Following two days of testimony, committee sends oil and gas bill to the Senate

This week, the Senate Resources and Environment Committee’s agenda included five pieces of legislation to regulate Idaho’s nascent oil and gas industry.  These bills passed the House on a 54-13 vote on February 27^th.  As with the hearings on the regulations and inthe House, there was a crowd prepared to testify, many in opposition to the legislation. The hearing began on Wednesday, and continued to Friday to accommodate all those who wanted to speak.

The first bill on the agenda, H464, is meant to clarify existing law to:

• Provide uniformity and consistency in regulation of oil and gas production in Idaho;

•Clarify the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s authority over oil and gas exploration and production;

•Clarify local governments’ role in oversight of the oil and gas industry;

•Provide for mitigation of negative impacts to existingwater rights or usable water resources;

•Align the definition of injection wells with the Federal2006 Energy Policy Act.

The chairman cut off the questioning of the presenters infavor of taking input from the public, allowing those from out of town to testify first. Testimony tended to be lengthy, with several objecting to time limits.

Through both sessions of the hearing, those testifying against the bill cited loss of local control as their biggest concern. Underthe bill, county ordinances and planning and zoning decisions would be superseded by state control.  Industry representatives who testified maintained there is considerable local input—in fact, they asserted, more so than in many other states. There was also concern raised about geothermal wells and beneficial uses,and discussion about injection wells.

Another issue raised was that of air quality including references to downwinders, asbestos, birth defects and radon.  The testimony was often emotional even going as far as one person making the point that the residents cannot afford to make campaign contributions or have paid lobbyists as the industry representatives could.

After one of those testifying went to great length to demonstrate that a vote by the Idaho Association of Counties was not proper, an association representative read a letter to clarify the voting process the association used when decided to support the bill. 

After a motion was made to send the bill to the Senate floor with a do-pass, there was extensive discussion by the committee members—even proposing that the bill be held and changes be made to allay some of the concerns brought by those who currently oppose the bill.

At the end of the nearly 4-hour hearing on Friday, the committee voted 6-3 to send the bill to the House floor with a “do pass”recommendation after defeating a substitute motion to send the bill to the amending order.