North Dakota sits at the center of the shale-oil boom, and it’s a comfortable seat to be in.
The state has seen a tenfold increase in oil production in the past decade, bringing its daily yield to 1 million barrels. And with production up, joblessness has plunged: At less than 3 percent, unemployment is lower in North Dakota than anywhere else in the nation. But the state has been on a miniature version of this ride before, and its officials know that the boom-and-bust nature of energy development makes it a fickle economic mainstay. Indeed, North Dakota’s economy was hurt in the mid-1980s after oil production dipped. The state is currently producing far more oil than it was 30 years ago, and that growth would make a similar plunge all the more painful.
This time, however, officials think they’ve found a way to make their oil wealth outlast their oil boom: The Legislature and voters in 2010 amended the state constitution to create the North Dakota Legacy Fund.
Since July 2011, 30 percent of state taxes on oil-and natural gas production and extraction have been siphoned into a low-risk investment fund. Not a dime of that can be spent until mid-2017 at the earliest. Even then, spending anything but the interest will require a two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature. And even if legislators authorize tapping into the fund, not more than 15 percent of the principal can be spent during any two-year period.
The fast-growing fund had almost $1.8 billion as of late January, and that’s forecast to grow to roughly $3 billion by mid-June of 2015 and to keep climbing, according to the Office of the State Tax Commissioner.
“There is a pretty common view that we have an obligation to husband this resource for future generations,” said Brad Crabtree of the Great Plains Institute, a nonprofit group that works on energy policy.
The lockbox is an acknowledgment that the resource won’t last forever. “The Legacy Fund was created, in part, due to the recognition that state revenue from the oil and gas industry will be derived over a finite time frame,” notes the fund description that’s tucked into state reports.
North Dakota is hardly the only state with some kind of trust fund for energy-development revenues. And its pool of money, in its infancy, isn’t the biggest either. State officials have, however, attracted praise for how forward-looking the Legacy Fund and other efforts are.
“North Dakota’s approach to oil and gas revenue and its fiscal positioning for the future compares with few other states, including many that have reaped substantially larger oil and gas revenue over past decades,” notes a story published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis’s in-house newspaper. “North Dakota’s permanent trusts, particularly the Legacy Fund, are poised for robust growth thanks to ballooning contributions from rising energy taxes coupled with a mandate for long-term savings.”
Not everybody loves the idea. University of North Dakota economics professor David Flynn says the windfall from oil and gas taxes could instead be used to reduce income- and property-tax burdens. “I would rather see more in the way of broader tax reform at this time,” he said.
But he’s in the minority in the state, where voters have welcomed the idea of creating a long-term trust.
The fund was created under the watch of then-Gov. John Hoeven, now a Republican U.S. senator.
“Senator Hoeven believes the Legacy Fund is a way to look prospectively at North Dakota’s successful oil and gas development, a way to position the state to benefit the people of North Dakota for many years into the future,” said Hoeven spokesman Don Canton.
As the billions accumulate, so do ideas for how to spend the money, setting up a possibly contentious debate in years to come.
The Great Plains Institute has convened a stakeholder group to develop recommendations for the future uses of the fund. For Crabtree, the institute’s vice president for fossil energy, what to do with the windfall is an open question, and he’s glad that residents are in a position to ask.
“Any time you use a nonrenewable resource on a significant scale,” he said, “no matter how big a resource or how long it might last, it is prudent to set some of that aside for the future.”
What We're Following See More »
Evan McMullin, the independent conservative candidate who may win his home state of Utah, is quietly planning to turn his candidacy into a broader movement for principled conservatism. He tells BuzzFeed he's "skeptical" that the Republican party can reform itself "within a generation" and that the party's internal "disease" can't be cured via "the existing infrastructure.” The ex-CIA employee and Capitol Hill staffer says, “I have seen and worked with a lot of very courageous people in my time [but] I have seen a remarkable display of cowardice over the last couple of months in our leaders.” McMullin's team has assembled organizations in the 11 states where he's on the ballot, and adviser Rick Wilson says "there’s actually a very vibrant market for our message in the urban northeast and in parts of the south."
One of the main reasons for the recent Obamacare premium hikes is that many potential enrollees have simply decided to pay the tax penalty for remaining uninsured, rather than pay for insurance. More than 8 million people paid the penalty in 2014, and preliminary numbers for 2015 suggest that the number approaches 6 million. "For the young and healthy who are badly needed to make the exchanges work, it is sometimes cheaper to pay the Internal Revenue Service than an insurance company charging large premiums, with huge deductibles."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”