforts because it would give her company a boost.“If they’re not allowed to start their efforts again, this will have huge collateral damage to all of our local businesses, and also to our company in particular, and all of our local people who live here,” Lynn said. “All of our employees are required to live in California. They are all local, and they are all affected.” The Coastal Commission’s permits are not the only step the company has to take to operate the pipeline. Multiple state agencies regulate pipelines, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Oil Spill and Prevention Response and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Environmental groups have called for a full environmental review of the pipeline under the California Environmental Quality Act.  National environmental organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity have weighed in, along with local advocates, to support the Coastal Commission. A group born out of the original Santa Barbara oil spill — the Environmental Defense Center — opposes the project and efforts to restart drilling. The Surfrider Foundation also launched a “Don’t Enable Sable” campaign, and several beachgoers spoke out against the project. Who should pay billions for climate disasters? California and others target Big Oil — will that work? March 3, 2025March 3, 2025 Legislature delays oil well monitoring by more than 3 years, restores funding August 31, 2024August 31, 2024

What happens to the land after people are forced to retreat?

Managed retreat can be traumatic and hard. But with good planning, the land left behind can serve new purposes, and make public what was once private.

Christina Hanna, CC BY-SAOnce floodwaters subside, talk of planned retreat inevitably rises. Within Aotearoa New Zealand, several communities from north to south – including Kumeū, Kawatiri Westport and parts of Ōtepoti Dunedin – are considering future relocations while others are completing property buyouts and categorisations. Planned retreats may reduce exposure to harm, but the social and cultural burdens of dislocation from land and home are complex. Planning, funding and physically relocating or removing homes, taonga or assets – and even entire towns – is challenging. Internationally, research has focused on why, when and how planned retreats occur, as well as who pays. But we explore what happens to the places we retreat from. Our latest research examines 161 international case studies of planned retreat. We analysed what happens beyond retreat, revealing how land use has changed following withdrawal of human activities. We found a wide range of land use following retreat. In some cases, comprehensive planning for future uses of land was part of the retreat process. But in others we found a failure to consider these changing places. Planned retreats have happened in response to various climate and hazard risks, including sea-level rise and coastal erosion, tsunami, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and landslides. The case studies we investigated range from gradual transitions to sudden changes, such as from residential or business activities to conservation or vacant lands. In some cases, “sea change” is evident, where once dry land becomes foreshore and seabed. Through our research, we identified global “retreat legacies”. These themes demonstrate how communities across the world have sought similar outcomes, highlighting primary land-use patterns following retreat. Case studies reveal several themes in what happens to land after people withdraw. Hanna,C, White I,Cretney, R, Wallace, P, CC BY-SA Nature legacies The case studies show significant conversions of private to public land, with new nature and open-space reserves. Sites have been rehabilitated and floodplains and coastal ecosystems restored and reconnected. Open spaces are used for various purposes, including as nature, community, stormwater or passive recreational reserves. Some of these new zones may restrict structures or certain activities, depending on the risk. For example, due to debris flow hazard in Matatā in the Bay of Plenty, only transitory recreation or specific low-risk activities are allowed in the post-retreat environment because of the high risk to human life. Planning and investment in new open-space zones range from basic rehabilitation (grassed sites) to established parks and reserves, such as the Grand Forks riverfront greenway which borders rivers in the twin US cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. This area now hosts various recreational courses and connected trails as well as major flood protection measures. Project Twin Streams has transformed former residential sites to allow rivers to roam in the floodplain. Wikimedia Commons/Ingolfson, CC BY-SA Nature-based adaptations are a key function in this retreat legacy. For example, Project Twin Streams, a large-scale environmental restoration project in Waitakere, West Auckland, has transformed former residential sites into drainage reserves to make room for rivers in the floodplain. Importantly, not all retreats require significant land-use change. Continued farming, heritage preservation and cultural activities show that planned retreats are not always full and final withdrawals from a place. Instead, they represent an adapted relationship. While sensitive activities are relocated, other practices may remain, such as residents’ continued access to the old village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji for fishing and farming. Social and economic legacies Urban development in a small number of retreated sites has involved comprehensive spatial reorganisation, with planning for new urban esplanades, improved infrastructure and cultural amenities. One example is the comprehensive infrastructure masterplan for the Caño Martín Peña district in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which involves communities living along a tidal channel. The plan applied a community-first approach to retreat. It integrated infrastructure, housing, open space, flood mitigation and ecological planning. Alternatively, the decision to remove stopbanks and return the landscape to a “waterscape” can become a tourism feature, such as in the marshlands of the Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands. A museum is dedicated to the transformed environment. The Biesbosch marshland nature reserve was created following historic flooding. Shutterstock/Rudmer Zwerver Where there was no post-retreat planning or site rehabilitation, ghost towns such as Missouri’s Pattonsburg leave eerie reminders of the costs of living in danger zones. Vacant and abandoned sites also raise environmental justice and ecological concerns about which retreat spaces are invested in and rehabilitated to avoid urban blight and environmental risks. Retreat sites may include landfills or contaminated land, requiring major site rehabilitation. The 12 case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate a range of new land uses. These include new open-space reserves, the restoration of floodplains and coastal environments, risk mitigation and re-development, and protection measures such as stopbanks. Moving beyond retreat Our research highlights how planned retreats can create a transition in landscapes, with potential for a new sense of place, meaning and strategic adaptation. We found planned retreats have impacts beyond the retreat site, which reinforces the value of spatial planning. The definition and practices of “planned or managed retreat” must include early planning to account of the values and uses the land once had. Any reconfigurations of land and seascapes must imagine a future well beyond people’s retreat. Christina Hanna received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund. Iain White received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake. He is New Zealand's national contact point for climate, energy and mobility for the European Union's Horizon Europe research program. Raven Cretney received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa.Pip Wallace does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Cleanup Underway of the Keystone Oil Pipeline Spill in North Dakota

