An Institutional and Opinion Analysis of Colorado’s Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing and oil and natural gas development are possibly the most contentious energy and environmental issues to face the USA in the twenty-first century. One point of contention is the disclosure of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process. This paper analyses the Colorado 2011 policy requiring disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid information, considered one of the first comprehensive hydraulic fracturing disclosure policies in the country. We conduct an institutional analysis of the disclosure policy to understand how the policy establishes information flows and grants and restricts choices by targeted actors. We then analyse the opinions of people actively involved in hydraulic fracturing debates in Colorado to assess whether they view the disclosure policy as resolving problems. The institutional analysis illustrates how the policy allocates responsibilities in sending and receiving information and the opinion survey shows divergence in perceptions of its potential to resolve problems associated with chemical use or disclosure. Most respondents are in agreement that the new policy failed to build public trust of the hydraulic fracturing process.

Key Words:

• Implementation
• institutional analysis
• fracking
• shale gas
• policy process

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. For their assistance in conducting this research, we wish to thank Sam Gallaher, Jon Pierce, Ben Blair, and Jennifer Kagan. We also want to thank Tanya Hayes for helpful suggestions for improving a previous version of this manuscript.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The 2011 disclosure policy is technically a ‘rule’ as adopted by the COGCC. We call it a policy to distinguish it from rules as defined in the IAD framework.

2. Inter-coder reliability was established by having two manuscript authors independently code 20% of the disclosure rule statements, and then assessing the results for coding consistency. Greater than 80% agreement was achieved across all coding steps (see Carter et al., 2015), including rule typology coding. Coding discrepancies were discussed and resolved by coder consensus.

3. Response rates per organizational affiliation type were the following: federal government (33%), state government (27%), local government (38%), environmental and conservation groups (36%), organized citizen groups (53%), oil and gas industry and professional associations (38%), academics (33%), news media (0%), and others (50%).

4. We also analysed the results using five, instead of three, categories based on the questionnaire item scale asking about the respondents’ normative views towards hydraulic fracturing. By either approach of categorizing respondents, there is a significant difference between categories for all questions, leading to substantive findings of polarized interpretations (Table 3) consistent across approaches.

5. The number of years involved is positively correlated with supportive positions for expanding hydraulic fracturing.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.