Energy

 

Clean energy initiatives represent an issue that could be advanced at the state level through the ballot initiative process going forward as voters look for action on an increasing important issue to them. This year marks the first time in history for a number of energy-related ballot measures outside of the nuclear initiatives of the 70's.

Missouri

In Missouri, an initiative to require the state to produce 15 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2021 passed overwhelmingly with 66% of the vote. 

Supporters of the initiative, Missourians for Cleaner Cheaper Energy, pointed out that 86% of Missouri's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, the number-one contributor to climate change and a threat to public health and air quality. The initiative will require the Missouri investor-owned electric utilities to get 15% of their electricity from renewable and clean energy sources like wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydroelectric projects. Often this policy is called a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). 

Twenty-six states have now passed this policy, three by ballot initiative, jumpstarting the development of their renewable energy industry. In Missouri, elected officials had introduced RES measures for the past eight years, but failed to pass one until now.

Supporters made the case to voters that investing in clean energy like solar, wind, and biomass could reinvigorate their economy and create the jobs of today and tomorrow.

California

California voters also weighed in on two energy initiatives- Proposition 7 was defeated 65%-35, and Proposition 10 was defeated 60%-40%.

Prop. 7 (The Clean and Solar Energy Act of 2008) would have called on all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.  It also would have raised the goal for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. As of mid-October, supporters had spent nearly $15 million on their effort.

Leading the opposition to this initiative were two utility companies, PG&E Corp., the parent company of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and Edison International, whose subsidiaries include Southern California Edison Co. As of mid-October, opponents had spent nearly $30 million against the initiative. Several environmental groups, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology and the California Democratic Party also opposed Prop. 7. They argued that the proposal was poorly written and so complicated that it could ultimately hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state. 

California voters also voted against Prop. 10 (The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act) which sought to authorize $5 billion in bonds paid from the state's General Fund. Despite spending over $16 million, the initiative was defeated by a wide margin. 

Colorado

In Colorado, Governor Bill Ritter advanced a Severance Tax (Amendment 58) that would have ended a $300 million tax subsidy for the oil and gas industry and redirected the money towards college scholarships, the environment and clean energy projects. As of mid-October, oil and gas interests had spent over $10 million to defeat the measure, which lost 58%-42%.

By creating the Colorado Promise Scholarship Fund, the measure would have more than doubled the state's financial aid funding. As many as two-thirds of Colorado's families could have qualified for hundreds or thousands of dollars in tuition funding. 

Despite the fact that a study was released in July that found it was unlikely consumers would be affected by putting an end to Colorado's severance tax for oil and gas companies, the special interests and their massive funding convinced voters that the measure would increase taxes and that utility costs would be passed on to them. The Sonoran Institute, a conservation group, had attempted to counter claims made by oil and gas companies that ending the 30-year tax break would raise prices in Colorado. The study states that Colorado produced 23 million barrels of oil in 2007 - "slightly more" than the amount the U.S. consumes in one day and not enough to affect prices. The study also stated that there was little chance that ending the tax would increase the price of natural gas.

Ritter had argued the tax credit, which allows energy companies to subtract 87.5 percent of their property tax bills from the severance taxes they owe, has its roots in the late 1970s when Colorado wanted to help the energy industry establish itself in the state. State economists have blamed the subsidy for severely eating into the amount of money Colorado can use to confront the stresses energy development places on local governments and public infrastructure.

The coalition supporting the initiative included the  Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, Associated Students of Colorado, Center for Policy Entrepreneurship, Colorado Children's Campaign, Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Colorado Conservation Voters, Colorado Education Association, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Trout Unlimited, Environment Colorado, Great Education Colorado, National Wildlife Federation, New Era Colorado and The Nature Conservancy.

Big oil companies that won by bankrolling the opposition to the initiative included BP North America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum Corp and Exxon Mobil.

Three state lawmakers also advanced an alternative amendment on the Severance Tax that was also defeated 64%-36%. Amendment 52, also known as the Severance Tax and Transportation Initiative, would have capped the amount of severance taxes flowing to the state's Local Affairs and Natural Resources departments and diverted the funding to road projects.

Louisiana

In Louisiana, a severance tax ballot measure referred by the legislature was defeated 55%-45%. The proposed amendment sought to increase the maximum amount of the severance tax imposed and collected by the state on natural resources, other than sulfur, lignite, and timber. Amendment 4 would have would have more than doubled the state cap on how much parishes could receive from state severance taxes on natural resources.

North Dakota

In North Dakota, Amendment 1 was defeated 64%-36%. The initiative would have inserted into the state constitution a proposal that would lock away the state's oil money. The initiative effort was funded and spearheaded by Koch Industries, an out of state big oil, chemical and mining corporation which has been one of the leading financers of conservative right wing politics, including the Washington D.C. based Americans for Prosperity.

Koch has a checkered past in North Dakota and their involvement proved fatal to the effort. In 1995 the state Supreme Court found that Koch failed to record and pay taxes on 137,822 barrels of oil it collected from small producers in the state.  The tax commissioner ordered Koch to pay taxes on the oil after an audit showed that Koch was delivering more oil than it was reporting it had collected from producers. Subsequent events indicated that this was oil that Koch received through a systematic practice of underestimating the amount of oil it took from its clients.

In addition, a federal jury found in 1999 that Koch Industries had systematically under-reported the amount of oil it was taking from clients in tribal and federally managed lands.  One of the allegations was that between 1981 and 1989 Koch took 492,742 more barrels of oil than it reported from 286 producers in North Dakota alone. Nearly 9,000 producers nationwide allegedly were defrauded. The jury found that Koch made more than 24,000 false claims as part of this process. 

Opponents successfully made the case to voters against the Koch backed initiative convincing the electorate that the amendment would have made impossible real property tax relief, investments in important state services and improvements in North Dakota's infrastructure. Passage also would have led to less funding for local police, fire departments, emergency response teams and other essential services.