This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
"What happened with Brohm in the Black Hills... will not happen to the Coteau Region in eastern South Dakota. This is a defining moment." --Senator Scott Heidepriem (D-13/Sioux Falls).
"I don't think this is a defining moment. This is a time when we should make a sensible, practical decision. This is a significant economic development." -- Senator David Knudson (R-14/Sioux Falls).
This debate took place as Senator Knudson put forward an amendment -- actually, a whole new bill to make SB 190 an exercise in nothing but paperwork. SB 190 was originally a pipeline tax that would have assessed pipeline operators a meager two cents per barrel transported through the state. In committee, Dems watered the bill down by capping the tax to be collected at $30 million.
But that wasn't enough for the plutocrats. Senator Knudson did Big Oil's bidding, tendering an amendment that removed all language about taxing the most profitable industry on the planet. His replacement bill? Make the pipeline companies submit an emergency response plan. Require updates every five years. And if any oil spills, or there's an explosion, fire, injury, or death? File a report.
The amendment passed 18-17. The hoghoused bill passed 19-16. Mostly party line, GOP for, Dems against.
I was chided by a gentle reader yesterday for cloaking otherwise good ideas in unnecessarily enflamed partisan language. I respect my gentle reader's counsel and respect for civil discourse. But can I call this amendment to SB 190 anything other than the outrage that it is?
SB 190 in its original form would not stop one lick of economic development in the state. Oil pipelines running across the state won't make much direct contribution to our state economy (just how many donuts can three TransCanada guys in a maintenance shack in Yankton buy, anyway?). A two-cent-per-barrel pipeline tax would harm no South Dakotans, provide much needed revenmue, and protect us and our natural resources from harm.
The pipeline tax would have drawn $3 million dollars from TransCanada annually to serve as a guarantee that TransCanada would do right by the state in case of a spill or explosion. Instead, the Senate Republicans want nothing more than a piece of paper.
Does anyone else see the irony?
- Our state Senate Republicans argue that running an oil pipeline through the state to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma is so essential to our economic development that we don't dare tax its hazardous contents;
- Our Republican President decides that building a water pipeline to eastern South Dakota and all the economic development it makes possible deserves zero funding.
Oh well. We can always drink oil.
Our Senator Dan Sutton (D-8/Flandreau) voted no on the amendment and the bill. Thank you. Representatives Olson and Gassman, SB 190 is coming your way. Put the tax back.
No, you cannot, and should not, call it anything but what it is. And I am very glad that you did! Thanks for being a progressive voice. Don't tone it down on my account!
ReplyDelete--Rebecca
To consider a 2-cent "flow" fee a new tax on South Dakotans would be ridiculous. The fee is nothing more than a safety value in case something goes wrong, which it will, because of mechanical error, freeze and thaw and the effects of time on metal. We won't pay it, but we'll pay HUGE later on if we don't have a cushion to repair it. What is TransCanada going to do? Reroute their pipeline? So what if they do. They ought to bring it right down the federal easement on I-29 to Elk Point where they can refine it. Not passing a damage fee is foolish, but we've seen a lot of foolish so far this session in Pierre.
ReplyDelete"The fee is nothing more than a safety value" should be a safety valve. Fingers got ahead of the brain. Sorry.
ReplyDelete