Written by Chloe Marie – Research Specialist
This article will provide an overview of several statewide ballot initiatives
that were voted upon during the recent November 6 general election.
Colorado
Initiative 97 – Setback Requirement for Oil and Gas
Development
Result: Initiative 97 failed to pass with 42% of
Colorado voters voting yes.
On August 29, 2018, Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams announced
in a News
Release that a ballot initiative –
identified as Initiative
97 – had received enough signatures to be placed on the
November ballot. The initiative sought
to restrict the location of new oil and gas operations in Colorado by imposing
increased buffer zones between oil and gas wells and certain types of buildings
and land uses. The petition proposing
this initiative was submitted to the Colorado Department of State on August 6,
2018, by Designated Representatives Anne Lee Foster and Suzanne Spiegel from
the environmental group Colorado Rising.
Advocates for the initiative collected a total of 172,834 signatures in
support of the petition. When placed
upon the November ballot, it was referenced as Proposition 112.
Initiative 97 proposed new setback requirements that would have increased
the mandated setback distances and also would have expanded the range of land
uses and geographical features from which oil and gas operations would need to
be set back. Under the requirements of
Initiative 97, new oil and gas wells would have needed to be operated with a
minimum setback distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings, such as homes,
schools and hospitals, as well as “vulnerable” areas, including playgrounds,
permanent sport fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, drinking
water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or
intermittent streams, and creeks. These proposed setback requirements would not
have applied to oil and gas development located on federal lands.
Amendment 74 – Just
Compensation for Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation
Result: Amendment 74
failed to pass with 47% of Colorado voters voting yes.
Under proposed
amendment 74, Colorado landowners who suffered a loss in the fair
value of their private property due to “government law or regulation” would
have received just compensation. The proposed amendment provided that such
compensation would be determined by a board of at least commissioners or by a
jury.
Despite not being directly linked
to oil and gas development, proposed amendment 74 may have had a potential
impact upon development if passed. Where
governmental restrictions prevented oil and gas operations from occurring on
land, Amendment 74 may have required compensation. Indeed, if the setback requirements
contemplated in Initiative 97 had been instituted, landowners affected by these
setbacks may have been owed compensation if the fair market value of their
property declined as a result of the new setback requirements.
Oklahoma
State Question 800 –
Oil and Gas Development Tax Revenue Investment Fund Amendment
Result: State Question 800 failed to pass with 43% of
Oklahoma voters voting yes.
State Question 800 – also known as the Oil and Gas Development Tax
Revenue Investment Amendment – appeared on the November 6 Oklahoma general
election ballot and represented a further attempt by the Oklahoma legislature
to amend the state Constitution. More specifically, State Question 800
reproduced the wording of Senate
Joint Resolution (SJR) No. 35, which initially proposed to establish
a third budget reserve fund – called the Oklahoma Vision Fund – and introduced a
new tax on oil and gas production that would have been deposited into the Fund.
SJR 35 passed both the House and Senate on May 3, 2018 but was later vetoed by
Governor Mary Fallin.
State Question 800 would have created new section 44 to Article X
regarding Oklahoma Revenue and Taxation and, in addition to creating the
Oklahoma Vision Fund, would have introduced a 5% gross production tax on all
oil and natural gas as of July 1, 2020 and for each fiscal year thereafter.
After that fiscal year, it was specified that the tax rate would be increased
by two-tenths percentage points each year thereafter. The revenue collected from
the tax would have been remitted directly into the Oklahoma Vision Fund.
Washington
Advisory Question No. 19 on Oil Spill Taxes
Result: Advisory Question No. 19 received a favorable
vote with 53% of Washington voters voting in favor of the oil spill response
and administration taxes.
On November 6, 2018, registered voters in Washington state voted on Advisory
Question No. 19 deciding whether oil spill response and
administration taxes to crude oil or petroleum products received through
pipelines – imposed by the state legislature in June 2018 – should be repealed
or maintained. Advisory questions do not create any legal, valid or binding
obligations upon the state legislature and merely provide Washington voters with
the opportunity to express their views on a specific topic.
As a bit of background, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law Senate
Bill No. 6269 on March 23, 2018, which was introduced to the state
Senate in January 2018. SB 6269 became effective on June 7, 2018 and requires
additional tax payments on transportation of crude oil and petroleum products
to the state. More precisely, the legislation states that “while oil
transported into the state by rail and tank vessels is taxed to fund the oil
spill program’s oil spill prevention and preparedness activities, a third
method of transport, pipelines, currently is not taxed, despite it generating a
sizeable oil spill risk;” thus the legislature decided to request payment of
two additional taxes on crude oil and petroleum products received from either
interstate or intrastate pipelines.
According to the law, any pipeline terminal operator is now subject to
the payment of the oil spill response tax at a rate of 1 cent per barrel of
crude oil or petroleum products received from pipelines as well as the oil
spill administration tax at a rate of 4 cents per barrel of crude oil or
petroleum products received from pipelines. All revenue collected from the oil
spill response tax must be deposited into the Washington state oil spill
response account while revenue generated from the oil spill administration tax
is remitted to the oil spill prevention account.
Initiative 1631 Reducing Pollution
Result: Initiative 1631 failed to pass with 44% of
Washington voters voting yes.
State Secretary Kim Wyman approved the placement upon the November
general election ballot of Initiative
1631 – known as An Act Relating to reducing pollution by investing
in clean air, clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy
communities by imposing a fee on large emitters based on their pollution. This
initiative would have created a pollution fee on large emitters of fossil fuels
at a rate of $15 per metric ton of carbon content as of January 1, 2020. The
pollution fee rate would have increased by $2 per metric ton each year
thereafter until the state of Washington met its greenhouse gas reduction
targets for 2035 and was on target to meet its reduction goals for 2050. All
revenue collected from this pollution fee would been deposited into the Clean
Up Pollution Fund.
Florida
Florida Amendment 9 – Ban Offshore Drilling
Result: Amendment 9 passed with 68% of Florida voters
voting yes.
On April 16, 2018, the Constitution Revision Commission of Florida approved
the placement of Proposal 6004 (P 6004) – prohibiting offshore oil and gas
drilling in specified coastal waters – on the general election ballot. P
6004 would amend Section 7 of Article II of the State Constitution
and specifically provides that drilling for exploration or extraction of oil or
natural gas is prohibited in state coastal waters that lie between the mean
high-water line and the outermost boundaries of the territorial seas of
Florida. P 6004 clarifies that this prohibition would not apply to the
transportation of oil and gas products outside of such waters. In addition, the
Proposal states that such measure is aimed at protecting the people of Florida
from the degradation of their environment.
Section 377.242 of the Florida
Statutes currently prohibits issuing permits for oil and gas
exploration and production in state coastal waters; however, the enactment of P
6004 would permanently ban oil and gas drilling along the Florida coastline.
This proposal comes in response to the U.S. Interior
Department’s draft version of the National Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019-2024 released in
January 2018. The draft National OCS Program would make available for oil and
gas leasing approximately 90% of the total OCS acreage in Federal offshore
areas and proposes one sale in the Straits of Florida. Interestingly, Interior
Secretary Ryan Zinke announced
in a tweet dated January 9, 2018, that the U.S. Interior Department is
“removing Florida from consideration for any new oil and gas platforms;”
however, no formal declaration has yet been made.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
No comments:
Post a Comment