Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
States Counterplan
States Counterplan.................................................................................................................................................1
States Counterplan 1NC (Generic).......................................................................................................................6
1NC: SOLAR POWER CP (1/2) .........................................................................................................................7
1NC SOLAR POWER CP (2/2) ...........................................................................................................................8
2NC Counterplan Solves Best...............................................................................................................................9
2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BEST ...........................................................................................................10
2NC CP KEYREVITALIZES SOLAR POWER..........................................................................................11
2NC CP Solves Competitiveness ........................................................................................................................12
2NC Solar Energy Solves.....................................................................................................................................13
THEY SAY: PERM DO BOTH..........................................................................................................................14
THEY SAY: STATE SPENDING .....................................................................................................................15
1NC: Terrestrial Sequestration CP....................................................................................................................16
2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES......................................................................................17
2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES......................................................................................18
2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING................................................................19
2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING................................................................20
2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING................................................................21
2NC CP SOLVES BETTER THAN CAP-&-TRADE AFFS...........................................................................22
AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION COUNTERPLAN 1NC...................................................................22
2NC AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES BEST......................................................................23
2NC AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES BEST......................................................................25
1NC FUNDING MECHANISM CP...................................................................................................................26
2NC FUNDING MECHANISM SOLVENCY..................................................................................................27
2NC FUNDING MECHANISM SOLVENCY..................................................................................................28
2NC FUNDING MECHANISMS SOLVE.........................................................................................................29
1NC HYBRID CARS (1/2)..................................................................................................................................30
1NC HYBRID CARS (2/2) .................................................................................................................................31
2NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE ...........................................................................................................................32
2NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE............................................................................................................................33
2NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE............................................................................................................................34
2NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE ...........................................................................................................................34
1
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
1NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR CP..................................................................................................36
2NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR SOLVES........................................................................................37
LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR KEY GOODVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) ....38
...............................................................................................................................................................................38
1NC: NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLAN..................................................................................................39
2NC: Tax Credits Revitalize Nuclear Power.....................................................................................................40
2NC: Tax Credits Revitalize Nuclear Power.....................................................................................................41
2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUEL USE........................................................................................42
2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUELS...............................................................................................43
2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................44
2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: COMPETITIVENESS/ECONOMY..............................................................45
2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: COMPETITIVENESS/ECONOMY .............................................................46
THEY SAY: NUCLEAR POWER UNSAFE....................................................................................................47
RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNTERPLAN 1NC...........................................................................................48
2NC INCENTIVES SOLVELEAD TO CONTRACTS...............................................................................49
2NC INCENTIVES SOLVELEAD TO CONTRACTS...............................................................................50
2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES WIND POWER...........................................................................................51
2NC COUNTERPLAN SOVLES SOLAR POWER........................................................................................52
2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BIOMASS/BIOFUELS..............................................................................53
REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE COUNTERPLAN 1NC...................................................54
2NC RGGI SOLVES WARMING.....................................................................................................................55
With a stroke of the pen from Governor John Lynch, New Hampshire today will join the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative-RGGI-a pact negotiated by Northeast governors to reduce global warming
pollution from power plants in the region. The Conservation Law Foundation, a New England
environmental group, hailed the agreement as an "urgently needed and historic step forward in the
state's fight to cut greenhouse gas emissions." "RGGI is one of the best tools in the climate toolkit that
allows us-finally-to begin to take meaningful action to solve the problem of global warming," said Melissa
Hoffer, director of the Conservation Law Foundation's New Hampshire Advocacy Center. "The time to
act is now. We can no longer ignore the rising cost of climate change."A recent study estimates that,
nationally, under a business-as-usual scenario, climate-related impacts due to hurricane damage, real
estate losses, energy costs, and water costs will total $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. Using an innovative
cap-and-trade system, RGGI will combat global warming by setting limits (caps) on the carbon dioxide
emissions produced by power plants in each participating state. For each ton of carbon dioxide a plant
emits, it must purchase one allowance. RGGI's market-based approach will reward plants that reduce
emissions (since they will save money by purchasing fewer allowances), and has served as a model for
federal legislation, as well as for other countries seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Importantly,
New Hampshire's RGGI law ensures that a substantial portion of the funds raised through the auction of
2
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
carbon pollution allowances will be used to fund investments in energy efficiency that benefit residents
and eventually help lower electricity bills.Hoffer continued: "The Granite State's environmental
community worked together to ensure the maximum feasible amount of RGGI auction proceeds will be
invested in energy efficiency, and that will allow New Hampshire to take a big step forward in reducing
its energy demand at a time when energy costs are skyrocketing. The RGGI states have shown
tremendous leadership on this issue, and we are very excited that New Hampshire has passed a strong
RGGI law. But signing RGGI into law is just the beginning. We look forward to continuing to work with
stakeholders across the state to reduce global warming pollution and increase energy efficiency through
innovative strategies that reward smart climate practices."To date, ten states have committed to
participate in RGGI, including Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California and Delaware......................................................................55
