存还是花？新墨西哥州、宾夕法尼亚州和德克萨斯州如何管理未来的石油和天然气收入（英）

Daniel Raimi and Zach Whitlock About the Authors Daniel Raimiis a fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) and a lecturer at the GeraldR. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. In 2017, he publishedTheFracking Debate(Columbia University Press), a book that combines stories from histravels to dozens of oil- and gas-producing regions with a detailed examination of keypolicy issues. Zach Whitlockis a senior research analyst at RFF. His research interests spanextractive industries, discourse analysis, and corporate sustainability initiatives.Whitlock earned his MPhil in Environmental Policy from the University of Cambridge,where his dissertation focused on tracking trends in the climate change discourse ofenvironmental lobbying organizations. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Natural Resources Defense Council, particularly Doug Simsand Matthew Tejada, for supporting this work. Thank you to Alex James (Universityof Wyoming) for suggestions on the political economy of income taxes in resource-producing states, and to Kris Smith (Headwaters Economics) for comments on a draftof this report. Collecting data for this analysis would have been impossible withoutthe contributions of numerous state officials from the New Mexico Legislative FinanceCommittee, Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission, and the Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the open records teamsat the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Texas Comptroller’s office. About RFF Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution inWashington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resourcedecisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF iscommitted to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policysolutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy. The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from thoseof other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. Sharing Our Work Our work is available for sharing and adaptation under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. Youcan copy and redistribute our material in any medium or format; you must giveappropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made,and you may not apply additional restrictions. You may do so in any reasonablemanner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, orbuild upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. For moreinformation, visithttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Abstract Energy development often provides substantial economic benefits as well as changesto environmental and health conditions for host communities. In this analysis, we seekto understand one aspect of energy development with important short- and long-term implications: how state governments collect and use oil and gas revenues. Wefocus on the top US oil- and gas-producing states: New Mexico, Pennsylvania, andTexas, which offer three distinct models for collecting and using revenue to managecurrent and future fiscal health. We find that New Mexico collects the largest share ofrevenues among the three states (roughly 20 percent of production value in 2023) andinvests roughly half in long-term savings funds that will support education and othergovernment services in perpetuity. Texas collects roughly 10 percent of productionvalue and invests roughly one-fifth in long-term savings earmarked for statewideeducation, along with some investments in short-term savings. Pennsylvania collectsjust 3 percent and saves little to none for the future. Although New Mexico’s approachrobustly supports statewide fiscal health, none of these states have policies to protectthe finances of the local governments in host communities (specifically, counties,municipalities, and special districts), which may face significant fiscal risk from shortterm booms and busts and longer-term risks from an energy transition. Contents 1.1. Environmental, Social, and Economic Effects of Oil and Gas Development11.2. Oil and Gas Revenue Policies31.3. New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas4 2. Data and Methods6 3. Results8 3.1. Revenue Collection83.2. Revenue Use9 4. Discussion and Policy Implications124.1. Comparing the Three States12 5. Conclusion and Future Research13 Appendix A. Supplemental Data and Figures15 Appendix B. Oil and Gas Revenue Collection and Allocation Policiesin New Mexico, Texas, and Pennsylvania 19 B.1. Artificial Intelligence Usage Disclosure19 B.2. New Mexico19B.2.1. Oil and Gas Ad Valorem Production Tax19B.2.2. Oil and Gas Production EquipmentAd ValoremTax20B.2.3. Royalties, Leases, and Sales from Federal Lands20B.2.4. Royalties, Rents, Bonuses, and Interest from State Lands21B