he Rocky Mountain News has breathlessly reported that companies that drill for oil and natural gas in Colorado have raised more than $3.6 million to combat a statewide ballot initiative aimed at raising their taxes.
This is unfair, of course, because several environmental groups have only been able to come up with less than $500,000 to support the measure, which would tax the energy companies (a.k.a. “Big Oil” or Big Fat Oil”) an additional $200 million to $300 million a year.
A spokesperson for the enviros has described this situation as “David vs. Goliath.”
I’m sufficiently outraged by this proposal to consider making a donation to the cause. However, my check would go to BFO. You might consider anteing up, too. This ain’t rocket science.
My logic is pretty basic: If the energy companies are forced to pay huge increases in state taxes, most or all of that money will eventually be tacked on to the cost of heating our homes.
I happen to think that my Xcel Energy bill is high enough already. In fact, there also have been recent press reports noting that more and more residents don’t have the money to pay their utility bills and are seeking help from the State Low Income Energy Assistance Program or others.
So we should drive costs higher? We are supposed to embrace this tax increase to our bosoms for two reasons:
1. The money supposedly would be taken out of the hide of Big Fat Oil.
2. Sixty percent of the additional revenue would go to fund college scholarships.
That’s clever political positioning. If our governor wants to hand out scholarships, fine. But how about a property tax or sales tax increase to fund the plan? That idea, of course, would float as well as a tissue paper rowboat in a typhoon. But if your utility bill takes a big hit to pay for it, you can always blame it on your local gas company, right?
Our latest “state energy policy” is little more than an effort to discourage energy companies from even doing business here. A tax hike, coupled with new state regulations which seem to allow any drilling only in months ending in “r” or “y,” hardly are a solution to higher prices for fuel.
Plus, they will likely send exploration firms scurrying off to Wyoming, Kansas or North Dakota.
It is further proof that public policy on energy is being dictated by environmental extremists, and has been for at least a couple of decades.
Their credo is often stated: “Let’s concentrate on finding clean, renewable sources of energy to make the country self-dependent.” It’s a noble goal, but “concentrate” at the cost of everything else?
I will gladly strap solar panels to the roof of my Buick and cut my Shell credit card in half. Or I will convert my furnace to run on foozle juice if that is practical. But we still have an important “in the meantime” to consider.
According to a recent opinion expressed on these pages, the nation can be running totally on solar and wind energy by 2030. Go for it!
But that’s still 22 years away.
I also think medical science should find a cure for cancer. But until that day comes, should we deny chemotherapy or radiation treatment for patients who already contracted it?
That would be ridiculous. But that seems to be the logic used by people now setting energy policy.
Dick Hilker (dhilker529@q.com) of Loveland is a retired suburban Denver newspaper editor and columnist.
