This Washington
Oil Industry: "No Deal."
Yesterday, we wrote about a "deal" on the proposed hazardous substance tax, a plan environmental lobbyists are pushing to increase the existing voter-approved tax on toxic materials, like petroleum, that contribute to water pollution.
Initially, environmentalists pitched tripling the tax—it hadn't been raised since 1988—from .7 to 2 percent for $225 million. Their current proposal (after the oil industry knocked down tripling the tax) is to increase the tax by .85 percent to 1.5 for $100 million as laid out in an amendment proposed by Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3) and supported Rep. Larry Springer (D-45), the Finance Committee member who initially gutted the proposal . The Finance Committee sent the bill to the floor.
The Senate Ways & Means Committee is reportedly looking at the issue today and Sen. Ed Murray (D-43), caucus chair and ways & means member, says simply: "I support whatever level I can get votes for to keep it moving."
Here's the follow-up. Oil industry spokesperson Dave Fisher tells PubliCola there is no deal. Fisher says his coalition "strongly opposes the measure."
Fisher sticks by the speaking points he's been repeating all session, arguing that the measure will drive up prices at the pump. (Eric De Place at the green think tank Sightline says that doesn't jibe with data showing everyday gas price fluctuations of .6 to .9 cents outweighing the .2 cents impact of the tax .)
Fisher also argues that the industry will have to lay off workers to deal with the tax, a point that contradicts his concern about passing the tax off to customers at the pump. Sorry for the editorializing, but, right?
Nonetheless, environmentalists had hoped to appease oil industry concerns about jobs—which Sightline contests here—by allowing an exemption from the tax on oil exports (worth $40 million), but Fisher says: "Even with the export fuels credit as a step toward addressing refinery jobs, there are still many jobs that will be harmed in agriculture, trucking, [and] small businesses."
Yesterday, we also said that environmentalists may be sweetening the deal for legislators by saying some of the money could go to the general fund (which would help the state deal with the $2.8 billion budget shortfall).
Fisher says, "The 'deal' [environmental lobbyists are] trumpeting also assumes that the additional [hazardous substance tax] money will provide sufficient funds that would break loose other capital fund dollars to be transferred to the general fund," characterizing it as "a shell game reminiscent of the Safeco Field baseball cap features," and as "misguided diversion tactics that created the funding gap in the first place."
Fisher is referring to $180 million in hazardous substance tax revenues that went to help balance the general fund last year (a one time deal from last year that hardly explains why the storm water clean up funds are scarce.)
Environmental lobbyist Cliff Traisman does acknowledge that it would be possible for the legislature to use the money for the general fund, but adds, "That is not our proposal."
It was, however, the greens proposal at the beginning of the session when they'd pitched the higher tax and said 70 percent of the money could go to the general fund for several years before reverting back to the storm water fund. "We were very open about that," he says.
Initially, environmentalists pitched tripling the tax—it hadn't been raised since 1988—from .7 to 2 percent for $225 million. Their current proposal (after the oil industry knocked down tripling the tax) is to increase the tax by .85 percent to 1.5 for $100 million as laid out in an amendment proposed by Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3) and supported Rep. Larry Springer (D-45), the Finance Committee member who initially gutted the proposal . The Finance Committee sent the bill to the floor.
The Senate Ways & Means Committee is reportedly looking at the issue today and Sen. Ed Murray (D-43), caucus chair and ways & means member, says simply: "I support whatever level I can get votes for to keep it moving."
Here's the follow-up. Oil industry spokesperson Dave Fisher tells PubliCola there is no deal. Fisher says his coalition "strongly opposes the measure."
Fisher sticks by the speaking points he's been repeating all session, arguing that the measure will drive up prices at the pump. (Eric De Place at the green think tank Sightline says that doesn't jibe with data showing everyday gas price fluctuations of .6 to .9 cents outweighing the .2 cents impact of the tax .)
Fisher also argues that the industry will have to lay off workers to deal with the tax, a point that contradicts his concern about passing the tax off to customers at the pump. Sorry for the editorializing, but, right?
Nonetheless, environmentalists had hoped to appease oil industry concerns about jobs—which Sightline contests here—by allowing an exemption from the tax on oil exports (worth $40 million), but Fisher says: "Even with the export fuels credit as a step toward addressing refinery jobs, there are still many jobs that will be harmed in agriculture, trucking, [and] small businesses."
Yesterday, we also said that environmentalists may be sweetening the deal for legislators by saying some of the money could go to the general fund (which would help the state deal with the $2.8 billion budget shortfall).
Fisher says, "The 'deal' [environmental lobbyists are] trumpeting also assumes that the additional [hazardous substance tax] money will provide sufficient funds that would break loose other capital fund dollars to be transferred to the general fund," characterizing it as "a shell game reminiscent of the Safeco Field baseball cap features," and as "misguided diversion tactics that created the funding gap in the first place."
Fisher is referring to $180 million in hazardous substance tax revenues that went to help balance the general fund last year (a one time deal from last year that hardly explains why the storm water clean up funds are scarce.)
Environmental lobbyist Cliff Traisman does acknowledge that it would be possible for the legislature to use the money for the general fund, but adds, "That is not our proposal."
It was, however, the greens proposal at the beginning of the session when they'd pitched the higher tax and said 70 percent of the money could go to the general fund for several years before reverting back to the storm water fund. "We were very open about that," he says.
