No oil and gas reps on oil and gas commission? The ban plan is back
And the bill, which arguably has created the largest divide between supporters and detractors of all measures in the 2013 legislative session, continues to advance.
The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee gave party-line approval Monday to House Bill 1269, sponsored by Rep. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette.
The measure removes promotion of the oil and gas industry from the COGCC’s mission. It also changes the definition of waste so that state public-safety regulations can get in the way of all resources from being pulled from a well, and also aims to eliminate conflicts of interest on the commission.
Foote originally proposed banning anyone paid by the industry from serving on the COGCC, but removed that provision and strengthened conflict-of-interest disclosure rules instead because he said he wanted to achieve some compromise with opponents.
However, sponsoring Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, got committee Democrats to reinsert the outright industry ban after seeing polling results that showed 84 percent of respondents agreed with the full ban.
“I think we all agree that oil and gas companies should take accountability,” Jones said. “I think this bill does that.”
Actually, testimony at the lengthy afternoon hearing showed there is little upon which backers and opponents of HB 1269 agree.
Changes in 2007 that lessened industry representation on the COGCC and added protection of the environment and wildlife resources already added the balance between industry promotion and public-health considerations for which HB 1269 appears to be shooting, said Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the commission.
And there have been no assertions since then of an individual COGCC member having a conflict on a specific vote, he said.
(Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, actually questioned whether King testifying against a bill that affected his department was a conflict of interest. However, Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, pointed out that state education officials testify all the time for Democratic-sponsored bills heard in the Senate Education Committee that Hudak chairs.)
Changing the definition of waste to one that allows the state to step in and stop mineral-rights owners from taking all of their property out of the ground constitutes a government taking of private property, argued Scott Campbell, a natural resources attorney with Poulson, Odell & Peterson LLP of Denver.
Plus, making protection of public health and safety the sole mission of the COGCC could allow it to deny well permits if there is found to be even a minor impact on a human, animal or the environment, said Howard Boigon, a partner with the Denver office of Hogan Lovells US LLP and past president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
“This change, while sounding good on the surface, would open almost every decision made by the commission to questions,” Boigon said. “It would unsettle Colorado law, invite obstruction in the regulatory process and create regulatory uncertainty in the industry.”
Yet, Judith Blackburn, a volunteer with the Our Health Our Future Our Longmont campaign that got voters in that city to pass a ban on fracking in November, summarized the feelings of many bill backers when she said: “Maybe Colorado law in this realm needs a little unsettling.”
Former COGCC member Tracy Houpt said that while the commission has the power to regulate how drilling is done in many sites, it has little ability to deny permits — something she believes HB 1269 finally would give it, especially as oil rigs creep closer to homes and neighborhoods.
And many of the Longmont residents who testified for the bill painted it not just as a conflict-of-interest measure but as a law that is needed to curb the power of the oil and gas industry in the state.
Michael Belmont of Longmont said the COGCC “ignores” public-health problems because of industry influence.
And Kaye Fissinger, also of the Longmont citizens’ group, said the COGCC “has never considered the constitutional rights of the state’s citizens.”
She accused drillers of not helping America by selling some products overseas and said that Gov. John Hickenlooper, who sued Longmont for imposing drilling restrictions harsher than the state’s and has expressed concerns with HB 1269, “should be ashamed of himself.”
“I suggest that if you put this vote to people throughout Colorado, at least people in populated areas, you would see something similar in every city, every community,” to the landslide margin of victory with which Longmont passed the fracking ban, Fissinger said.
The attacks on the Democratic Hickenlooper got so harsh, in fact, that Sen. Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa, said: “As a Republican, can I defend the governor? Since the Democrats aren’t, I think maybe I should.”
HB 1269 is headed now to the Senate floor, and if it makes it through there, it is likely to land on Hickenlooper’s desk.
But regardless of what happens, it is fair to say that some people are likely to be very happy and some very angry over what has turned into the most divisive bill of the session on business issues.
Ed Sealover covers government, health care, tourism, airlines and hospitality for the Denver Business Journal and writes for the "Capitol Business" blog. Phone: 303-803-9229.
No comments:
Post a Comment