Ballot language and meeting Thursday noon!

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?

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!

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

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

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:

1. 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?
2. Is it possible to rebate local property taxes, or to provide lump-sum funds to counties to fund energy-efficiency efforts of their choosing?
3. 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?
4. Funding for clean energy R&D and/or other programs (e.g., "green jobs") at state colleges and universities?
5. Funding for energy efficiency programs, either tied to or separate from property tax rebates?
6. Require and/or fund motor vehicle tune-ups, which Aaron K says could increase gas mileage by up to 7%?
   
7. Funding for B&O investment tax credits? (Todd says he has legislative language on this.)
8. 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)
9. Sales tax exemptions for new cars?
10. 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:

1. Are we still going to do this? (Just checking :)
2. 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.)
3. Exemption for carbon sequestration?
4. Should we try to tax the carbon content of fossil fuels refined in WA but sold out-of-state?
5. What tax rate should we use?

12:50-12:55: Next steps.

1. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings at UW in addition to our downtown meetings?
2. 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

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

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!