Here is the transcript from last week’s Candidate’s Energy Forum sponsored by the Denver Petroleum Club, Denver Athletic Club and 9News. Adam Schrager from 9News moderated the event.

Adam Schrager: Our first question comes from Anderson Bishop of Hallador Energy, who says the state legislature recently passed that bill that requires Xcel to switch from coal to natural gas in several of those power plants. Do you think it’s a good policy, generally, for the government to drive electricity generation away from the use of coal as a fuel?

John Hickenlooper: Well, I don’t have a- you know, I’m agnostic, and this probably isn’t what gas explorationists want to hear, but I’m agnostic about the oil– the fuel source. We need energy; we all drive vehicles, we live in heated and air conditioned homes.

I think the key is coal — we’ve gotta– and I’m happy to support the investment of significant resources and can we create clean coal, right? Is there such a thing, and is there a process by which we can get the particulate emissions and a lot of the greenhouse gas emissions down to a much more livable level? But you look at how far we are out of compliance with the new Clean Air mandates, and these aren’t wild, arm-waving mandates from some crazy scientist. These are people that are actually looking at our health over a long period of time, and if we don’t clean up our air, we know that we’re going to have a certain level of asthma and other respiratory diseases and a certain level of mortality. I think that drives us in the short term to say, until we have clean coal, we should be moving it more- more coal plants to natural gas. It’s– I mean, clearly it’s not an economical decision. Coal is significantly cheaper, but when you put in all those projected health expenses, it comes certainly much closer, and if anything, a lot of people think you save money by using the natural gas.

Scott McInnis: Well, the first thing in a bill like that you’ve got to look for is rate protection. So I grew up in the coal mine. Glenwood Springs was a coal mine town. A lot of us think it was tourism; we did have the pool, but it was Mid Continent Coal and Coke. In fact, probably most of my graduating class went to the mines.

So, the first thing you’ve gotta do if you’ve gotta look at protection for the ratepayer. That concerns me, and that bill– excuse me, I wasn’t part of that bill, but second thing is, you know, the state has to take a leadership role. And the state, especially when we talk about clean water or clean air, and clean water, by the way, and issues like that, the state is a partner here. It’s our environment; those are our resources. But that said, let me tell you, clean coal, our state is so blessed. We have so many Colorado products, we have such a great future ahead if, in fact, we get the right leadership in place. Whether it’s clean coal, whether it’s solar, natural gas. Now we’ve got oil. I mean, significant oil finds, like the Rangely Oil Field, where we’ve had 800 million barrels over 40 years. I bet a lot of people have never even heard of it.

So the answer is, the state’s going to have to be involved in a lot of these decisions. But any kind of bill that dictates whether it’s renewables, or dictates this on behalf of the government, they have to be very careful before they stray into the private marketplace. And second, you have got to protect the ratepayer. So the ratepayer– this is not the time to experiment with the ratepayer.

Adam Schrager: This month, a new pricing/billing system went into effect for Xcel. Renee Sanders wanted to know what do you think of that new two-tier billing system?

John Hickenlooper: Well, we have– and again, I think this comes down to your point of view on a lot of these issues, it’s analogous to what we’ve done with water over the last five and a half years. You know, I don’t control Denver Water, but I appoint the board, the five-person board that manages Denver Water, and water is a precious resource, right? There are risks that go with getting into– I mean, if you look at the potential for climate change, and I know there is a great many skeptics in this audience about climate change. And I’m not, you know, a crazy, saying it’s absolutely happening, it’s happening at that level. But it is a risk out there, right? It’s a compelling scientific model. There are obviously some loopholes in a lot of the evidence, but it’s something we should be aware of.

