CarbonWA

We're putting the (carbon tax) band back together!

2010-07-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

Hello all: This blog has not had much traffic this year because the Senate climate bill was keeping us in a holding pattern, but now that the Senate bill is dead the time has come to make a strong push for a state-level carbon tax. I am personally committed to that goal, and I've talked to others who are also enthusiastic about trying to fill the vacuum left by the failed federal bill and the struggling regional (WCI) effort.

So:

I definitely think we should work on an economists' letter along the lines of the 2007 letter from BC. Anybody interested in working on that with me should let me know.
Someone (I think someone in our group!) posted a carbon tax proposal on the website the governor is using to solicit budget ideas. If you've got a free minute or two to register and vote please do: right now the carbon tax proposal has -31 votes :)
Other ideas from yours truly: Write up some guiding principles for our group? Write another op-ed? Update the website? (Some deeper thinking about how to best use technology would also be fabulous.) If you have other ideas please email me or comment below!
If you're interested in taking part in once-a-month meetings (we used to hold these but haven't for a while), please let me know your availability and preferences for lunchtime (or 5pm?) meetings in downtown Seattle.
FYI, Jon Yoder of WSU and I presented our economists' view of carbon pricing (PDF) before the State Energy Strategy advisory committee earlier this month, and as far as I know folks there and at Dept of Commerce are still seriously considering a carbon tax, as are some environmental groups in town. If I have additional updates on those fronts I'll let you know.

PS. If you're confused about the title of this post, it's adapted from a quote from the movie Blues Brothers. Video here :)

Updates (and no meeting this week)

2009-09-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone: Sorry for the late notice on this, but let's not meet on Thursday. Here's the news:

1) The Waxman-Markey time line continues to be hit by delays: Joe Romm at Climate Progress says that "now it is officially impossible to imagine a Senate vote before November. And I’d say it’s now at most 50-50 the vote isn’t until December or January."

2) Todd Myers is going to be meeting with some state legislators this month, and I'm going to try to do the same. If you have any connections or want to join the fun please let me know!

3) Last time I emailed out an invitation for thoughts on Waxman-Markey (and a heads-up that I was writing something about my own thoughts). Below are some excerpts from an email from David Oliver; I'd be happy to forward the entire email to anybody who wants it. And I can also email you a draft of an op-ed I'm working on, which (as it happens) overlaps quite strongly with David's thoughts. (The bottom line is that I think Congress should pass Waxman-Markey without the cap, and that we should keep working on a stronger form of carbon pricing.) Comments welcome, and of course I should remind everyone that the CarbonWA group as a group has no stance on Waxman-Markey but that individual members of the group are free to share their own opinions. (And if anybody else has opinions they want to share with the group please send them my way!)

4) I'm going to have trouble making meetings for the next few months because of my teaching commitments. So... hopefully we can get work done via email, and if anybody is gung-ho on meetings then let me know and we can go from there! :)

PS. I got a boost in the arm from reading Elizabeth Kolbert's plug for carbon taxes in the New Yorker. Check it out!

*********************
Dr. David W. Oliver

My background is PHD physics MIT, 33 years at GE R&D Center including managemnet positions and review of GE business strategies.

My knowledge and instincts both tell me that what is most vital in policy is a fixed long term price for fossil fuels. Any policy that results in price fluctuations will inhibit the industrial investment that must be made. Cap and Trade will enhance thosse fluctuations. Trade part will be subject to fraud without any possibility of monitoring and prosecution.

The Larson bill, ignored in congress and by many green organizations, could have worked.

Our congress will distort any legislation that is not driven by public demand and outrage into benefits for their districts and contributors. This is neither cynical nor critical. It is the basis of representative government. The reality is that US public is apathetic regarding climate change and the vested interests are among the most wealthy in the nation.

There is an extremely low probability that the Waxman bill can deliver the long term fixed fossil fuel price needed as it clears congress. It does not do so in present form.

*********************

August update (and no meeting this week)

2009-08-03T07:42:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone: Sorry for the long silence since my last email, but things are moving rather slowly on the climate front because of health care and the Congressional recess coming up soon &etc. So:

1) Let's not meet this week, but let's pencil in our next meeting downtown on Th Sept 3 from 12-1pm. Agenda TBD, but one obvious centerpiece is how to move forward through the molasses. If anybody has thoughts they'd like to email out to the group please send them my way and I'll forward them along.

2) I'm hearing a lot about the Waxman-Markey bill getting pushed even further down the road, e.g., an email from Environmental Defense Fund says "the hoped-for September debate on climate will have to wait until at least October – and perhaps November or even December" and Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress says the Senate vote won't be "until at least November" and "I’d say it’s at least 50-50 the vote isn’t until December or January". (Recall that the international negotiations in Copenhagen are the first two weeks of December.) If the Washington State legislature is thinking of taking up WCI again in their next session, the timing will be tricky, e.g., because the environmental community will be putting together their top priorities in the fall. Depending on how the cards fall there may well be an opening for our proposal. (Yes it may seem that I'm grasping at straws, but so be it :)

3) Just a heads-up that I'm working on an op-ed or blog piece about my own thoughts on Waxman-Markey. If anybody objects because that would interfere with the neutrality of the CarbonWA group, please email me to let me know. On the other side of the spectrum, if any of you want to share your own opinions about Waxman-Markey with me and/or the rest of the group, that would be interesting too, so send them my way. (Please be clear about whether your thoughts are for public consumption &etc.)

Notes from June 4 meeting

2009-06-04T16:21:00.000-07:00

Below are notes from today's meeting, which was a good one, thanks everyone!

In attendance: Christy Nordstrom, Marshall Baker, Anne Engstrom, Anna Fahey, Dorothy Craig, Bruce Flory, Riley Morton, Catherine Carey, Yoram Bauman, Phil Mitchell.

* Anna Fahey (Communications Specialist from Sightline) shared with us public opinion research. (This material was sent out by Yoram via emai; Anna didn't want it posted on the web.) The Yale survey that Phil mentioned is here.

* Updates:

The op-ed is finished (!) and Todd Myers and Bruce Flory are going to submit it to the Seattle Times tomorrow; a nearly-final draft was also sent out via email to avoid putting it on the web.
The website is looking good but we need to work on the About Us page.
There hasn't been much change on the policy front, but here's an updated spreadsheet (carbonwa8.xls) that is less busy than the previous version.
On the legal front, Phil's got a contact who can hopefully help and Yoram is trying to set up a meeting with state constitutional law expert Hugh Spitzer.
On the outreach front, Yoram gave a talk at WWU and some students and faculty were supportive.
One piece of bad news is that signature-gathering pledges are only at 15,000; hopefully the op-ed piece &etc will help build momentum.
And of course there are lots of rumors and opinions about the Waxman-Markey, the WCI, etc. (Following Greg Mankiw, I recommend these pieces voting Yes by Robert Stavins and No by Martin Feldstein.) Our niche is to be ready as a "Plan C" alternative if these measures fail. (Some members of our group want them to fail and some don't, so our job as a group is to walk the fine line of what-if, and I think the op-ed does a great job of doing that.)

* Next meeting: Thursday July 2, 12-1pm, downtown.

Position paper from the Budget and Policy Center

2009-06-03T06:50:00.000-07:00

Read it here.

Agenda for Th meeting downtown 12-1pm, June 4

2009-06-02T09:08:00.000-07:00

Here's a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting, which as usual will be 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave:

12:00-12:05: Introductions

12:05-12:30: Anna Fahey, Communications Specialist from Sightline, will share her public opinion research on carbon taxes, willingness-to-pay, cap-and-trade &etc.

12:30-12:50: Updates on legal, policy, op-ed, website, signature-gathering pledges, and WCI/Waxman-Markey.

12:50-1:00: Next steps and next meeting (Th July 2, but maybe cancel or move to Mon July 6?)

PS #1: Last week I attended a UW law school conference on climate change and human rights, and the message I left with is that the niche we're trying to fill---what happens if WCI and Waxman-Markey don't pass?---is an important one. The attendees (including folks who have actually read all 900 pages of Waxman-Markey :) were not optimistic about the prospects of Waxman-Markey passing both houses of Congress before the next turn-over of the Senate (after the 2010 election), and it sounds like there's lots of concern that nothing substantial will happen at the international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, either. So that puts attention back on state- and regional-level action, which is exactly our niche.

