State Severance Taxes and the Federal System

Energy-producing states see severance taxes as attractive sources of increased revenues for otherwise tight budgets. Consumers in energy-poor states, however, protest that current rates are excessive and have moved to obtain a reduction. The US Supreme Court heard two cases questioning such taxes during its 1981 term, and Congress, in each of its last two sessions, has seriously considered measures placing a ceiling on severance tax rates. Although discussions usually focus on coal severance taxes levied by Montana and Wyoming, ramifications of changes in national policy are much larger, potentially affecting mineral taxes in all states. Severance taxes yield substantial revenues in some states, as illustrated in the accompanying table. In fiscal 1980, Texas collected more than $1.5 billion from such taxes, while Louisiana, Alaska, and Oklahoma collected $525 million, $507 million, and $436 million, respectively. Oil and natural gas production were the major items taxed. While the table shows only the 10 states with the largest severance tax collections, a total of 17 states had severance tax receipts exceeding $10 million in 1980. The enormous increases in severance tax revenue between 1970 and 1980 can be seen from the table by comparing columns A and B. For the 10 states shown, revenues increased from $650 million to $3.8 billion during that period, due to a combination of higher prices, increased production, and new or increased taxes. In most states, increases in prices and production were more evident than higher tax rates. Although the revenue increase is impressive, it understates the extent of changes occurring during the past decade. Since tax collections are shown for fiscal 1980, the full impact of the decontrol of domestic oil prices is not evident. Also, taxes on natural gas reflect controlled prices. When full de-control of natural gas occurs, significantly higher revenues can be expected in gas-producing states, even if tax rates, production, and world prices remain constant. These increases in severance tax revenues, coupled with further increases expected to accompany natural gas decontrol, have produced fears that a substantial transfer of income is taking place from residents of energy-poor states to those living in energy-rich areas. Others worry that increased severance tax revenues will be used to substitute for a substantial portion of state taxes that would have otherwise been collected from firms and individuals. The resulting improvements in tax climate, it is thought, may encourage firms and workers to migrate to energy-producing states. While these issues are often portrayed as pitting energy have-nots against the haves, such is not entirely the case. Much of the original impetus for limits on coal taxes came from Texas residents, the state collecting the most severance tax revenue. One way of gaining perspective on these concerns is by examining severance taxes per capita and as a percent of state tax collections (see columns C and D in the table). When this is done, Alaska, where 1980 taxes on oil and gas production totaled more than $1300 per capita (and 35% of all state tax collections), stands out as a special case. There, the state was able to eliminate some individual taxes, place revenues in a permanent trust fund, and consider offering a rebate of some previous income