In terms of water, we looked at it and said, “All right, if you want to affect the consumption, you really have to be willing to look at the pricing,” and we don’t have enough water in this state. We can already see we don’t have enough water in the West, even without any climate change projections. So, what we’ve done with water is we’ve said, “All right, we’re going to dramatically conserve water, push our customers, push our municipalities, everyone who uses water, to reduce their consumption,” and we’ve been successful. We’ve dropped, over the last five years, the consumption of water among Denver Water users by 20%. But that means you’re paying more per gallon. The individuals here– and a lot of my citizens would come up and say, “Well, why are we paying more for this water?” And I’d say, “Well, in the end, part of what makes Denver, Denver is the fact that we have, you know, these agricultural uses on the Eastern Plains that guarantee us fresh, secure source of fresh and healthy food, that we have traditional ranching and fly fishing and skiing and whitewater rafting,” all these uses on the West Slope, that are what makes Denver, Denver, right? It makes– it’s what makes Ft. Collins, Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs - is we’re not locating these cities in Kansas or Nebraska. They’re in Colorado, and that creates a shared– you know, a shared linkage that we have to treat their water like our own. I think energy is, to a certain extent, the same. We need to be more conservation-minded for all the reasons. All of the foreign– all the different issues around energy, conservation is going to apply in all different– not just in our homes, not just in electrical use, not just in transportation, but we have to be more conservation-minded long-term, or we’re just going to put ourselves for these, you know, fluctuations and spikes.

Scott McInnis: I’m big on transparency, and that’s a very confusing bill, as you know. And first of all, they have to estimate. By the way, my meter broke down. I didn’t know this — you may not know this, either. It wasn’t my fault, not my meter. They came in, I’ve been paying my regular bills, and they said, “Well, the meter has been broken for six months. Here’s your bill.” I said, “Well, now wait a minute, I’m not brightest guy, but how did you come up with this number?” He said, “We’re entitled to estimate it?” “Well, what do you mean, you estimate it? Why don’t I get to estimate it? It’s like $300 a month more than I paid last year.” “I’m sorry, we’re the ones with the power to estimate.”

So Public Service is a public utility and the reason they’re a public utility is the get a monopoly, they get a franchise, they get an area. And we can talk about a lot of things, like Shoshone water rights and so I’m tight with this stuff. But, on that bill, it has to be– it should absolutely, the Public Utility Commission, and I have three appointments there, the Public Utility Commission should absolutely demand that it be simplified, the billing be simplified, and that it be transparent.

Now what do I mean by transparent? And there’s been quite a disagreement between myself and one of my opponents here recently. I think that on the renewables, the extra charge — remember that when the renewables were first put into place, it was going to protect the ratepayer with no more than I think 50 cents. And pretty soon it moves to 1%, not a cent, but now 1%, and then pretty soon, 2%. I want the consumers out there to know where they are subsidizing. I want the consumers to know what the consumers to know what the renewables are costing them. In a tight economic- not tight, but in a crisis economic situation we’re in, I want the people I work for to help me make the decision — you want to subsidize K through 12, kindergarten through 12th grade? I think the answer is going to be yes, or should we subsidize over here. So disclosure, transparency, and simplification is– what– I would be– lean on the PUC appointees very heavily to demand that. And it’s not a complicated form to do it, by the way.

Adam Schrager: This current administration has spent a lot of energy developing what it calls a “new energy economy.” Christie Haas from Luca Technologies says, “What role will new energy technologies, including emerging technologies, that bridge the renewable and traditional sectors, play in your energy plan for Colorado, and how will your plan encourage the development of these technologies?”

John Hickenlooper: I think Governor Ritter has created a platform for a new energy economy that we will certainly build on. Colorado is widely regarded as one of the centers, if not the center, for a new energy economy. And as these technologies emerge, they are going to create industries that will persevere. I don’t think it’s going to happen as rapidly — I think we’re still going to have decades of dependence on oil and gas and coal and uranium, you know, the other sources of energy. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be making that transition and making those investments so that we become aware of the problems before they’re already upon us.

The one issue as we see some of the trends around the world, right — the level of energy consumption by China, right, and you look at the size and the raw numbers of that, the issues around the cost of getting large reserves of oil and how deeper we have to go, the risks that come along with that, and I’m not even talking about the problems we have in the Gulf right now. I’m just talking about as you continue to look for larger and larger exploration targets, there are increasing risks, and part of the way of mitigating that is to make sure that, A, you do have a new energy economy transition process, and B, pricing, that we talked about earlier.

