May 21, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for oil and gas law

Colorado Court of Appeals: Town’s Fees Regarding Oil and Gas Wells Clearly Prohibited by Statute

May 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Town of Milliken v. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas LP on Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Oil and Gas Well Safety and Security Inspection Fees—CRS § 34-60-106(15).

The Town of Milliken (Town) appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (Kerr-McGee). The judgment was affirmed.

In 1983, the Town enacted a series of ordinances that imposed fees on oil and gas wells within its boundaries. In 1996, the General Assembly amended existing state oil and gas law by enacting House Bill 96-1045. As relevant here, the new legislation, codified in part at CRS § 34-60-106(15), states:

No local government may charge a tax or fee to conduct inspections or monitoring of oil and gas operations with regard to matters that are subject to rule, regulation, order, or permit condition administered by the [Oil and Gas Conservation] [C]ommission. Nothing in this subsection (15) shall affect the ability of a local government to charge a reasonable and nondiscriminatory fee for inspection and monitoring for road damage and compliance with local fire codes, land use permit conditions, and local building codes.

In 2003, the Town enacted another ordinance concerning oil and gas wells that authorized the Town to inspect wells, equipment, and structures to determine compliance with the land use code, the Town fire code, the Town building code, and all other Town health or safety standards. The Town imposed an annual $400 inspection fee for each well within its boundaries that had not been plugged or abandoned. It was undisputed that the Town has never conducted the inspections described. In 2008, the Town enacted an ordinance imposing an annual $400 security inspection fee on each active oil and gas well within its boundaries. The fee was intended to offset the costs incurred by the Town’s police department for additional security checks that the well sites require. It was undisputed that the Town’s police conducted such checks on a regular basis before 2003. In 2010, the Town repealed and replaced the portion of the land use code containing both of the above provisions and replaced it with a provision authorizing inspections of wells and an annual $400 security fee on active oil and gas wells within the Town’s boundaries.

In 2010, the Town sued Kerr-McGee and others seeking to collect the security fees from 2003 onward. Kerr-McGee moved for summary judgment, which was granted in its favor. The district court held that the Town lacked the statutory authority to impose the fees. The Town appealed.

The Court or Appeals found it patently clear that oil and gas well safety and security are matters subject to rule, regulation, order, or permit condition administered by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Thus, the Town’s fees under all of the ordinances above are clearly prohibited. The summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

SB 13-284: Providing for Expedited Air Quality Permitting for Oil and Gas Operators that Certify that They Will Use Certain Pollution Control Technology

May 6, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Sen. Morgan Carroll introduced SB 13-284 – Concerning Streamlining the Environmental Permitting of Oil and Gas Development that Meets Enhanced Environmental Protection Standards. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires the division of administration in the department of public health and environment to provide for expedited air quality permitting for oil and gas operations for operators that certify that they will use pollution control technology that meets enhanced environmental and human health protection standards as established either by the division through guidance or by the air quality control commission by rule. The bill allows the division to provide an analogous permitting schedule and enhanced standards for water quality permitting either by the division through guidance or by the water quality control commission by rule.

The bill was introduced on April 23 and assigned to the Agriculture, Natural Resources, & Energy Committee. The bill is on the Agriculture, Natural Resources, & Energy Committee schedule for Tuesday, April 30 at 8 a.m.

Since this summary, the bill was referred, amended, to the Senate Committee of the Whole.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

HB 13-1316: Requiring Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to Adopt Uniform Groundwater Sampling Rules

May 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On April 18, 2013, Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst introduced HB 13-1316 - Concerning the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s Adoption of Uniform Statewide Groundwater Sampling Rules. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The Colorado oil and gas conservation commission recently adopted rules that require oil and gas operators to conduct groundwater sampling but specify less rigorous standards for particular areas of the state. The bill requires the commission to adopt uniform statewide groundwater sampling rules that obligate operators to sample groundwater sources at specified intervals before and after drilling of a well.

On April 26 the Appropriations Committee amended the bill and sent it to the House for consideration on 2nd Reading.

Since this summary, the bill passed Second Reading in the House with amendments, and passed Third Reading in the House as well. It was introduced in the Senate and assigned to the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Court Lacked Jurisdiction in Case About Leasing of Federal Land Under the Administrative-Remand Rule

March 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in Western Energy Alliance v. Salazar on Friday, March 8, 2013.