PS #2: Phil Mitchell sent out the message below to his network last week, and I wanted to share it with all of you because it does a great job of staking out our position viz-a-viz enviros who want action on climate change. Enjoy, and hope to see you Thursday!

A ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax and replace it with a carbon tax.

I hope you got a chance to celebrate last week at the EPA hearings -- it was a blast. While we do have much to celebrate, we also have to keep our eyes on the prize: policy action that will actually work to halt global warming.

First, let me recap where we stand.

We've been trying to pass a regional cap on climate pollution (Western Climate Initiative). This past session our reps in Olympia had the chance to move it forward and failed to act. We will try again next year. I call that Plan A.

Then there's federal action. As you know, a massive climate bill is finally moving through Congress, but it's future is unclear. That's Plan B.

The question is, what should we do if state and federal action continues to stall? I'm inviting you to get involved in Plan C.

Plan C is a ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax (and replace the revenues with a carbon tax). This is a brilliant idea. It is a carbon tax with a difference -- it actually saves you money (if you own property), unless you're an energy hog that won't reduce your carbon footprint. If you don't own property and are low income, it raises enough revenue to provide you a rebate. And it actually has a chance of passing, because it targets the state property tax, which people hate.

And it will steadily reduce our emissions of global warming pollution. More details are below.

I think this is a great idea and should be our backup plan if Plans A and B go nowhere. I myself have committed to work on it -- if it's a go -- and I'm asking you to do the same.

Please write back to me and let me know if you'll pledge to gather signatures. We are building a coalition of partners, and having signature pledges from you will really help recruit additional partners.

The pledge is to gather 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. You won't do this in one afternoon (unless you get 10 friends to help), but it's doable. And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!

Understand that we are committing to do this only if Plans A and B continue to go nowhere. This initiative is being led by Yoram Bauman, an economist who co-authored an excellent Sightline book on Tax Shifting. It is inspired by a successful carbon tax that was passed in British Columbia.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!

Phil

Details
We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.

Since the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce the risk from harmful carbon emissions, some may be concerned that revenue from a carbon tax would decrease over time and fail replace the property tax revenue needed to support our schools. The truth is that by increasing the tax at a slow but steady rate, we can maintain a stable revenue stream even as carbon emissions fall.

FAQ: Business/household property tax split

2009-05-16T18:46:00.000-07:00

The business/household split for property taxes is about 1/3 business, 2/3 household. Bruce tracked this down from the 2007 Legislative Guide to Washington State Property Taxes.

Richard Carson at UW on Monday

2009-05-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

On Monday May 18, speaking about Carson, Louviere J., and Wei, E. (2008), "Structuring Australia’s Climate Change Plan: The Public’s Views", CenSoC Working Paper No. 08-002 (56k PDF).
Time: Mondy, May 18th from 11:30am-12:30pm
Location: Parrington Hall Forum (Room 309)

Good news from B.C.

2009-05-14T14:43:00.000-07:00

The B.C. carbon tax survived! See also this story with speculation about national implications.

PS. Bill sends along news that some Congressional Republicans have introduced carbon tax legislation.

Signature-gathering pledges: 10,000!

2009-05-13T17:03:00.001-07:00

So we've got pledges for 10,000 signatures! That's a lot less than we need, but it's a start :)

At our next meeting (Th June 4 12-1pm) we should set up a target for the year. I'm thinking pledges for 100,000 signatures (i.e., about 110 people pledging 900 signatures) would be a good number to line up by January 2010. That's a lot of pledges---about 5 pledges of 900 signatures each week for the remainder of the year---and of course that's only a down-payment on the 241,153 valid signatures we'd need by early July 2010 to get on the November 2010 ballot. But I think 100,000 is a good number to target because (1) we'd get extra pledges as we go along in 2010, (2) it's a number that will hopefully help bring some bigger guns on-board, and (3) five 900-signature pledges each week seems daunting but potentially do-able :)

Notes from meeting with WA Roundtable's Steve Mullin

2009-05-13T15:39:00.000-07:00

I met today with Steve Mullin, head of WA Roundtable. Detailed notes are below, but the overall impression I got (not unexpected) was that neutrality was pretty much the most we could hope for, and in order to get that we'd need to look at impacts on Boeing, Microsoft, Weyerhaeuser, etc. Details:

Climate change is not one of their priorities (taxes and education are).
He expressed some personal preference for carbon taxes over cap-and-trade because of simplicity &etc, which reminded me of Puget Sound Energy's statement of "support for a carbon tax... [because it's] straightforward and transparent... A carbon tax would give the utility sector the cost certainty required to make prudent long-term resource planning decisions and achieve regulatory approval for recovering capital investments."
He was interested in relative tax burdens on households v. business---claiming that the lack of a state income tax pushed the tax burden onto business---so I shared with him, e.g., Bruce's research on the property tax burden (and hence any property tax relief) being split about 60/40 between households and business.
He was keen on reducing the B&O (business) tax burden.
He worried about the impact of a carbon tax on Boeing. (His language was stronger than that :) But he also said that Boeing probably had a large property burden that they'd love to reduce. He gave me the name of a contact there and I've already emailed him.
He also gave me a contact at Microsoft (I've emailed her too) and suggested that they might be receptive to a carbon tax.
Because education is one of their priorities, we talked a bit about setting aside a chunk of money for education, but I didn't get a strong sense that this would make the proposal more attractive in their eyes.

Notes from May 7 meeting

2009-05-07T17:45:00.000-07:00

In attendance: Bruce, Catherine, Dorothy, Jim, Yoram.

Policy: There wasn't much said either for or against the new spreadsheet (linked here). Bruce favors $50/ton over $30/ton but also recognizes that there might be political advantages to going with $30/ton, e.g., because that's what BC has done. Bruce also suggested increasing the low-income offset. (I'm still waiting to hear back from my friends at Resources for the Future who are running some numbers on that.)

Website: We agreed that (1) having an internal website (to use, e.g., for signature-gathering volunteers) was more important at the moment than having an external website, but we also agreed that we didn't need either one in order to start reaching out to potential signature-gathering volunteers. FYI, the draft website is here but it's still not ready to go public.

Outreach: We made minor modifications of the email (see below), and this afternoon I sent it out to some folks (including most of the people on the carbonWA email list :) Also Dorothy said she would take the idea back to her group (Citizens Climate Lobby) and Jim said he would spread the word with some colleagues, and also on his widely read e-newsletter when we get our ducks a little more in a row. Thanks to everyone for doing the same!

Next steps: Next meeting downtown is Thursday June 4, 12-1pm. If you want to get more involved between now and then (research/outreach/etc) just holler!

PS. Below is the email asking for signature-gathering volunteers.

Cheers,
yoram

Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:

* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)

* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.

* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad---36 hours goes by fast :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!

* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in gathering signatures for the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.

Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!

PS. Please do share this with friends who might be interested, and if you and/or they want to be on our once-a-week email list, the more the merrier :)

Regards,
yoram

Agenda for Th meeting downtown 12-1pm

2009-05-04T21:27:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone: Here's a tentative agenda for Thursday's meeting, which is 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave downtown. Hope to see you there!

* Updates (5 minutes): News about WCI, federal action, stakeholder meetings, etc. FYI, here's my update in a nutshell: I've gotten a good response from some green energy Venture Capital folks and a UW student group (UW SEED), a less good response from some environmental groups---having lost the battle at the state level, they have apparently decided to join the battle at the federal level---and am looking forward to discussions in the next week or two with some social justice folks, with some folks connected to big business, and with economic researchers at RFF who are going to tell us about impacts on different income deciles.