Scott McInnis: Now obviously renewables are very critical, but we’ve gotta be honest about this. We’ve gotta be straightforward. 30% renewables standard by 2020. Now what happens if we don’t have it in-house? We buy it out of house. What happens if– and by the way, this is at a point in time when we have a huge amount of natural gas. We have a great industry. We have enough to supply our own state and be an exporter for the next 150 years. Great opportunities. But all of the sudden, if we don’t meet that 30%, we’re going to have reach outside and pay premium prices for it. I think as a leader, and I think the legislature has an absolute obligation to explain to you, where did you come up with the 30% number? Is it kind of like the 8% or the 8.5% number you pulled out as an annualized return for PERA? Look where that got us. So when it comes to these renewables, of course they play a critical part. All of this energy combined– in Colorado– you know, one of the reasons we’ve got such great on our solar and things like that, even the reason we got Space Command, is the centralized location. We have a lot of things other states can’t duplicate. But we shouldn’t impose upon ourselves conditions that I’m not sure we can meet without going to the ratepayer, which are those people I talk– not the wealthy people, but I’m talking about the Rosalees and my buddy John and my next door neighbor Ron and his wife Lucy. That’s who I’m talking about. Can those people– I mean, what are they going to have to pay to get a 30% or to some other kind of thing.

So, let me summarize by saying we have got to be realistic on renewables and we cannot ignore the wonderful products we have in this state, like natural gas, clean coal, and other things.

On top of that, you can talk about transmission. Recently, you know, Public Service, or Xcel now says that they’re going to have a problem meeting the earlier renewable rate, or whatever, because they’re having problems with transmission lines. There are a lot of things that tie into this.

Adam Schrager: If you believe that it will take decades, though, to– this next question from Jim Sanders, the state and governor just signed into law a 30% renewable energy standard by 2030. What are your thoughts about that legislation? Is it doable?

John Hickenlooper: I think it’s doable. You know, I think it’s ambitious, and I’m not sure– again, I have not seen — we’ve asked to get a breakdown on exactly what the cost differentials will be, whether that timeline, you know, what the– what the consequences will be of that timeline. So until I have those numbers, I don’t want to say that it was overly ambitious. But it’s certainly very ambitious.

But as I said, those– as we– as we have built more solar photovoltaic systems, those PV systems have come down dramatically, right? The production cost, when you begin to get into mass production, have been cut almost in half, so you’re beginning to see real, genuine, incremental savings, both in solar, in wind, and even in geothermal. And I think as those technologies evolve, A, you’re going to bring those prices closer together eventually. And B, you’re going to, again, lay the foundations for industries that will be quite strong in the future.

Scott McInnis: Well, the first thing you’ve got to look at is, is it achievable? You’ve got to do forensic auditing on it, frankly. It’s kind of like going to PERA. What are you going to do on the 8% return for PERA?

Well, first of all– I mean, our family is in business and stuff, and our overnight investment gets about 1/10 of 1%, maybe 3/4 of 1%. So you go to PERA and you say, “All right, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, let’s do a little forensic auditing here — how did you get to 8%?” It’s the same thing. How was that 30% driven?

You know, and it’s pretty easy to drive it today, because it ain’t our problem today. Well, let me tell you, the ratepayer, here in about nine years, when they get a notice from Xcel or they get a notice from the utility provider, “Here’s what your bills are going to look like next year,” our responsibility today is to examine that in detail and then as governor, if I can’t make the math work, it’s my responsibility to go to our leadership and say, “Come on, we’ve gotta be straight with the people. We’ve got to let the people know, is this achievable? Where did this number come from?” I have yet to have anybody show me the scientific — not the emotional model, not the “I hope we’re here” or “What a great goal” or “Let’s be known as the leading state in the country for demanding renewables.” That’s not what I’m looking for. I have yet to be shown the scientific model that shows to me that to the majority of the people in this state, I can look them in the eye and say without crushing you as a ratepayer, we can get to 30% renewables. That’s the assessment, the most critical assessment, step one, before you go to step two. And failure to do that only compounds the problem.

Adam Schrager: Jonathan Langer, an attorney here in town, wanted to know, are there places that should be off-limits to energy development, and if so, how do you make that calculation?