This litigation concerned whether the Mineral Leasing Act (“the Act” or “MLA”) requires the Secretary of the Interior (“the Secretary”) to issue leases for parcels of land to the highest bidding energy company within sixty days of payment to the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). Appellants (collectively “Energy Companies”) brought suit seeking to compel the Secretary to issue 118 pending leases on which they were the high bidders and more than sixty days had passed since they had paid BLM in full. The district court construed 30 U.S.C. § 266(b)(1)(A) as imposing a mandate on the Secretary to decide whether to issue such pending oil and gas leases within sixty days of payment, and ordered BLM to make such decisions regarding the still pending leases of Energy Companies within thirty days. Energy Companies appeal the district court’s order and continue to assert that § 266(b)(1)(A) requires the Secretary to issue such pending leases within sixty days rather than merely make a decision on whether the leases will be issued.

In addition to the merits, Intervenors (Conservation Groups) asserted that the administrative-remand rule barred jurisdiction over Energy Companies’ appeal. The Tenth Circuit agreed.

It is well settled law that a remand by a district court to an administrative agency for further proceedings is ordinarily not appealable because it is not a final decision. This general principle has been called the “administrative-remand rule.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that issuing specific leases like the leases in this case fell into the category of quasi-adjudicative agency action. In short, this case fell under the administrative-remand rule.

The Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s order was not a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the administrative-remand rule, the Tenth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction and DISMISSED the appeal.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

SB 13-021: Reaffirming Grant of Power of Eminent Domain to Pipeline Companies Conveying Petroleum Products

January 28, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Sen. Mary Hodge introduced SB 13-021 – Concerning Technical Revisions to Article 5 of Title 38, Colorado Revised Statutes, that Reaffirm that the Provisions of that Article Relating to Rights-of-Way for Transmission Companies Apply to Pipeline Companies Operating Pipelines that Convey Petroleum and Hydrocarbon Products. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Article 5 of title 38, C.R.S., governs rights-of-way for transmission companies and grants the right of eminent domain to any domestic or foreign electric light power, gas, or pipeline company authorized to do business in Colorado for the purpose of obtaining rights-of-way for wires, pipes, regulator stations, substations, and systems needed to conduct its business. Until May 2012, it was commonly understood that article 5 applied to and granted the right of eminent domain to all pipeline companies authorized to do business in Colorado, including companies operating pipelines that convey oil, gasoline, or other petroleum products.

In May 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court held that article 5 grants the right of eminent domain only for acquisition of rights-of-way for pipelines involved in delivering electric power or natural gas and not for pipelines that convey oil, gasoline, or other petroleum products. The bill reaffirms that article 5 grants the power of eminent domain to pipeline companies operating pipelines that convey petroleum products by defining the term “pipeline company” to include such companies and by making additional clarifying technical revisions. Assigned to the Local Government Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Environmental Group Plaintiffs Had Standing to Challenge Oil and Gas Leases But Claims Not Ripe

January 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Palma on Tuesday, January 8, 2013.

Kirkwood Oil and Gas, LLC owned 39 oil and gas leases in Southern Utah that in the 1980s it applied to convert to combined hydrocarbon leases. Such leases would allow Kirkwood to extract oil from tar sands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) never accepted or rejected Kirkwood’s applications. Between 2006 and 2008, BLM and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) issued several decisions declaring that the underlying oil and gas leases were “suspended” pending review of the conversion applications. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and several other environmental groups (SUWA) alleged BLM and IBLA violated the Mineral Leasing Act and other federal laws by retroactively deeming the 39 Kirkwood leases to be suspended, thereby avoiding expiration of the leases according to their terms. The district court held SUWA did not have standing to bring its claims and dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Tenth Circuit discussed the affidavits SUWA submitted to establish injury in fact and held that the district court “misapplied the law when it rejected SUWA’s standing on the basis that the affidavits failed to show its members have visited each of the leases at issue. Neither our court nor the Supreme Court has ever required an environmental plaintiff to show it has traversed each bit of land that will be affected by a challenged agency action.” The court also held that the district court had erred in holding SUWA failed to show a concrete injury sufficient to support standing. “A plaintiff who has repeatedly visited a particular site, has imminent plans to do so again, and whose interests are harmed by a defendant’s conduct has suffered injury in fact that is concrete and particularized.”

The court found that while SUWA was a proper party to challenge the BLM’s decision, its claims were not yet ripe. The challenged decisions were interim decisions, not final. The BLM had not made a decision regarding converting to combined hydrocarbon leases and it appeared unlikely Kirkwood would engage in any oil or gas development until that decision was made. Thus, any harm to SUWA’s members was not imminent or certain. The court remanded to the district court for dismissal without prejudice.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Gas Production Affirmed Because of Likely Success of Nuisance Claim

October 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit issued it’s opinion in Northern Natural Gas Company v. L.D. Drilling on October 17, 2012.