* Policy (15 minutes): Here's an updated spreadsheet that includes stronger GHG targets (which makes our revenue estimates more conservative), a lower initial tax rate, and rate increases of inflation plus 5% annually: carbonwa7.xls. It hasn't changed that much from the previous version (carbonwa6.xls), and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, but my 2 cents are that the changes make it more stable in the long-run and more politically attractive in the short-run (e.g., by starting at $30 per ton rather than $50 per ton we can truthfully say that we're just mimicking the carbon tax already in place in British Columbia).

* Website (15 minutes): After a long delay I think we need to get cracking again on having a bare-bones but functional website, so let's talk about who our target audience is and what we need on the website and how to get it done.

* Outreach (15 minutes): I've drafted an email (copied below) to start drumming up support for signature-gathering, and I'm looking for feedback.

* Next steps (10 minutes): To-do list and next downtown meeting Th June 4 from 12-1pm.

Let me know if you have additions/corrections/suggestions for the meeting agenda, and if you can't make the meeting but want to chime in via email please do!

HERE'S THE DRAFT EMAIL (written from my perspective but not hard to modify):

Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:

* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)

* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. Some details are online at www.ourwebsite.org, and FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.

* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!

* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.

Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!

yoram

Updates and Thursday May 7 meeting downtown

2009-04-16T09:41:00.000-07:00

Hey folks: Now that I've mostly finished the cartoon book about economics I've been working on (including a section on carbon taxes!) I have lots of time and energy to work on this. Let me know about your availability too... there are lots of projects to work on :)

Status: For better or worse, the hypothetical scenario that our effort is based on seems to be coming true: the WA state legislature appears to have killed cap-and-trade for this year, and despite optimism from Sightline and others I have a hard time seeing serious federal action coming anytime soon. That leaves an opening for our proposal.

Our proposal: There are plenty of policy details to work out, but my belief is that there is general agreement about the major elements of our proposal, i.e., about having a mostly revenue-neutral carbon tax of $30+ per ton of CO2 (e.g., $0.30+ per gallon of gasoline), with revenue devoted to eliminating the state portion of the property tax, offsetting impacts on low-income households, and other features TBD (to be determined).

Next steps: I propose that we start committing to and working towards a 2010 ballot measure. In addition to continuing to get feedback on the proposal and work out policy details, I am going to start asking folks about their willingness to commit time and energy. (No need for money... yet :) So please think about your own constraints and abilities and what it would take to bring you and your friends and colleagues on board!

Next meeting: Thursday May 7, 12-1pm downtown. Agenda TBD.

Updates and Thursday March 5 meeting downtown

2009-02-24T17:16:00.000-08:00

1) Our very own Todd Myers has an op-ed in today's Seattle Times, "Create incentive to cut emissions with carbon price." (For the record, the piece is paired with a piece in yesterday's Times, "Cap-and-invest approach good for environment and economy" by Michael Butler of Cascadia Capital.)

2) Our next downtown meeting is Th March 5 12-1pm at the usual location (1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room). The agenda includes a WCI update and next steps on the spreadsheet and other updates below. I feel like we're building some momentum, so keep it up! One thing that everyone can do is try to get feedback on the proposal below from friends, local businesses, etc. (I've found that talking to local business owners is great fun! You'll certainly learn a lot about the tax burden on businesses :)

3) I've had valuable conversations with lots of different folks (see the list below), and this updated spreadsheet reflects the resulting proposal. In a nutshell, here's what the current proposal includes and how it differs from the last version:

As before, impose a carbon tax of $50/ton of CO2 in 2010, with additional increases of $10/ton each year starting in 2015. This generates about $4.3 billion a year in 2010.
As before, use $1.9 billion to replace the state portion of the property tax, leaving $2.4b.
As before, set aside 10% of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, leaving $1.9b. (See number-crunching note about this below.)
Instead of doubling the small business B&O tax credit, increase it 10-fold. This idea came from John Burbank of Economic Opportunity Institute, takes up "only" $260m, and means that the percentage of businesses who are exempt from B&O taxes goes up from 48% to 88%. (See details on the second sheet of the spreadsheet.)

That leaves $1.7 billion and the spreadsheet allows this amount to be allocated in different percentages among the following options (each with a cutesy name :)

The Sarah Palin: Rebate local property taxes, for a total state/local property tax reduction of over 40% if all $1.7 billion goes here.
The Van Jones: K-12 math/science education, higher ed clean energy research, green jobs, energy efficiency, etc.
The Dick Cheney: Rebate state B&O taxes across the board, cutting state B&O taxes by over 50% if all $1.7 billion goes here.

Right now the spreadsheet has 100% of the revenue going to the Dick Cheney option, in the hopes that this will attract AWB and/or other business groups. Time will tell if that actually happens or if we'd have a stronger proposal by switching some or all of that money to the Sarah Palin or Van Jones options, but getting business support would be fabulous, and as a first step it would be dreamy to get an op-ed signed by a major business leader and a major environmental leader. (Any ideas???)

PS. Here are some of the folks I've talked to lately. Many thanks to them for their feedback, and as always being on this list does not mean that any individual or group is supporting or endorsing anything.

Clark Williams-Derry of Sightline Institute
Michael Lazarus of Stockholm Environment Institute
Jeff Chapman of WA Budget and Policy Center
Doug Howell
Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future (RFF, a DC-based environmental economics think-tank; Dallas has tentatively agreed to do some number-crunching for us on income-decile impacts, which is awesome)
John Burbank and Marilyn Watkins of Economic Opportunity Institute
Graham Evans of WA Clean Technology Alliance

And in the days ahead I'm hoping to meet with folks at Puget Sound Energy and others.

Notes from Feb 5 and next steps

2009-02-05T15:47:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone: We had a small but productive meeting today; here's a summary and next steps!

In attendance: Yoram Bauman, Catherine Carey, Todd Myers

Update #1: WCI is still looking iffy (maybe 30% chance?) as far as the legislature goes, and our plan is still to be prepared to step in fast with a proposal if the WCI doesn't pass. That's a challenge because so many eyes are focused on the WCI, but I'm confident that we can make good progress in the next month or so.

Update #2: Bruce Flory tracked down some information on limitations on property tax growth (e.g., from Eyman initiatives); his whole email is below but the key message is that something in the 3.0-3.5% range is a good guess for annual property tax growth (in nominal terms), so our assumption of 4% is a good conservative assumption.

Policy: Todd Myers made a strong case that Assoc. of WA Business and other elements of the business community would be more attracted to a slimmed down proposal that focused on just three things: (1) eliminating the state property tax, (2) setting aside 10% of revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, and (3) rebating state B&O taxes. Getting business support would be amazing, so those ideas are reflected in the current spreadsheet. (If you want to compare with the previous version, there's a tab in the spreadsheet that has the old version.) However, it is also important to note that the policy discussion is still continuing (see below!) so if your favorite idea was left out then there's still hope for major changes, which I think are especially likely if the business community does not get behind this.

Next steps: In the next month we should all attempt to have one-on-one meetings with various stakeholders &etc to see (1) what they think, (2) what it would take to get their names attached to an op-ed supporting this, and (3) who else we should talk to. Todd is going to talk to the business community (and his other right-wing friends :). Yoram is going to talk to his contacts in the business and environmental and education and social justice communities, and everybody else should join in the fun. This is pretty time-sensitive stuff, so feedback via email to me would be best.

Overview: If we can get the voting public on board because of the elimination of the state property tax, the environmental community on board because of the carbon tax, the business community on board because of a hefty cut in B&O taxes, and the social justice community on board because of the offsets for low-income households, that would make one super-attractive package. Let's see if we can make it happen!

Next meeting: Th March 5, 12-1pm, same downtown location.

PS. Todd is also going to investigate the "tax creep" issue that was brought up by one Republican legislator who was concerned that local governments would respond to the elimination of the state property tax by just raising local property taxes.