John Hickenlooper: Sure. I think there are certain places– I don’t think we should be looking for oil and gas in Rocky Mountain National Park, for one example. I mean, you can go down– I think the issue is, how many lands are you going to make off, and what is that criteria going to be? And I don’t think it should be a small group of people in a back room somewhere making that decision. I think it’s got to be representatives of communities affected, you know, state legislators who have been elected, and industry representatives, so you get to, again, to you get to a point of building these compromises without, you know, sacrificing–

My feeling, and I’ve seen it both ways, that when you get into a polarized situation, where suddenly the environmental community is coming in and saying, “All right, this has got to be completely off, this has got to be completely off, this–” then the pushback comes from the industry, equally strong, and says, “Well, we’re going to do this and we’re going to do that.” Both sides spend huge amounts of effort and time and resources without getting, generally, to the appropriate compromise until, you know, long after– to the loss of both sides.

So I certainly feel that there are places that have to be off-limits. The process by which you do that has got to be careful and you know, the one thing that we’ve done in the city, right, when we built the Justice Center, you know, the experts in our bureaucracy came to us and said, “Here’s how many jail beds, here’s what all the things we needed.” When we actually went out and worked with the community for 16 months, it came back we needed a different level of courtrooms and a different number of jail beds, and we built a very different Justice Center than what the experts told us. In the end, I think we are validated, that that– by all accounts, it’s a much better final design. And that process, which, as someone from the private sector, I hate - I cannot tell you how strenuously I hate being in meetings and feeling that I’m stuck there. But the results are powerful, if you create the right process.

Scott McInnis: Yeah, sure, and of course, there are. I mean, you can start– with public lands, it’s like imagine yourself running a huge ranch, massive ranch, massive ranch. Well, for different areas you have different management tools, and the government does the same thing. We have– and it ranges all the way. The most extreme management tool out there, the most extreme, zero local input — you can’t even take an emergency helicopter in there without permission, is a wilderness area. I’m the author of wilderness legislation. I know wilderness like the back of my hand. So those are areas that are so pristine, they truly fit the definition — not the general conception of wilderness, but the true definition of “a wilderness area,” and you go down. We go down from there. We have national parks, we have monument areas. But we have resource areas as well. So, if you– it’s like your own ranch. You have to customize each portion and go in there and say, “All right, what’s our access, what are we going to do if we develop resources? Can we put a pipeline? I mean, what are we going to disturb if we put an underground pipeline in there? What do we do for transmission lines? What do we do to maintain?” And not just oil and gas. Keep in mind, watersheds.

I’ll tell you, interestingly, this Hidden Gems Wilderness Area down there, take a close look at where all that is. It’s all over the place. What you better be careful is watch out which watersheds it’s in. Now, my guess is, the Denver watershed is excluded from it, but you take a look and look at that, so yes, the answer is, are there areas — there’s lots of areas. And right now, as I said earlier, I think the statistics, BLM, so don’t include forest– and by the way, I wrote my own forest plan for the White River National Forest. But 99% of BLM land has no exploration and probably the 99 of that 99% won’t have exploration in the future. But if we’ve got something like Jonah, where we can– you know, Jonah is what, one to 50? In other words, what one of the wells in Jonah produces, it takes 50 wells elsewhere? Why wouldn’t we go to Jonah, instead of going to 50 other locations? So we have to prioritize. So there’s a lot of different management tools which will not allow natural resource development.

Adam Schrager: Daniel Schnee from El Paso Western Pipeline Group wants to know if you’re elected, what are the measures you’ll take to achieve the desired balance that they were the purported goals of those rules?

John Hickenlooper: Well, there are certainly a number of places where the industry feels that there were broad mandates that didn’t have specific application in certain basins, and I think in those cases, we should be open to letting the Oil and Gas Commission moderate and ameliorate those places of excessive regulation. But I think it’s key that we’ve got to hold ourselves to a high standard of security. In other words, we have to build– the oil and gas industry has to build a relationship with the public and a level of trust, or else- again, this– this thing swings both ways, and I think the real benefit is beginning to find those middle paths and saying, “All right, if we’re going to go out and decide– if we feel some of these rules are really onerous and excessively so, rather than throwing out–” I mean, this is one of my issues with Scott McInnis, is he’s come out and said he wants to throw out all the new regulations and start over. Well, I think you’re just creating a firestorm and again, a lot of needless animosity. Let’s go through the process of letting the Oil and Gas Commission work through and find the appropriate compromises, and make sure that we still– while we’re holding ourselves– we need to have twin beacons of direction. One is holding ourselves to the highest standards of, you know, protecting our landscapes. And the other is making sure that we try to make it as economically viable, to create as many jobs as we can, to get every MCF and barrel of oil we can, effectively, out of our land.