Trucks and workers started a cleanup effort at the site of a spill of the Keystone oil pipeline in rural North Dakota

The pipeline ruptured Tuesday morning in southeastern North Dakota and was shut down within two minutes by an employee who heard a mechanical bang. An aerial photo released Wednesday shows a black, pondlike pool of oil suspended in a partially snowy field that's traversed by tire tracks. A farmer told The Associated Press he could smell the scent of crude oil, carried by the wind.South Bow, a liquid pipelines business that manages the pipeline, estimated the spill's volume at 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons. Keystone's entire system remains shut down. That's not yet known. The company is investigating what caused the spill and how long repairs might take, spokesperson Kristin Anderson said Wednesday.The spill is not a minor one, said Paul Blackburn, a policy analyst with Bold Alliance, an environmental and landowners group that fought the pipeline's extension, called Keystone XL.The estimated volume of 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons of crude oil, is equal to 16 tanker trucks of oil, he said. That estimate could increase over time, he added.Blackburn said the bigger picture is what he called the Keystone Pipeline's history of spills at a higher rate than other pipelines. He compared Keystone to the Dakota Access oil pipeline since the latter came online in June 2017. In that period, Keystone's system has spilled nearly 1.2 million gallons (4.5 million liters) of oil, while Dakota Access spilled 1,282 gallons (4,853 liters), Blackburn said.In its update, the company said the pipeline “was operating within its design and regulatory approval requirements at the time of the incident.”The 2,700-mile (4,350-kilometer) pipeline originates in Alberta, Canada, and carries heavy tar sands crude oil south across the Dakotas and Nebraska before splitting to carry oil both to refineries in Illinois and south to Oklahoma and Texas.The $5.2 billion Keystone Pipeline was built in 2010. TC Energy built the pipeline which is operated by South Bow as of last year. How has the company responded? The spill is contained to an agricultural field. In an update Wednesday, South Bow said it has multiple on-site vacuum trucks beginning to recover the oil. Continuous air quality monitoring is underway. The pipeline's affected segment is isolated, and the company said it's evaluating plans for a return to service.Phone messages and emails were left Wednesday with the state Department of Environmental Quality and the Ransom County sheriff about the spill and response.Myron Hammer, an adjacent landowner who farms the land affected by the spill, said it hasn’t yet adversely affected him, aside from the smell of crude oil or sulfur carrying when the wind blows in a certain direction. The pipeline company appears to be doing its due diligence to fix the problem, he said.There’s been a lot of truck traffic bringing equipment to the scene, he said. His house is about 1.75 miles (2.82 kilometers) away.“It’s become a beehive of activity in the proximity there,” Hammer said. Some of his property is being used as a staging area for equipment.The spill site is north of Fort Ransom, a tiny town in a hilly, forested area known for scenic views and outdoor recreation. A state park and hiking trails are nearby. Will gas prices increase? They very well might, though energy experts have different outlooks.The pipeline's shutdown could quickly raise gas prices in the Midwest and could have more effects on diesel and jet fuel because refineries will have less of the crude oil they need, said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at the University of Houston.Higher-priced diesel could lead to higher grocery prices because diesel trucks transport those products, he said.Other experts said the refineries likely have a supply of crude oil already on hand that would help protect against immediate impacts of the shutdown.“Even if the pipeline gets cut off completely for, say, 2 or 3 weeks, they have enough crude (oil) to continue refining for gasoline,” said Mark LaCour, editor-in-chief of the Oil and Gas Global Network.Gas prices increased for a third consecutive week in the U.S., but that could change as oil prices drop amid the escalating global trade war.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Commission that regulates development in Columbia River Gorge faces uncertain future