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, Defendants-Appellants, natural gas producers with wells in south central Kansas, challenge a preliminary injunction enjoining them from further gas exploration of those wells. The district court entered the preliminary injunction after concluding there was a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff-Appellee Northern Natural Gas Company would prevail on it’s state-law claim alleging that Defendants’ natural gas production from these wells was an actionable nuisance because it was disrupting Northern’s nearby underground storage of natural gas.

The parties agreed that, to succeed on the nuisance claim, Northern had to establish four elements: 1) that there was an interference with Northern’s use and enjoyment of the field, and that the interference was substantial (this was undefeated); 2)  that there was a substantial likelihood Northern would be able to establish that Defendants acted with the intent to interfere with Northern’s use and enjoyment of the field (the Tenth Circuit found this to be true); 3) that the nature, duration, or amount of of Defendant’s interference with Northern’s use of the field was unreasonable; and 4) that there was a substantial likelihood that Northern would prevail on it’s nuisance claim.

Having found no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit AFFIRMED the preliminary injunction.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Owner of Oil and Gas Leasehold Rights Can Validly Grant Permission Authorizing Another to Conduct Seismic Exploration of a Mineral Estate

October 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kimzey vs. Flamingo Seismic on Monday, October 15, 2012.

Plaintiffs own surface estates in Oklahoma. Defendant is a company engaged in geophysical data services for the oil and gas industry. Owners of undivided interests in the oil and gas and/or mineral leaseholds underlying Plaintiffs’ lands granted permission to Defendant to conduct seismic exploration. Plaintiffs argued that the owners of the leaseholds had no right to grant Defendant permission to enter the properties, and that such permission was further invalid because the seismic exploration did not benefit the mineral estate. In granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion, the district court noted that it is well-established under Oklahoma law that an owner of mineral interests and/or oil and  gas leasehold rights can validly grant a permit authorizing another person to conduct  seismic exploration of a mineral estate. The district court further found that there was no support in the case law for Plaintiffs’ assertion that there must be a benefit to the mineral estate in order for an owner to have authority to assign his right to conduct seismic operations. The district awarded also Defendant $71,560 in attorney’s fees.

The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that  Oklahoma law clearly permits owners of mineral estates to grant access to the surface property in order to conduct seismic exploration. In Oklahoma, the owner of a mineral interest has the right to enter the land to explore for oil and gas. As to attorneys’ fees, after establishing jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court in its award of attorneys’ fees. District court’s grant of Defendant’s summary judgment motion and award of attorneys’ fees AFFIRMED.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Statute of Limitations Begins to Run Under Mineral Leasing Act with Final Decision of Secretary

September 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar on Wednesday, September 5, 2012.

Appellants are energy companies who submitted high bids on oil and gas leases at a BLM auction. Before the leases were issued, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar “announced his decision at a February 4, 2009, press conference and memorialized his determination in a February 6 memorandum to the BLM’s Utah State Director. On February 12, 2009, a subordinate BLM official mailed letters to the high bidders indicating that the leases would not be issued.” The energy companies sued 90 days after the February 12th letter. The district court dismissed the suit because 30 U.S.C. § 226-2 of the Mineral Leasing Act provides a 90-day statute of limitation “after the final decision of the Secretary relating to such matter,” and the final decision of the Secretary had occurred on February 6, not 12.

In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Tenth Circuit panel agreed with the district court, and with its decision that equitable tolling did not apply here. “Judge Lucero would hold that under the plain text of the MLA, the Secretary’s decision was final on February 6 regardless of whether plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) had accrued at that time. Judge Seymour would hold that the word “final” bears the same meaning in the phrase “final decision of the Secretary,” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2, as it does in the phrase “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704, and that final agency action occurred no later than February 6.”

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Colorado Supreme Court: Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Has Broad Authority to Promulgate Rules Governing Permitting Process

June 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Grand Valley Citizens’ Alliance on June 25, 2012.

Application for Permit to Drill—Hearings.

Grand Valley Citizens’ Alliance filed a complaint alleging it was entitled to a hearing on an application for permit to drill pursuant to CRS § 34-60-108(7) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that under subsection 108(7), Grand Valley was entitled to a hearing because it had a filed a petition on a matter within the jurisdiction of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment, holding that § 34-60-108(7) requires a hearing only for rules, regulations, and orders. Permits are governed by CRS § 34-60-106(1)(f), which grants the Commission broad authority to promulgate rules governing the permitting process, including the authority to determine who may request a hearing.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Correctly Declined to Interpret Lease Provision Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

June 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Chase v. Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission on June 7, 2012.