Scott McInnis: Number one, you look at the Oil and Gas Commission itself and who’s on that Commission. And as is standard practice– now, most of them, their terms expire in 2011, and it’s not just it’s the Democrats doing it, the Republicans do it, too. Generally when an administration ends, they have a lot of resignations so they can quickly put their appointees in, so they can serve through your term. So you look at the appointees, who’s on there, and whether or not you can move them off. And I– when I was the majority leader, I can tell you that I never needed Democrat votes. I had so many Republicans, I didn’t need Democrats. The fact was, there was never substantive legislation where I didn’t go and ask for Democrat votes. And a lot of issues up there on the hill aren’t Democrat/Republican. They may be urban/rural. They may be suburbs, you know, the suburbias versus the city.

So, here- what kind of working relationship? That’s a very important board for us in this state. That’s lots of jobs. So the appointees is number one.

Number two, in regards to the specific oil and gas regulations, you bring in experts. You sit down and you don’t sit down and have blue ribbon committees here, blue ribbon committees there, and that– you sit down and you say, “All right, are we plowing through unplowed land? No. What are other states that are very strong,” which we want to be, about protecting our environment, “but are very strong in their encouragement of the oil and gas?” And I’ll tell you, take a look at the piece of legislation that we drafted this. I don’t have the bill in front of me. I’ve got it– I think I left it in the other room.

Look on the second page, the legislative intent. Now the legislative intent is not law; that’s kind of the introduction of the bill, but mysteriously, as you might guess, as time goes on, and things go to court, people look back, what was the legislative intent back in 2010? And so they go and they read that. You will see that the word “encourage– encourage natural resource development,” that’s not an exact quote, but the “encourage” - the word “encourage” was stricken out of the bill. That’s not the attitude I’ve got. I want prosperity in this state, so if we’ve got rules and I think they’re clearly over-reach. If we’ve got permits, and I know that we’ve got pit permits that haven’t been approved for two years. They haven’t processed them. That kind of stuff is going to stop. I want the industry being responsible, but I want the industry going to work. I want Colorado back open for business. I want more money for school.

Adam Schrager: Denny Behrens with the Colorado Mule Deer Association wants to know how you and your administration will work to ensure that the energy companies, the DOW, the sportsmen, the Wildlife Commission, and other regulatory agencies work together to protect and perpetuate Colorado’s wildlife.

John Hickenlooper: I think the key here, and this is- I should have said this when I was talking about the composition of the Oil and Gas Commission. You know, there are different types of people and there are those that are good at bringing people together and listening actively. You know, in the restaurant business, you learn, within the first six months, if someone is really upset about something, there are a lot of tricks — and they’re not really tricks, but there are– let’s call them techniques, or approaches. So one of them is to- this is an obvious one, not generally applicable to what we’re talking about, but in the restaurant business, if someone is really upset, you repeat back their own words, right? And there’s something– you know, you say, “Oh, she didn’t look where she was going.” Yeah, I hear that. “And she dropped the soup right on your lap.” “And the soup was incredibly hot.”

You know, as you repeat those words, people calm down, right? And there are certain people that have those skills, of getting people to calm down, of hearing different perspectives, and a natural, innate ability to connect, and you all know people like that. I think those are the people that we want to have on the Oil and Gas Commission, rather than the subject matter experts. Right? I think subject matter experts are there to serve the Commission, but I don’t necessarily feel that we have to- and I’m not casting aspersions in any directions, either the old– the old Commission or the new Commission, but I do think there is a personality to any board or commission, you know– I think I’ve got 1,100 people we’ve appointed to various boards and commissions for the city, and after a couple of years, you begin to learn the types of folks that make things work and where good things happen, and the places where you end up getting into, always there’s a squabble, always there’s a battle. So often they’re over relatively small and inconsequential things, but they keep you from getting to the bigger, more valuable compromises.