PPS. Here's the property tax info, from Bruce Flory: OK, here's the scoop. The Eyman initiative that is operative is I-747. Although it passed in 2001, it was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in 2007 but then immediately reinstated by the legislature. It provides that property tax revenue from existing properties can increase by no more than 1% or the rate of inflation (as measured by the U.S. Implicit Price Deflator) - whichever is LESS - from the highest revenue over the prior 3 years. However, this restriction does not apply to new construction (anything requiring a building permit), "improvements" to property (e.g. the increase in value from subdividing a parcel even if it isn't built on), and a few odds and ends like the value of new wind turbines. Statewide, the value of new construction, improvements, etc., averages around $20.5 billion per year. With an average state property tax rate of about $1.75 per $1000, that works out to revenue of almost $36 million which is 2% of total annual revenue of $1.8 billion. This implies that the maximum increase in state property tax revenue is about 3% per year. This is confirmed by some figures I was able to get on actual and forecast increases in revenue from 2005 thru 2015. They are: 2005->2006: 3.4%, 2007: 3.8%, 2008: 3.6%, 2009: 3.1%, 2010: 0.0%, 2011: 3.1%, 2012: 3.2%, 2013: 3.2%, 2014: 3.2%, 2015: 3.1%. So I'm pretty comfortable using something in the low 3% range for our forecast of annual growth in NOMINAL state property tax revenue. For our purposes, using 4% would be very conservative. This of course assumes no change in the regulatory environment. My source for information on the I-747 limits is Kathy Beith in the Dept of Revenue Property Tax Division. My source for historical and forecast revenue growth is Valerie Torres, a tax policy specialist in the Research Division of the Dept of Revenue.

Meeting downtown Th 12-1pm

2009-02-03T15:40:00.001-08:00

Hey everyone: Our next meeting is this Thursday, Feb 5, 12-1pm, at the usual downtown location: 1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room. In case of disaster call me: 206-351-5719.

Agenda:

12:00-12:10: Introductions and updates on the Western Climate Initative and other things (including Bruce's research on property tax limits). Just for the record, there are likely to be folks at the meeting who support WCI and folks at the meeting who oppose WCI. My preference is to continue to sidestep that question and instead focus our meeting on the possibility of carbon tax legislation in the event that WCI does not pass.

12:10-12:30: Policy details concerning this spreadsheet (now updated to include inflation-adjusted numbers!). In a nutshell, the current proposal is a carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2 [$0.50 per gallon of gasoline], rising by $10 per ton per year from 2015 on, with revenue going to (1) eliminate the state property tax, (2) offset impacts on low-income households, (3) fund clean energy R&D, and (4) reduce the B&O [business] tax.

12:30-12:50: Discuss strategy, e.g., at what point to try to publish an op-ed piece and how and when to reach out to social justice folks, enviros, business folks, and education folks.

12:50-12:55: Next steps and next downtown meetings Th March 5, Th April 2, Th May 7.

Spreadsheet and updates

2009-01-09T11:53:00.001-08:00

More later, but for now: Here's a draft spreadsheet based on the work that Bruce and I have been doing. It should be reasonably understandable, so let us know what you think!

PS. Here's an interesting news article. Unfortunately he doesn't clarify (in the last paragraph) if he wants a tax of $20 per ton of C or per ton of CO2.

ExxonMobil CEO Urges CO2 Tax, Not Cap-And-Trade Law
January 08, 2009: 03:11 PM ET
By Ian Talley of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Rex Tillerson on Thursday urged federal lawmakers to consider a "carbon tax" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cap-and-trade law such as the one Congress is drafting.

Marking a major milestone in the evolution of the oil firm's stance on the climate change issue, Tillerson's policy call comes as Democratic leaders prepare to move toward creating stringent cap-and-trade legislation.

"My greatest concern is that policy makers will attempt to mandate or ordain solutions that are doomed to fail," such as a cap-and-trade system, Tillerson said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.

"A carbon tax would be a more direct, transparent and more effective approach, " he said.

A carbon tax is a straight fee for emissions while a cap-and-trade system establishes economy-wide emission limits and a market for firms to buy and sell pollution allowances based on whether they were above or below their cap.

Only a few years ago, Exxon was a major financial supporter of climate change skeptics, though recently the firm's position had begun to recognize the political reality in Washington as Democrats' power rose, and the company started calling a carbon tax a more "reasonable" solution to cut emissions in the economy. Tillerson's comments represent the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon.

Exxon's public stance on a carbon tax comes as U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the strongest advocates for stringent climate change legislation and clean energy legislation in Congress, is expected to be named chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for drafting greenhouse gas laws.

The move - if ratified as expected later Thursday - will likely mean tougher greenhouse gas and clean energy policies out of the Energy and Commerce Committee than industry had forecast before a major shake-up in the panel late last year. Markey's play follows the successful November coup by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., for the chairmanship of the full Energy and Commerce Committee from more moderate Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It is widely believed to have been approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also backs tough cap-and- trade legislation.

Analysts say Markey in the post will help Waxman to more easily pass tough new cap-and-trade legislation that would cut greenhouse gases sooner, faster and across a wider spectrum of the economy than Dingell or Boucher would have preferred. At one time, Dingell had proposed a carbon tax. By forcing lawmakers and the public to quantify the economic impact of cutting greenhouse gases, analysts said the veteran automaker advocate attempted to make it less politically tenable to support stringent emissions reductions.

Tillerson said cap-and-trade systems "inevitably introduce unnecessary costs and complexity that undercut their effectiveness," calling it ultimately a " stealth tax." Taking advantage of the current economic crisis caused by a systemic problem failure in the financial houses, the Exxon CEO also raised the specter of more economic toil precipitated by a cap and trade. "This new Wall Street of emission brokers will take the emphasis away from the goal of reducing carbon emission and focus it's attention on price volatility," he said.

Tillerson said reductions and changes to other taxes, such as income or excise policies, could offset the carbon tax on the economy.

Although widely encouraged by economists - including within the Congressional Budget Office - who say it's a more efficient and direct approach to cutting emissions, the carbon tax has been largely shunned by most lawmakers as it's seen as politically unfeasible to pass. That may be why Exxon has joined the ranks of other heavy carbon emitters calling for a carbon tax, as it would reveal more transparently of the actual costs to the economy of putting a premium on greenhouse gas emissions.

Rising energy prices and a stumbling economy are thought to have played the biggest role in the embarrassing defeat of a climate change bill in the Senate last year. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., withdrew Sen. Barbara Boxer's bill from floor consideration after it was clear that a majority of Senators weren't going to support the estimated $7 trillion measure.

And the failing economy - along with a massive fight over how the income from auctioning emission allowances will be re-distributed between industries - is why many lawmakers have said final passage of climate change bill isn't likely this year.

Pressed by reporters to say what price level Tillerson thought carbon would need to be taxed to activate emission cuts, the oil chief said it would take at least $20 a ton. "It's a question of how much you think the economy is willing to take and how aggressive you want to be," he said.

-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires

Updates and Thursday Jan 8 meeting downtown

2009-01-07T07:15:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year, everyone! Our next meeting is this Thursday, Jan 8, 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave. Sorry for the late notice.

Agenda
* 12:00-12:05: Updates (see also below) and introductions
* 12:05-12:40: Detailed discussion of the spreadsheet that Bruce drafted: BruceF.xls. Based on his prior work and a spreadsheet I posted last time, this spreadsheet should be a good focal point for continued discussions about tax rates, low-income rebate, spending options, and other policy issues.
* 12:40-12:55: Strategy for 2009: What are our goals and what are next steps? (For example, when would be a good time to start submitting op-ed pieces?)
* FYI, our next meeting downtown is Th Feb 5, 12-1pm.

Updates
* One recent article of interest is conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer's call for a revenue-neutral $1/gallon gas tax in this Weekly Standard cover story (he says he's an "agnostic" on anthropogenic climate change and mostly talks about how the gas tax would be good for national security reasons and to avoid more heavy-handed government policies like tighter CAFE fuel-economy standards). In advocating a policy in this direction, Krauthammer joins a fine group of conservatives that also includes speechwriter David Frum, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, and local Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Center.
* Another interesting read is this NY Times article ("In Obama's team, two camps on climate", Jan 2). The Obama camp's supposed opposition to carbon taxes should be a huge warning sign that he may not be all that keen on cap-and-trade either---remember that both policies will raise energy prices.
* Finally, yesterday's P-I article ("Eyman launches campaign for a tax-capping initiative", Jan 6) emphasizes the continued political attractiveness of targeting property taxes. The initiative Eyman filed is the "Lower Property Taxes Initiative" and it was only one of two initiatives that were filed to reduce property taxes.
* Oh, and one more: An article in the Seattle Times ("Governor favors mostly free permits for polluters", Dec 13). The title of the article pretty much says it all, but this is very bad news for anybody who wants sensible climate policy.