The fate of the commission could have major implications for tourism and recreation in the gorge.

Washington state lawmakers are considering defunding a commission that regulates development in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, which spans 85 miles in Oregon and Washington between east Multnomah County and the Deschutes River.The fate of the commission could have major implications for tourism and recreation in the gorge, which attracts roughly 2 million visitors each year. But it’s unclear if Washington legislators can legally halt funding for the commission, which also receives state dollars from Oregon.The Columbia River Gorge Commission has long been responsible for protecting and enhancing the scenic area, which totals nearly 300,000 acres across Washington and Oregon. The commission helps enforce the area’s management plan, which details land use restrictions and building regulations that homebuilders and businesses must abide by.The commission’s oversight has prevented the construction of large commercial and housing developments aimed to accommodate tourists, which could disrupt the natural beauty of the area, according to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, a local conservation nonprofit.“People are coming out because this area is protected,” said Renee Tkach, conservation director for the nonprofit. “It has beautiful recreation and has public lands that are open to all. And it’s not just a local treasure or regional, it’s become an international destination too.”But the 13-member commissioner has long provoked the ire of some Washington residents who live in the scenic area. Those residents contend that the commission’s oversight makes it more difficult for local residents to modify their homes and often delays or nixes developments that require approval from the commission.“There’s been significant friction ... between the oversight that the gorge commission has provided and the needs of people who live in the community,” said Skamania County Commissioner Brian Nichols. “I think (the commission) has been potentially a little bit too aggressive in trying to protect the gorge at the expense of people in the community.”Supporters of the commission say it has enhanced the environmental health of the gorge while accommodating economic growth where necessary. Opponents say they aren’t necessarily supportive of large-scale developments, but instead aim to slash some regulatory red tape for low-income residents.This long-simmering battle came to a head in late March when the Washington House Appropriations Committee approved an amended bill that removed all state funding for the commission in the biennium that begins this July.The move quickly prompted immense pushback from conservation groups. More than 1,200 individuals have sent letters to Washington lawmakers in support of funding the commission, according to Tim Dobyns, communications and engagement director for Friends of the Columbia Gorge.Without the commission, its supporters say, developers would face an easier path building large-scale projects in rural lands, which could have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment and wildlife. Most of that development would likely occur on the Washington side of the river, which has fewer land use restrictions in the area than Oregon.Lawmakers in the Washington Senate and House have until April 27 to synthesize their proposed budgets into a final spending plan for the next biennium. The Senate, unlike the House, included funding for the commission in its version of the next state budget.Conservation groups say defunding the commission would be illegal.Per the agreement between Oregon and Washington that established the commission, each state must “adequately” fund the commission to fulfill its responsibilities. Furthermore, it requires both states to contribute the same amount of money to the commission, and Oregon lawmakers have not indicated any plans to change their normal contributions. Oregon and Washington have provided the commission around $2.2 million apiece in the current biennium.On April 4, the Washington State Office of Financial Management sent a lengthy list of budget concerns to the Legislature’s top budget writers. In it, the office recommended restoring funding for the gorge commission. If lawmakers want to defund the commission, they would have to end Washington’s participation in the bi-state agreement by repealing a state law, officials wrote.“Defunding is not an option,” said Tkach. “You cannot eradicate the funding completely, because then there would be no gorge commission staff to be able to regulate and enforce the ... management plan.”That would be a good thing, opponents of the commission say.“We don’t want the natural beauty to go away,” said Nichols. “We’re not trying to change it and add a lot of growth. ... But we do want to see processes that are streamlined to support people in our community.”— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com/subscribe.Latest local politics stories

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.