Mineral Estate—Designated Outdoor Activity Area—Drilling Permits—Jurisdiction—Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Plaintiffs Laura Chase and Michael Sutak (collectively, landowners) appealed the district court’s judgment affirming orders of defendant Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC): (1) declining to interpret the lease between defendants Magpie Operating, Inc. (Magpie) and the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (Board); (2) denying landowners’ request to have their property deemed a Designated Outdoor Activity Area (DOAA); and (3) granting a permit to drill for natural gas to Magpie. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further findings by the COGCC.

In 1997, landowners purchased a 77-acre surface estate in Larimer County, knowing it was subject to a mineral rights reservation. The 1916 patent reserved to the state all mineral rights and “the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of mining together with enough of the surface of [the property] as may be necessary for the proper and convenient working of such minerals and substances.” The Board owns the mineral estate and manages it for the benefit of the School Trust pursuant to the Colorado Constitution.

An irrigation ditch divides the property into two parcels. The south parcel is used for agricultural purposes and also contains a residence, agricultural outbuildings, and an indoor riding arena.

Since 1977, the Board had been a party to an Oil and Gas Lease (lease) over a 640-acre section of land that includes the property. The lease was assigned many times, most recently to Magpie. The first attempt to access the mineral estate occurred in June 2008, when Magpie submitted applications for permits to drill (APD) wells on the property.

Magpie consulted with landowners before submitting its APDs. Landowners contacted the COGCC in December 2007 to request onsite inspection of the property to assist in identifying a drilling site. Consultation and an inspection occurred in 2008, principally to address landowners’ concerns about the potential impact of drilling on their equestrian activities.

After submitting the APDs but before COGCC’s evaluation was completed, landowners applied to have their surface estate declared a DOAA. Magpie and the Board protested. The COGCC evaluation was completed in November 2009 and revealed that the proposed alternative drilling site was outside the drilling window. COGCC staff recommended that the COGCC address the request for a DOAA and, if it was denied, allow drilling on the alternative site. The Board approved the alternative well site on December 12, 2009. The staff also recommended a number of conditions of approval of the APDs.

On February 22, 2010, the COGCC held a hearing on the DOAA request and expressed a number of concerns. It ultimately denied the request by a vote of six to three.

Magpie tried to resolve the conflict with landowners by offering to withdraw the request for one well and to move the other. Landowners responded with multiple additional conditions for the well site. The COGCC granted Magpie’s APD for one well at the location suggested by landowners and approved many of their proposed conditions.

Landowners appealed the denial of the DOAA request, as well as the grant of the permit to drill. The district court affirmed the denial of the DOAA and the grant of the APD. Landowners appealed.

Landowners argued that the COGCC erred in granting Magpie a permit to drill because the lease between Magpie and the Board prohibits Magpie from conducting exploration or drilling operations within 200 feet of any improvement on the property without landowners’ consent. The COGCC determined it lacked jurisdiction to interpret the lease. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the COGCC’s interpretation of its Statement of Basis was reasonable and that it limited its jurisdiction, which did not extend to “contracts between surface owners and operators governing surface use. . . . ”

Landowners argued that the COGCC erred in denying their DOAA request because the COGCC failed to apply the clear and unambiguous requirements of the DOAA rule. Landowners stated that the rule provides that the subject area be occupied by at least twenty people for forty days or more, but does not require that all the occupants be present at any one time. The Court agreed but found that the COGCC failed to make the necessary factual findings concerning the DOAA request. Accordingly, the case was remanded for detailed findings on whether the property meets the criteria of a DOAA under the COGCC rules.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Signs More Bills, Including Industrial Hemp Bill

June 6, 2012 by Leave a Comment

In the past few weeks, Governor Hickenlooper has continued his efforts to sign bills into law. So far this legislative session, he has signed 278 bills into law.

Governor Hickenlooper traveled to Ft. Collins on May 22, 2012, to sign the following bill:

  • HB 12-1326 – Concerning Assistance to the Elderly, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree and Sen. John Kefalas. The bill encourages the State Board of Health Services to raise the monhly Old Age Pension amount and also allows seniors with partial Medicaid eligibility to receive dental assistance and transfers funds to the Senior Services Account.