Updates and Thursday Dec 4 meeting downtown

2008-12-02T09:06:00.000-08:00

Hey folks: Please RSVP to me (yoram@smallparty.org) if you're coming to our next meeting, this Thursday Dec 4 12-1pm, in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave.

Agenda
* 12:00-12:10: Updates (see also below) and introductions
* 12:10-12:40: Policy options, including discussion of tax rates, low-income rebate, and spending options. A good focal point might be this spreadsheet: thenumbers.xls. The second and third sheets are mostly unintelligible, so focus on the first sheet. There are some details on low-income options &etc in a spreadsheet that Bruce has, hopefully we can post that too...
* 12:50-12:55: Next steps and next meeting downtown Th Jan 8, 12-1pm.

Updates
* I and others in the group continue to get feedback from different groups, including groups outside the traditional lefty circles. (I'm being intentionally vague here---hopefully more details coming soon.)
* On Nov 25 Catherine and Christy and I met with Jen Marlow and Jeni Barcelos, two UW law students who interned with Sightline and Washington Environmental Council to study legal issues about "cap-and-dividend", which proposes to redistribute cap-and-trade revenue to state citizens. (If you're curious they're also the main forces behind the "Three Degrees" conference on the law of climate change and human rights, coming up at UW May 28-29 2009.) My gloss on what they found was that (1) the state constitution prohibits gifts of public funds except to the "poor and infirm"; (2) there is no bright line definition of "poor and infirm", but we're almost certainly OK if we focus on the bottom income quintile (i.e., bottom 20%) or on folks below 40% of median income; (3) extending benefits above these levels may or may not be constitutional based on analysis of case law involving gifts of public funds; (4) it may or may not help to "phase out" benefits, i.e., have benefits decline slowly for folks in the 2nd income quintile so as to not have a rapid drop-off of benefits; (5) there's a wildcard if you can show that the spending furthers a "fundamental government purpose", e.g., providing daycare to single moms is legal even if the moms are not "poor and infirm"; (6) the expert on all this is UW law professor Hugh Spitzer, who teaches the class on Washington State constitutional law.

In the news

2008-11-25T06:31:00.000-08:00

From the Nov 24 NY Times "Green Inc" blog: States Flirting With Higher Gas Taxes.

From an interactive sidebar in the Nov 19 Wall Street Journal: CEOs hunker down during crisis says that a task force of CEOs met to discuss priorities for the Obama administration. Among them: "Change tax code to encourage employment, job creation, investment, and enhance global competitiveness. Consider raising taxes on gasoline and broadening corporate tax base to lower rates."

From the wild side, I honestly have no idea what to make of this post about anti-cap-and-trade environmentalists.

Meeting at UW Tu Nov 25 12:30pm

2008-11-21T16:04:00.000-08:00

Hey folks: Just a heads-up about a meeting on the UW campus this coming T, Nov 25, 12:30-1:20pm with Jen Marlow and Jeni Barcelos, two UW law students who interned with Sightline to study legal issues about "cap-and-dividend". (If you're curious they're also the main forces behind the "Three Degrees" conference on the law of climate change and human rights, coming up at UW May 28-29 2009.)

Anyone interested in joining should meet at the "Supreme Cup", the cafe in law school (on the ground floor across from Room 133; if you don't know where the law school is then click here). An RSVP to me would be nice too :)

Anyone who can't make it but has questions should send them to me! And of course there's our next downtown meeting on Th Dec 4 12pm.

Updates and next downtown meeting Dec 4

2008-11-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

With election day over, let's get back to work!

Feedback: In the past few weeks I've pitched our general idea (replace the state property tax with a carbon tax) at a Sustainable Industries green business forum in Seattle, at a UW Earth Club meeting, and at an EOI dinner where I had the honor of sitting with Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (also an economist!) and Bill Gates Sr. Nobody laughed at the idea, but I must confess that nobody was particularly gung-ho about it either. The #1 question I got---over and over again---was about revenue stability: "If the carbon tax succeeds in reducing carbon emissions, what's going to happen to state tax revenue?" My belief is that we need to address this question either by (1) changing our proposal to a property tax rebate or a property tax holiday instead of a property tax repeal, or (2) changing our proposal to include a steady increase in the carbon tax rate, something that would also be a good idea from an environmental standpoint. This is something we can discuss---along with definitions of low income &etc---at our next meeting...

Next meetings: Our next downtown meeting is scheduled for Thursday Dec 4 12-1pm. I am also working on scheduling meetings at UW on some Tuesdays 12-1pm and will post notices about those as they occur.

Yoram's pep talk: I think we are very close to having an idea that we can start pitching in op-eds &etc, and as luck would have it my comedy career is providing me with facetime with some movers and shakers: last week the CEO of Puget Sound Energy said he wanted me to perform for his staff, next week I'll see Lisa Brown again, and---heck---I may even have a coffee date with Todd Myers! My point is not to brag unnecessarily (Todd Myers is actually kind of boring :) but rather to suggest that we're not just spinning our wheels. Yes our effort is a long shot, but doing anything about climate change is a long shot and we have an out-of-the-box idea and a variety of ways to plant a bug in the ear of important people. We're continuing to move forward with the website (thanks Catherine and Christy and Chistopher!) and on the policy front (thanks Bruce!) and we should keep going!

No meeting Thursday

2008-11-04T07:00:00.000-08:00

Hey folks: I'm going to cancel Thursday's meeting, so our next downtown meeting will be Thursday Dec 4 and then Thursday Jan 8.

For anybody on or near the UW campus, I'll be talking carbon taxes (and performing some comedy) for the UW Earth Club on Thursday Nov 6, 4:30-5:30pm in Mary Gates Hall Room 258.

Upcoming meetings

2008-10-27T16:50:00.001-07:00

Hey folks: Just a heads-up about three upcoming meetings:

Tuesday Oct 28 (tomorrow), 12-1pm in UW's Suzzallo Library, room 334, to discuss next steps, especially regarding outreach on campus. (Thanks to Jason for arranging the room.)

Wednesday Oct 29, 7:30pm in the Greenlake neighborhood, to discuss the website. (Email me for details.)

Thursday Nov 6, downtown, to discuss next steps and policy details. Please email me if you're planning to come to this meeting because there's a request to change the time from 12-1 to 12:30-1:30.

PS. Sorry for the late notice about these meetings and for the general lack of activity in the last week or two; I'm working on it!

Notes from Thursday Oct 9 meeting

2008-10-10T19:56:00.000-07:00

In brief

The campaign's draft website continues to improve. Comments are welcome!
The test-run initiative we filed has generated lots of food for thought. If you still have comments don't hesitate to toss them in the mix...
The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) continues to falter. Without wishing it ill, we should be prepared to capitalize on the resulting vacuum.
Katherine Bragdon came to our last meeting and gave us the low-down on signature-gathering campaigns. Her advice in a nutshell is to either (1) find $700,000 to pay signature gatherers, or (2) mobilize an army of volunteers and find $700,000 to pay for the office and staff necessary to coordinate that army.
Next downtown meeting: Th Nov 6, 12-1pm, 1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room. Tentative agenda focus on policy details, e.g., Bruce's work on low-income payments.
UW meetings: Tentatively T 12-1pm starting Oct 28. Email Yoram if you want more details.