Scott McInnis: Well, I know it sounds kind of simple — you make sure they go to the meetings. I’m actually surprised on some of the meetings how many of our executives aren’t at those meetings. They will be at the meetings, number one.

Number two, look, most of the people that I know that are the roughnecks, my buddies, they all hunt and fish. And you know, there’s kind of orders– you know, the pick-up, the dog, the water, hunting, fishing, kind of important to them, so you’ve got that interplay. That all wants to be protected. But as the chief executive officer, just like you would with any other thing, you’ve got– these are not mutually exclusive interests. And we have — we have — checks and balances designed into the system that aren’t punitive but are checks and balances to make sure that we have not veto power, that we have clear, crisp communication. What does this do on our elk migration? How does it impact it? What do you– that’s what you saw happening up there when they just took speed limits down at night to 55 miles an hour between Rifle and Meeker. So it’s the enhancement of that communication, and making sure that people that are experts, you know, have a seat at the table. Not the emotion, but the experts. And there’s a lot of margin– I’ve looked at this whole model, because I know it. There’s a lot of margin in this model that we can improve on and get what we want.

Adam Schrager: Kevin King wanted to know your thoughts on the EPA?

John Hickenlooper: Well, the EPA, and it’s interesting — you know, I was on a flight and ended up sitting next to Lisa Jackson, who’s the administrator, the head of the EPA, and she’s an engineer. African-American woman who grew up in New Orleans and went to Princeton to study engineering, and you know, I didn’t get a chance to– this was really before this- I mean, I think I’m concerned, as most people are, that there seems to be an increasing level of regulation coming out of the EPA, and the next time I get a chance to sit down and talk to her, which I think is going to be about in six or seven weeks, to figure out exactly whether that’s coming out of her office, whether that’s being directed from Congress, you know, why is this– this generation, I think somewhat acceleration in the creation of regulations.

You know, one of the things I look at– the state government, and you know, each legislator is limited to only five laws they can propose each year. well, there are 100 legislators, right? And we really need 500 laws every year? I realize they don’t all get their laws passed, but an awful lot of them do. I think maybe that we need a statewide referendum to– you know, if you’re going to put a law in, you have to take one off and find old laws. So anyway, there’s got to be literally thousands of laws back there that really aren’t doing what they were intended to do.

Scott McInnis: Well, we can start with ozone, we can start with compliance, we can start with do you understand what happens at 6,000 feet?

You know, it’s interesting — when they were first studying wind, do you know where they found sand, Kansas sand? On the top of the Empire State Building. That’s true. It’s pretty interesting.

So, you know, when they come in and they say, “Here’s what’s going to be our compliance, and we’ve got compression stations,” you know, we– our low point is higher than, what, 45 states’ low points. So these ozone compliance requirements, I mean, you’re going to have to have a governor that understands the staffing, understands how the agency works, where the checks and balances are, what you can expect from the delegation, what the delegation should be providing for the state, or you know, our Congressional, our U.S. Senate delegation, so that you can be able to sit down and a lot of times, try and get the EPA to kind of a common sense standard. We want reasonable person standard, common sense standards. Same with the Oil and Gas Commission - best practices, reasonable man standards, and that’s– So with the EPA, I see myself engaging in a number of discussions with them, and I think the best example I’ve seen recently was a letter written by Governor Freudenthal up in Wyoming. I don’t know if you’ve seen that, Adam. If not, take a look at that. There’s a letter that talks to the EPA, talks to those people, and says, “Come on, here’s the balance. Now, it was over here too far, over here too far - he’s how we approach it.

So, the EPA, the big problem is, we just can’t allow them to take a national model and think that it custom fits Colorado, because we have a lot of unique circumstances.

Adam Schrager: I have time for one last question - it was posed to me as I here before we started this forum by an oil and gas executive here in the audience, and I’ll leave his name out. And he asked it a little bit in jest, but there’s a serious undertone to it.