Governor Hickenlooper signed 29 bills into law on Thursday, May 24, 2012, including one that encourages Colorado’s use of clean energy alternatives. Five of the bills signed that day are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1315 – Concerning the Reorganization of the Governor’s Energy Office and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Jon Becker and Sen. Pat Steadman. The bill reorganizes and renames the Governor’s Energy Office and changes its statutory mission. The bill intends to promote clean and renewable energy.
  • HB 12-1346 – Concerning Sex Offender Registration.
    Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Steve King. The bill establishes requirements for sex offender registration for individuals who do not have a fixed residence.
  • HB 12-1328 – Concerning Exclusion from the “Uniform Commercial Credit Code” of Certain Charges by Persons Regularly Engaged in Making Contracts for Purchase of Tangible Personal Property in the Course of Business if Those Charges Do Not Exceed Amounts Permitted by Law.
    Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Priola and Sen. Angela Giron. The bill clarifies the appication of the pawnbroker exclusion to the UCCC.
  • HB 12-1307 – Concerning the Authority of a Nonlawyer Trustee of a Certain Size Trust to Represent the Trust Before the Board of Assessment Appeals.
    Sponsored by Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Ellen Roberts. The bill authorizes a nonlawyer trustee to represent its trust before the Board of Assessment Appeals if the total size if the trust is less than $3 million.
  • SB 12-009 – Concerning the Consolidation of Cash Funds Administered by the Division of Water Resources, and, In Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing Appropriations.
    Sponsored by Sen. Mary Hodge and Rep. Keith Swerdfeger. The bill creates the water resources cash fund, as recommended by the Water Resources Review Committee, and consolidates it into six branches.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed 14 bills into law. Four of them are summarized here.

  • SB 12-078 – Concerning Protections for At-Risk Adults.
    Sponsored by Sen. Evie Hudak and Rep. Sue Schafer. The bill clarifies definitions and modifies requirements regarding the mistreatment, self-neglect, and exploitation of at-risk adults.
  • HB 12-1237 – Concerning the Records Kept by Unit Owners’ Association of a Common Interest Community.
    Sponsored by Rep. Angela Williams and Sen. Ted Harvey. The bill identifies a list of the records required to be kept by a unit owners’ association for a common interest community.
  • HB 12-1263 – Concerning Reducing Barriers to Employment by State of Colorado Agencies for People with Criminal Records.
    Sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy and Sen. Pat Steadman. The bill prohibits state agencies from advertising in employment solicitations that people with criminal backgrounds may not apply, and prevents agencies from doing background checks unless a conditional offer has been given.
  • HB 12-1293 – Concerning Modifications to Procedures that Govern Recall Elections.
    Sponsored by Rep. Nancy Todd and Sen. Keith King. The bill makes various changes and clarifications to the rules governing recall elections.

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed one bill into law.

  • HB 12-1278 – Concerning the Authorization of a Study of the South Platte River Alluvial Aquifer, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Randy Fischer and Sen. Scott Renfroe. The bill requires the CWCB in connection with the State Engineer and the Colorado Water Institute to conduct a study to compile historical hydrological data for the South Platte River Basin.

Finally, on Monday, June 4, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed 17 bills into law. Four of them are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1261 – Concerning Effective Educators in Low-Performing, High-Needs Schools, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Judy Solano and Sen. Bob Bacon. The bill requires that teachers and principals holding certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards be awarded a stipend.
  • SB 12-068 – Concerning Prohibiting the Inclusion of Industrially Produced Trans Fats in Foods Made Available to Students by Public Schools, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Sen. Lucia Guzman and Rep. Tom Massey. The bill prohibits public schools from making available foods or beverages that contain industrially produced trans fats. The bill requires districts with 1,000 or more students to comply and encourages districts with fewer than 1,000 students to comply.
  • HB 12-1099 – Concerning the Establishment of an Industrial Hemp Remediation Pilot Program to Study Phytoremediation Through the Growth of Hemp on Contaminated Soil, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Wes McKinley and Sens. Lois Tochtrop and Suzanne Williams. The bill allows the Industrial Hemp Remediation Pilot Program to study how contaminated soils and water can be purified by the growth of industrial hemp.
  • HB 12-1314 – Concerning an Exception to the Requirement to File an Oil and Gas Severance Tax Return for a Person Who Has Less Than a Certain Amount Withheld, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill creates an exception from filing oil and gas severance tax returns and prohibits the DOR from sending non-filing taxpayers notices of liability unless certain requirements are met.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2012 legislative decisions, please click here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Protected

2013-05-21 07:48:45