In length

In attendance (as private citizens unless noted otherwise): Catherine, Bruce, Katherine Bragdon, Yoram.
The campaign's draft website received a major facelift thanks to the generosity of Outward Focus Design and the ongoing efforts of Catherine and Christy et al. Comments are welcome!
The test-run initiative we filed has generated lots of food for thought. The most important part of the ballot title is the Concise Description, which is what would appear on the ballot: "This measure would repeal the state property tax supporting public schools and impose a new fee on fossil fuels, directing the fee revenue to education, low-income people, alternative-energy research, and business tax reductions." If you have thoughts about possible revisions that stay within the 33-word limit----note that hyphenated words count as one----then please post or email them. (Keep in mind that in order to make changes if and when we resubmit this measure we'd either need to change the underlying text of the initiative or file a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court :) Less important is the ballot measure summary, but one comment that came out of the meeting was that "education" deserved pride-of-place in the last sentence and not "alternative energy research".
The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) continues to falter. Rumor has it that it's going to be hard to get legislative approval in all states and that OR is going to be a particularly tough sell unless there are major loopholes for forestry offsets. In Washington, rumor has it that WCI is dead if Rossi is elected and dead if Gregoire is re-elected unless she puts serious political capital into it, and even then it has only a 50-50 shot and will probably features lots of grandfathering and not much auctioning. (Next step is draft legislation from the Dept of Ecology, due out in early December.) At the federal level it is also clear (at least in my crystal ball :) that climate change is falling way down the list of priorities. All together this means that come springtime we are likely to have a lot of frustrated enviros looking for action, and we should be ready to capitalize on that.
Next downtown meeting: Th Nov 6, 12-1pm, 1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room. Tentative agenda focus on policy details, e.g., Bruce's work on low-income payments. It would also be great to talk about the tax rate and other parts of the nitty-gritty.
UW meetings: Tentatively T 12-1pm starting Oct 28 with a tentative agenda focus on outreach efforts to other schools and groups. Email Yoram if you want more details.

Katherine Bragdon
Signature-gathering guru Katherine Bragdon came to our last meeting and gave us the low-down on signature-gathering campaigns. Nuggets from her talk:

It takes about 310,000 total signatures to get the 225,000 valid signatures you need to get on the ballot now, and this number will go up after the November election.
Paying for signatures costs about $2 per signature, or about $700,000 total.
You can expect to pay about the same for staff and office &etc to run an all-volunteer signature-gathering effort, and the ones that she's done lately have only had the umph for 50% volunteer signature-gathering; the good news is that having a volunteer effort gives you assets that are useful in the general election campaign.
She's done all-volunteer efforts in the past on animal rights issues, but animal rights advocates are crazy passionate and committed; the only other campaign that did a massive all-volunteer effort was the repeal-the-gas-tax referendum (I-912) in 2005 that gathered 420,000 signatures in just 30 days.
Polling the ballot language is crucial, and that costs about $20,000; you want to start with support of around 65% since it only goes down once advertising starts.
She's tried to enlist students to help with signature gathering but found them to be lacking in follow-through.
The top 250 people in each campaign she's done were responsible for about 75% of the total signatuers; the rest were mostly folks who gathered from friends-and-family rather than at public events.
The internet is great for communicating with loyal supporters but is hard for recruiting new volunteers and it doesn't replace phone calls or letters as ways of organizing and reaching out to supporters. (I'm not sure I agree with her on this one, but then again she's the expert.)
If we could gather pledges for 500,000 signatures she would be impressed but still not at all confident that they'd follow through, and consequently not at all confident that we'd make the ballot.
Organizing beforehand is crucial, and it would be a huge help to have organizations on board to contribute time/staff/money/mailing lists/etc.
All of her campaigns have been Initiatives to the People, which gather signatures between about Feb 1 and June 30; she hasn't done an Initiative to the Legislature, which gathers signatures between about April 1 and Dec 30, but strongly recommends setting a target date for completing of October, before the weather turns bad, because you don't want to have to struggle through bad weather in December to meet your target.

Great work everyone!

Ballot language and meeting Thursday noon!

2008-10-07T14:36:00.001-07:00

Hello all: We're meeting this Thursday 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room of the Joseph Vance Building, 1402 3rd Ave (at Union). Initiative guru Katherine Bragdon will be coming to talk about volunteer signature gathering efforts for ballot measures.

And, speaking of ballot measures, here's our ballot title and ballot summary from the secretary of state:

Ballot title [This is what would appear on the ballot]

Statement of subject: Initiative Measure No. 417 concerns taxes and fees.

Concise description: This measure would repeal the state property tax supporting public schools and impose a new fee on fossil fuels, directing the fee revenue to education, low-income people, alternative-energy research, and business tax reductions.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot measure summary [This would appear in the voters pamphlet and elsewhere, but I don't think it would appear directly on the ballot.]

This measure would repeal the state property tax for the support of the common schools and reduce certain taxes on businesses. It would also impose a new fee on the extracting, processing, refining, or importing of fossil fuels, including natural gas, petroleum, or coal. Revenue raised by the fee would be used for alternative energy research at universities and colleges, common school education, payments for low-income people, and reductions to the business and occupation tax.

Food for thought, and please post your comments online or via email or bring your thoughts on Thursday! You can see more (including Tim Eyman's I-419, also a property tax measure :) on the Secretary of State's website.

New draft and meeting change to Thursdays?

2008-09-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

Hello all:

1) Here's the bill language that I've submitted to the Secretary of State! We should get a ballot title &etc by Oct 7. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback, and note that we still have a bunch of work to do; in particular, Bruce has volunteered to work on the low-income definition, so anybody who wants to get in the loop on that should holler!

2) I'd like to propose that we change our next two meetings (and maybe all future meetings) from Tuesday to Thursday, so please comment on the blog or email me if that works or doesn't work for you. The reason for changing the Tu Oct 7 meeting to Th Oct 9 is that signature-gathering guru Katherine Bragdon can't make the 7th but can make the 9th. The reason for changing the Tu Nov 4 meeting to Th Nov 6 is that on the 6th we'll know more about the direction of state government &etc. And if we're going to change the next two meetings, maybe we should just change all of them to Thursdays, so please comment on the blog or email me to let me know (both for Oct and Nov in particular and for all future meetings in general) if that works or doesn't work for you.

3) Folks in the U-District who are interested in meeting periodically (weekly? biweekly?) should email me to get in the loop. We're just starting to explore dates and times &etc.

4) Agenda items for our next meeting (tentatively Th Oct 9 12-1pm downtown):
* Quick updates on legislative news, ballot measure news, internal stuff, speaking engagements &etc.
* Katherine Bragdon talking and taking Q&A about signature gathering campaigns.

Cheers!
yoram

Initiative draft from Code Reviser's Office!

2008-09-16T17:10:00.001-07:00

Here's the draft the Code Reviser's office came up with based on the language I sent them and a few email exchanges. Some comments:

I'm working on getting a .doc version of this.
We now get to review this draft and make comments or revisions, and we have to do this before our next meeting on Oct 7! We must file a final version by October 2, at which point it goes to the Secretary of State to get a ballot title, summary, number, etc.
Remember that this is just a test run, so we don't have to set everything in stone right now. Having said that, it would be good to take advantage of this opportunity to revise the text, so here are some questions I have... please add your own in the comments section or via email!
Question #1 is about the definition in section 10(3): "Low income means household income that is at or below one hundred twenty-five percent of the federally established poverty level." This language came from an unrelated piece of state legislation, and I don't know whether or not it's appropriate for our purposes.
Questions #2 and #3 are in a similar vein: Question #2 is about the part of section 4(1) that property owners are not eligible for the low-income sales tax credit: Is this a good idea or not? Question #3 is whether it's worth looking into a declining-credit structure so that there's not a precipitous drop-off, e.g., with someone receiving the full credit if their income is $x and receiving zero credit if their income is one dollar more than that?
Question #4 is about section 10(1), which says that we're using metric tons instead of short tons. The difference isn't all that much (1 metric ton is about 1.1 short tons, so a $50 tax per metric ton is a bit less than $50 per short ton) but it's worth pondering for the sake of completeness :)
FYI, the Code Reviser's Office gave me some push-back about calling this a "fee" instead of a "tax", but eventually they agreed. (They argued that a fee is something paid for a service, like a drivers license, and they went along with the argument that this is a fee for polluting the air.)