John Hickenlooper: Who was it? Who was it?

Adam Schrager: –and this is the question. I’m not going to share a source.

“Given the event of what’s going in the Gulf, and the lack of current popularity in this industry,” his question was, “Do you really want our endorsement?”

John Hickenlooper: You know, I spent– the five years I spent in oil and gas were five of the best years of my life, and I– I’m not proud to admit it. I mean, I was the managing editor of “The Mountain Geologist,” so I got to– I had associate editors, like Peter Dee, I mean, a bunch of the guys who were my associate editors went on to illustrious careers. I did not. And I’m a much better restaurateur than I was a geologist. And yet, you know, I kept my membership in the RMAG and in AAPG all these years, and I never thought I’d be running for dogcatcher, let alone mayor and then governor. But it was that connection with an industry that really is composed, A, of many of the most generous and innovative people I’ve ever known. Many of my mentors — Fred Mayer [sp], Fred Hamilton, I can go down a whole long list of people that, in both my business career and in my– since I’ve been elected, have– when I have a difficult problem, I call them up and they have freely given their help and have always supported me, not just in campaigns, but in running things. And, you know, I don’t– I will always, in some way, be a geologist, a recovering geologist, anyway. And I would always want to seek and make sure that I have the support and the input of this industry. Not just during the campaign and the election, but once elected, I want to make sure that all those relationships and connections help me, you know, find that balance and get the best and smartest people we possibly can, people that maybe didn’t ever think they would serve on an Oil and Gas Commission, or wouldn’t get involved with other boards or commissions within the state, but are, you know, by nature, generous and willing to do that. So, you know, I don’t have any question. I, you know– if you’ll have me, I’ll be had. No, I didn’t mean that. That was a joke, just in case that TV camera over there is going to write this down. I would greatly, greatly, greatly seek and- your endorsement as an industry and also as individuals.

Scott McInnis: Well, if I didn’t want to go to work for you, I wouldn’t be here. I had a fairly comfortable lifestyle, meaning I got to spend a lot of time at the ranch, and play with the grandkids, so– sure. Yeah. I’m here for one reason — I think we can fix it. I think we can go to Rosalee and tell her help is on the way. I think we can do a lot in this state. I’m very optimistic. We’ve got problems right now, but it’s kind of like when I was a fireman. Pretty soon I lost the ability to look at architectural beauty of a building. I just kept looking at a 100 different reasons it burned. It’s the same thing here today. We can figure out a lot of reasons, but I’m optimistic that the future is bright. That’s why I’m doing this. I’m willing to pitch in my part; it’s not– obviously, not for money or any of the other things. I’m willing to pitch in, I want to go to work for you, and I want your support. And I know your support is a temporary loan of trust, so to speak. But whether you’re in the oil and gas or one of my buddies that’s a roughneck or whether you work down here for the Sierra Club or you’re an engineer on the train, you know, this is our state. We are a team, and you need a chief executive officer. Frankly, I’m confident — not over-confident — I don’t take it that way, but I’m confident that I can provide you the leadership, whether it’s our Colorado water issues, whether it’s agriculture, whether it’s urban issues, and I do believe that somebody from rural Colorado has a better concept of urban issues than somebody from urban necessarily of rural issues.

And let me end with one final thing of why I want your support and I want support from industry across the state. If this were a map of the state of Colorado — I hope you can hear me — if this were Colorado, and you drew a little circle right here, the Denver metropolitan area, do you know who lives within that circle? Both of the United States Senators. The governor of Colorado, the lieutenant governor of Colorado, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house, the entire supreme court, the entire cabinet, the chairpeople of those committees. John Suthers lives in Colorado Springs and Bernie Buescher, Secretary of State, he’s over on the west. When you draw out that little circle right there where all that scope of power– and I understand population. But man, we need somebody that understands the state as a whole. This state doesn’t start and end at the Denver city limits. Things like what we’ve been talking about today, it doesn’t just impact us on the other side in Grand Junction or down in Trinidad or up in Weld County. It impacts all of us. We need a leader that has, you know, a seasoned hand. So you bet I want your support, and I’ll make you proud as your governor.