Last updated on 2012.11.13
A legislator actually strung me along, on the record? Perish the thought....
Last Saturday, Senator Tom Nelson (R-31/Lead) told a crackerbarrel audience in Spearfish that he would quite likely support SB 126, a measure that would require companies building big oil pipelines like TransCanada's Keystone XL to post a $500 million indemnity bond before laying such monster pipes across the state.
Senator Nelson evidently misspoke. His short answer Thursday in committee was no. On a 4–3 vote, the chairman of the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee cast the deciding vote to defer SB 126 to the 41st day.
Senator Nelson heard Senator Jason Frerichs introduced the bill and sounded perfectly conciliatory, suggesting that he was very willing to discuss smaller amounts than the proposed $500 million. Dakota Rural Action's Luke Temple signaled a similar willingness to compromise, even though he said the costs of spills on comparable lines justify the $500 million figure.
Senator Nelson heard Bret Clanton, landowner from Harding County on the Keystone XL route, point out that Nebraska and Montana have gotten the same kind of guarantee from TransCanada that SB 126 would give to South Dakota. Clanton's neighbor rancher David Niemi from Buffalo said he doesn't oppose pipelines but still wants sensible precautions.
Senator Nelson heard Margo Northrup of the South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems express her organization's desire to have as much protection for landowners like Clanton and Niemi available.
Senator Nelson heard Jeremiah Murphy step up to advocate for the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, many of whose members see the pipeline being laid across their livelihood. Murphy expressed his faith that TransCanada has a keen interest in building the safest pipeline possible, but that a good indemnity bond recognizes that things go wrong despite our best efforts.
Senator Nelson heard John Kersteins of the South Dakota Farmers Union express his members' support for building the Keystone pipelines and recognizing that fair land deals can benefit their members. He just wants to see assurance that property owners will be made whole in case of a leak.
But then Senator Nelson heard TransCanada's lobbyist Drew Duncan step forward to say that TransCanada, with its $47 billion asset base, can't afford to put up 1/100th of that value as collateral to clean up its accidents. Duncan said TransCanada did $3.3 billion in business in 2010, and come 2013 expects to generate $4 billion per year from its operations. He cited all those numbers to assure us that TransCanada would be able to meet the financial obligations of any clean-up and that a bond requirement is thus unnecessary. In other words, despite TransCanada's documented record of getting its numbers wrong, trust TransCanada.
Senator Nelson heard Tim Tollefsrud the Department of Environment and Natural Resources note that one state fund has $2.9 billion and a federal fund has $2.3 billion available to respond to oil spills that the responsible company refuses to redress. Tollefsrud thus took the Governor Daugaard's position that no further safeguards are necessary when we can trust TransCanada.
In rebuttal, Senator Frerichs made the point that the committee ought to show at least as much respect for the ranchers who took time off from good ranching weather to ask Pierre for a little more protection than the respect accorded a giant multinational corporation with lots of limited liability companies to insulate it from responsibility.
Senators Stanford Adelstein (R-32/Rapid City) found Duncan unable to state the actual net worth of TransCanada's insurer. Senator Angie Buhl (D-15/Sioux Falls) asked why TransCanada offered indemnity deals to Montana and Nebraska that it didn't offer to South Dakota. Duncan said the Nebraska offer was a purely political attempt to deter the Nebraska Legislature's special session. Senator Mark Johnston (R-12/Sioux Falls) asked about TransCanada's safety rating... and stunningly, Duncan wasn't ready to offer any specific answer beyond an assurance that TransCanada strives to be a good corporate neighbor. (Duncan, you read this blog: you could have given some stats on pipeline and pumping station reliability.)
Senators Adelstein, Buhl, and Eldon Nygaard (R-17/Vermillion) voted against killing SB 126. They provided on the record good reasons for passing this bill and giving South Dakotans the best protection possible against a disastrous pipeline leak. Senator Tom Nelson, along with Senators Johnston, Dan Lederman (R-16/Dakota Dunes), and Tim Rave (R-25/Baltic) voted no, essentially expressing their faith in TransCanada and other oil pipeline companies.
That vote makes clear who in Pierre is looking out for South Dakotans and who is looking out for Big Oil.
Thank you, Senator Tom Nelson, for clarifying that yes means no.
Is RECALL an option?
Sorry, Maria, not in South Dakota. But Senator Tom Nelson does face a GOP primary challenger, Bob Ewing of Spearfish. Ewing may be just another Republican, but maybe he'll have an interest in holding oil companies accountable for their spills... and legislators accountable for their words.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=122086
Quite possibly Sen. Nelson was distracted by much more important pending legislation. Like getting the American bison the respect and recognition that it surely deserves.
Cory,
Do you mean billions or millions re the DENR testimony?
Bob, I thought I heard Tollefsrud say billion with a B. Did I mishear?
Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify."
Tom Nelson: Trust
TransCanada has been targeted by the growing solidarity:
http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/2012/02/shutdownthecorporations/
The same message was given in the late 90's--trust your local hog lagoon also.
What the GOP majority is saying is that it's o.k. for government to FORCE ranchers (through eminent domain) to allow Transcanada onto their land, but it's not o.k. to FORCE a large foreign corporation to be financially responsible when they cross South Dakota.
Curiously it's the GOP that calls Democrats socialists when they try to help out the poor in America. But it's the same GOP that is helping a foreign corporation privatize profits and socialize risks - just like the GOP did with the gold mines in the black hills. The profits go to the corporation, and ultimately the cleanup costs will go to South Dakota taxpayers and all those ranchers will just have to grin and bear it when their land gets polluted.