Notes from Sept 2 meeting

2008-09-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

In brief

Unless someone has last-minute corrections or wants to volunteer to file a "test" ballot measure (don't be shy :), Yoram will file a test ballot measure containing the language here.
Yoram will email State Senator Eric Oemig, who asked us for ideas to look at, with a list. Details below, but the five ideas we decided on were (1) a clean energy competitive grants program, (2) sales tax credits for low-income households; (3) energy-efficiency program tied to county-level property tax credits; (4) efforts relating to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and (5) administrative costs of these and of imposing a global warming pollution fee.
Next meeting downtown 12-1pm on Tuesday Oct 7. Will also investigate meeting with students at UW once the school year starts in late September.

In length

In attendance (as private citizens unless noted): Christy, Catherine, Yoram.
WCI update: Rumor still has it to expect fireworks when the WCI releases their proposal Sept 22. Permit allocations should be especially contentious.
Website update: Catherine continues to update the website. The email sign-up form is now functional, so anyone who wants to test it is encouraged to do so. (It would be good to test it in different browsers.)
We agreed to send Sen Oemig the following list of exploratory ideas: (1) a competitive grants program to fund clean energy R&D programs; (2) use of funds to make direct cash payments to low-income households, preferably in the form of a sales tax credit; (3) use of funds for county-level programs that provide local property tax credits for energy efficiency investments; (4) options for adding funding and/or programs to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and (5) estimates of administration costs for the global warming fee and for the ideas listed above.
Unless anyone hollers in the next day or two, Yoram will file a "test" ballot measure containing the language here, which is modified in fairly minor ways from the pre-meeting version. (Perhaps the biggest change is from "carbon tax" to "global warming pollution fee" :)
Next meetings on the first Tuesdays of the month (e.g., Oct 7, Nov 4, Dec 2) 12-1pm downtown. Will also look into involving UW students when school starts up again.

Draft agenda for Tuesday Sept 2, 12-1pm

2008-08-28T10:38:00.000-07:00

Hey folks: Here's a tentative agenda for our meeting on Tuesday (the day after Labor Day), 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room of the Joseph Vance building (1402 3rd Ave downtown). Let me know if you have additions or changes, and if you can't make the meeting don't hesitate to comment on the blog or via email/phone/etc.

Overview
5 min (12:00-12:05) Introductions and updates.
5 min (12:05-12:10) WCI update.
20 min (12:10-12:30) Legislative work.
20 min (12:30-12:50) Ballot measure work.
5 min (12:50-12:55) Next steps.

12:00-12:05 Introductions and updates.
Updates limited to subjects (internal documents, speaking engagements, etc.) not covered below.

12:05-12:10: WCI update.
The WCI is set to release their final proposal on Sept 22, and rumor has it that the WCI is in trouble, e.g., because of disagreements about permit allocations. There's not much more to say here, but it does add some credence and urgency to our work.

12:10-12:30: Legislative work.
In an earlier post I noted that State Senator Eric Oemig is keen on carbon taxes and asked us for questions to pursue with his staff. Our goal for Tuesday is to pick and choose questions and ideas from the ones I posted earlier and/or ones that folks have come up with since then. This is not a brainstorming session, so email me ASAP if you want to add anything to the list below:

Can the revenue be used to provide dollar-for-dollar property taxes rebates as in Tim Eyman's I-892? Or do tax reductions and revenue generation have to be treated separately for some reason?
Is it possible to rebate local property taxes, or to provide lump-sum funds to counties to fund energy-efficiency efforts of their choosing?
Can the revenue go into a cascading pool-type system, where it gets used to rebate tax X, and then if anything is left over it gets used to rebate tax Y, etc?
Funding for clean energy R&D and/or other programs (e.g., "green jobs") at state colleges and universities?
Funding for energy efficiency programs, either tied to or separate from property tax rebates?
Require and/or fund motor vehicle tune-ups, which Aaron K says could increase gas mileage by up to 7%?
Funding for B&O investment tax credits? (Todd says he has legislative language on this.)
Concurrent with property tax reductions, should there be reductions in "excise taxes in lieu of property taxes"? These are described in detail in the state's Tax Reference Manual, but the basic idea that these include five taxes (on aircraft, watercraft, timber, Public Utility Districts, and leaseholding) that generate a small amount of state revenue ($0.28m, $16m, $9m, $17m, and $22m, respectively, compared with $16 billion for the state property tax)
Sales tax exemptions for new cars?
Ideas for offsetting impacts on low-income households include

(a) additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
(b) money for rapid-transit serving low-income neighborhoods;
(c) rebates to low- and middle-income workers for the purchase of fuel-efficiency vehicles;
(d) "green jobs" programs;
(e) funds to reduce bus fares,
(f) direct cash payments to low-income households; and
(g) using the revenue to fund the Working Families Credit. (This last option is on ice because proponents of the Working Families Credit are opposed to this.)

12:30-12:50: Ballot measure work.
In our last meeting we agreed to file a test initiative shortly after Tuesday's meeting. Since this is just a test initiative, we don't need to be too careful about this, but I'm going to try to write up something to post online before the meeting. Until then, here are some issues to think about:

Are we still going to do this? (Just checking :)
What are we going to allocate revenue to? (Note that we don't have to go for the same ideas that we ask Sen. Oemig about; the two approaches----legislative and ballot measure---can substitute for or complement each other.)
Exemption for carbon sequestration?
Should we try to tax the carbon content of fossil fuels refined in WA but sold out-of-state?
What tax rate should we use?

12:50-12:55: Next steps.

Weekly or bi-weekly meetings at UW in addition to our downtown meetings?
Future downtown meetings 12-1pm on the first Tuesdays of the month: Oct 7, Nov 4, Dec 2, etc.

Notes from talk with Sen. Eric Oemig

2008-08-18T16:32:00.000-07:00

Catherine and I talked with state Senator Eric Oemig last week.

In brief, he's keen on carbon taxes and wants us to suggest some questions that legislative policy folks could look into. We should aim to have this finalized by the end of our next meeting on Sept 2.

Here are some draft questions---please email me or post comments on this blog post if you have additions &etc----and below that are detailed notes from our conversation with Sen. Oemig.

* Can the revenue be used to provide dollar-for-dollar property taxes rebates as in Tim Eyman's I-892? Or do tax reductions and revenue generation have to be treated separately for some reason? Also, is it possible to rebate local property taxes, or just state property taxes?

* What about energy efficiency programs (tied to or separate from property tax rebates) and what about B&O investment tax credits?

* What ideas are there for offsetting impacts on low-income households? Some ideas from Aaron of the Economic Opportunity Institute are (1) additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); (2) money for rapid-transit serving low-income neighborhoods; (3) rebates to low- and middle-income workers for the purchase of fuel-efficiency vehicles; "green jobs" programs. To this I would add two previously discussed ideas: (4) paying to reduce bus fares, and (5) direct cash payments to low-income households. A sixth idea, using the revenue to fund the Working Families Credit, is on ice because proponents of the Working Families Credit are opposed to this.

* Can the revenue go into a cascading pool-type system, where it gets used to rebate tax X, and then if anything is left over it gets used to rebate tax Y, etc?

In length, here are my notes from our talk with Sen. Oemig.

1) He had some doubts about whether the WCI had unstoppable momentum and said that he thought a carbon tax could work with the WCI since each state would get its share of credits---WA could have a carbon tax instead and buy or sell credits to even up emissions with the WCI target. [Note from Yoram: I'm not sure what the point of this would be, but stay tuned...]

2) It doesn't matter how good a carbon tax is, it's like a gas tax and everybody hates the gas tax. $20/ton of CO2 ($0.20 per gallon of gas) is too high, maybe $10/ton but that's pretty high too. How about using the carbon tax money to reduce the gas tax, so that there's no net increase in the gas tax?

3) We need polling data! He's doing a semi-scientific poll of voters in his district and hopefully will share the results with us.

4) Some folks in the legislature are pushing for regulatory alternatives: fuel efficiency standards, closing coal plants, etc.

5) It would be hard to get a carbon tax bill through the legislature, but it might be possible to get a bill through that puts a referendum on the ballot for the state's citizens to vote on. Then the legislators aren't saying "I support a carbon tax" but rather "I want to give my constituents options, so let's put this on the ballot."

6) He might not be the best person to introduce legislation, but he suggested some other folks who would be good.

7) He is willing to talk to some other folks and try to get some staff to work on legislation (!) once we get #8 done and get back to him.

8) To-do: Tighten up our brainstorming and have a list of questions to follow up on, e.g., can you spend money on XYZ? He said to think that the world is your oyster and that everything is allowed until someone tells you it isn't.

9) To-do: Contact other legislators (he gave me a bunch of names) and start to open lines of communication about this.

Notes from Aug 5 meeting

2008-08-06T11:06:00.000-07:00

In brief

The major decision at this meeting was to file a "test" initiative shortly before or after the end of the month. We are actively seeking ideas and/or (less important) legislative language to include in the filing.
During the coming month we will also continue working on the website, PPT, one-pager, etc., with a goal of being ready to do presentations in the fall.
The next downtown meeting is Tuesday Sept 2, 12-1pm and on the first Tuesday of later months (Sept 2, Oct 7, Nov 4, Dec 2).

In length

In attendance (as private citizens unless otherwise noted): Catherine, Phoebe, Aaron, Christy, Yoram, Laura.
We will not attempt to gather signatures for the test initiative---the point is to get the Code Reviser's Office to help us with legalese, constitutional issues, see what kind of ballot title the Secretary of State writes &etc. (All that for the discount price of... $5!) Details in this Guide.
Christy is looking at clean energy R&D, Aaron is looking at energy efficiency ideas, Todd is looking at investment tax credits, and Yoram is working on some flowery legislative intent language and the carbon tax component. The big gap is that we currently have 15% of revenue set aside for offsetting impacts of low-income groups, and we desperately need ideas about what to do with this money, preferably from WA State Budget & Policy Center (here are their WCI comments) or Economic Opportunity Institute. So far all I know is that BP&C and Senator Craig Pridemore are both opposed to using the money to fund the Working Families Credit.
We've made decent progress since last time on the website and PPT. Yoram will revise the PPT, Catherine and Christy et al. will continue working on the website. Phoebe is working on a one-pager.
Aaron agreed to contact Sen Maralyn Chase to get her thoughts. Yoram will continue corresponding with Sen Pridemore and try again to reach Sen Oemig. Aaron and Christy are working on getting a speaking gig lined up with a renewable energy group.
Western Climate Initiative update: The WCI is a group of states and provinces (WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, UT, MT, BC, ONT, etc.) working on a regional cap-and-trade system with a goal of reducing covered emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, which works out to be about the same as getting back to 1990 levels by 2020. (Details.) The cap-and-trade will have a two-stage roll-out, with point sources (electricity generation and large facilities) starting in 2013 and non-point sources (gasoline and diesel--jet fuel does not appear to be covered) joining in 2016. (Details.) How many permits each state gets and what (if any) limits apply to how each state auctions or distribute its permits are both still to be determined, as is how to integrate the WCI cap-and-trade with BC's carbon tax. Whatever happens, BC's carbon tax is a great precedent for our effort, both by itself and in the context of WCI.
Go team!

Updates on website, PPT, next meeting, etc.

2008-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

There's been some great work the last two weeks, so here are some updates---comments are welcome on all of these, either via email or directly in the comments section of this blog! Note that there's a proposal at the bottom for our next meeting to be Tue Aug 5, 11:30am-12:30pm downtown. Please email or comment if you have different or better ideas!

PPT presentation: Yoram and Bill have a draft in both PPT and 6-to-a-page PDF.
Website: Catherine and Christy have an update (also accessible through the links on the right). You can post website comments on the website itself...
Facebook page: Michael set one up, here it is!
Vision and mission statements: Here's Jason's latest effort: Our vision is to improve Washington State's tax system through policies that will strengthen the economy and reduce global warming emissions. Our mission is to build a diverse coalition of people who actively support sound climate policies in Washington State. Our main objective is to lower existing property taxes in favor of a tax on carbon emissions. We will accomplish this goal through education and coalition building, as well as the encouraging policymakers and citizens to vote for related bills and citizen initiatives.
One-pager: Not yet ready.
Legislative contacts and other Olympia outreach: The only update here is that Sen. Eric Oemig (D-45th district, which is Kirkland/Redmond/Duvall/Carnation) asked for a meeting with Todd Myers to discuss his (Todd's) carbon tax proposal. Jason and Yoram are still working on their tasks here.
In-person meetings: How about if we aim for the first Tuesday of each month for a downtown lunch meeting? That would make the next one Aug 5, 11:30am-12:30pm. (Beyond August we can meet 12-1pm... thanks to everyone for accommodating my summer teaching schedule :)

Notes from July 2 meeting

2008-07-02T14:55:00.000-07:00

In short
At the end of next week (Friday July 11), check in on these to-dos:

Yoram and Bill to work on a PPT presentation.
Catherine and Christy to work on the website. (Feedback from everyone welcome from the comments form on the website itself!)
Jason and Catherine to refine the mission/vision statements. (See below, feedback welcome!)
Phoebe to work on one-pager.
Yoram and Jason to contact legislators and other Olympia folks.
Yoram to suggest dates for August meeting.
Michael to look into Facebook, Alice to continue building resource list.

In length
In attendance (as private citizens unless otherwise noted): Catherine, Bill, Jeff, Phoebe, Jason, Aaron, Christy, Yoram.

Legislative route
Discussions with legislators and other Olympia folks made it clear that getting this through the legislature would be tough, especially since it would probably be subject to Initiative 960, meaning that it would either need a 2/3rd majority or an "advisory vote" from the state's citizenry. Nonetheless, Bill found folks connected to House Democrats "more receptive than he thought they'd be."
To do:

Yoram and Jason (others welcome!) to continue getting feedback from legislators and other Olympia folks and try to find someone willing to introduce legislation in January 2009.
Yoram and Bill to work on a 5-10 min PPT presentation.

Initiative route
The most immediately feasible options are a 2009 Initiative to the Legislature or a 2010 Initiative to the People.

The 2009 Initiative to the Legislature would require gathering 250,000+ signatures between March and December 2009 to put the initiative at the top of the legislative agenda in January 2010; the legislature would then have three choices---pass the measure (in which case it would become law), put it on the ballot in November 2010, or put both it and an alternative on the ballot in November 2010.
The 2010 Initiative to the People would require gathering 250,000+ signatures between January and July 2010 to put the initiative on the ballot in November 2010.

To do: Yoram to invite signature-gathering guru Katherine Bragdon to come talk at a future meeting.

Vision and mission statements
Here are Jason's draft:

Vision: To improve Washington State's tax system through policies that will strengthen the economy and reduce global warming emissions.
Mission: Our mission is to build a diverse coalition of people who actively support sound climate policies in Washington State. Our main objective is to lower existing property taxes in favor of a tax on carbon emissions. We will accomplish this goal through education and coalition building, as well as the encouraging policymakers and citizens to vote for related bills and citizen initiatives.

To do: Everyone to offer feedback, Jason and Catherine to refine.

Policy details
We briefly discussed tax rates ranging from $5-$25 per ton of CO2, which are equivalent to $0.05-$0.25/gallon of gasoline. Perhaps there was a rough consensus on targeting around $1 billion in revenue, which would be a tax of about $10-15 per ton of CO2.
Also: Some folks from the legislature and elsewhere are keen on having more money directly funding energy efficiency efforts (e.g., property tax rebates only for specific projects), some right-wing folks are keen on funding a B&O investment tax credit, and the UW student crowd is keen on having money for clean energy research. We didn't reach much of a conclusion, but the general parameters are still in the range of 80% for property and business tax relief, 15% for low-income groups, 5% for clean energy R&D.
To do:

Everyone to continue thinking about this
Yoram to try to get specific ideas about the 15% for low-income groups
Phoebe to work on a one-pager

Outreach
Have a website and a Facebook group as a public face, with this blog for international communications, this wiki for details on policy nuts and bolts, and this wiki for legal issues, policy brainstorms, relevant articles, etc.
To do:

Catherine and Christy to work on the website, with feedback welcome through email and/or the comments section of the website.
Yoram is in charge of the blog
Michael is looking into Facebook