2NC RGGI SOLVES WARMING.....................................................................................................................56
2NC RGGI Solves Oil Dependence....................................................................................................................57
2NC RGGI Solves Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................58
2NC RGGI Solves Pollution................................................................................................................................59
2NC RGGI SOLVES THE ECONOMY............................................................................................................60
2NC RGGI Solves EU Relations.........................................................................................................................61
1NC: Building Tax Credit CP.............................................................................................................................62
2NC: Building Tax Credit Solves.......................................................................................................................63
2NC: Building Tax Credit Solves.......................................................................................................................64
2NC: Building Tax Credit Solves.......................................................................................................................65
THEY SAY: States Lack Uniformity.................................................................................................................66
they say: Non- Compliance.................................................................................................................................67
they say: Electricity Rates Rise...........................................................................................................................68
AT: State Spending..............................................................................................................................................69
AT: California Spending.....................................................................................................................................70
AT: California Spending.....................................................................................................................................71
Non-Unique: California Deficit High.................................................................................................................72
Non-Unique: California Deficit High.................................................................................................................73
AT: X Bill Solves the Deficit..............................................................................................................................74
AT: Tax Cuts Resolve the Deficit.......................................................................................................................75
States Cost Effective............................................................................................................................................76
AT: Perm .............................................................................................................................................................77
AT: Perm .............................................................................................................................................................78
AT: PERM............................................................................................................................................................79
3
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
AT: Congressional Circumvention.....................................................................................................................80
AT: Congressional Circumvention.....................................................................................................................81
AT: Court Strike Down - Dormant Commerce Clause ...................................................................................82
AT: Court Strike Down - Dormant Commerce Clause ...................................................................................83
AT: Court Strike Down- Compact Clause.........................................................................................................84
AT: Court Strike Down- Supremacy Clause.....................................................................................................85
AT: Court Strike Down- Foreign Intervention.................................................................................................86
AT: Court Strike Down- Foreign Intervention.................................................................................................87
AT: States Racist..................................................................................................................................................88
AT: Race to the Bottom.......................................................................................................................................89
AT: Race to the Bottom.......................................................................................................................................90
AT: Race to the Bottom.......................................................................................................................................91
2NC: 50 State Fiat................................................................................................................................................92
2AC: California Budget Da (GOP IN/L)...........................................................................................................92
2AC: California Budget Da (GOP IN/L)...........................................................................................................93
2AC: California Budget Da (GOP IN/L)...........................................................................................................95
Uniqueness: California Deficit Decreasing........................................................................................................96
Uniqueness: State Deficits Decreasing ..............................................................................................................97
Link: CP -> State Deficit Spending...................................................................................................................98
Link: CP -> State Deficit Spending...................................................................................................................99
Link: California.................................................................................................................................................100
Link: California.................................................................................................................................................101
Link: New York..................................................................................................................................................102
Link: Alternative Energy Expensive................................................................................................................103
Link: Alternative Energy Expensive................................................................................................................103
Delayed Budget Kills Californias Economy...................................................................................................105
Deficits Kill Californias Economy...................................................................................................................106
Deficits Kill Californias Economy...................................................................................................................107
California Key to National Econ......................................................................................................................108
California Key to National Econ......................................................................................................................109
California Key to National Econ......................................................................................................................110
State Economies Key to National Econ............................................................................................................111
4
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
see any reason why mass production and innovation can't bring down costs quickly. "Just think about the $800 laptop you can buy
today" he says. "Less than 10 years ago it was $2,500, and you can't even compare the functionality. I see the same thing happening
with solar."For the past 30 years Oregon's solar sector has been dominated by early adopters with plenty of ideas and innovation but
limited access to capital. That has changed dramatically. According to the Portland-based research firm Clean Edge, capital
investment in renewable energy companies in the United States has ballooned from $599 million in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 2007. VC
investment in solar topped $1 billion in the nation in more than 700 financing rounds last year, according to the Prometheus Institute, a
sustainable technology research firm based in Cambridge, Mass. Global powerhouses such as General Electric, Google and Applied
Materials also are wagering aggressively on the future of solar as a hedge against rising energy prices and concerns about the true
costs of pollution and climate change. Oregon saw the light in the legislative session of 2007, approving sizable subsidies to companies willing to
invest in solar. The biggest incentive is an aggressive business energy tax credit or BETC (pronounced "Betsy") that was expanded by the state
Legislature in January to cover an enticing 50% of a company's investments up to $40 million. This super-sized incentive has had an immediate impact,
enabling companies to leverage significant capital to set up, expand and drive up production in Oregon. Four companies - SolarWorld, Peak Sun
Silicon, Solaicx and PV Powered - have received state approval for a combined $46 million in tax credits from this one subsidy alone.
variety of pollutants into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), which create
acid rain and smog. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a significant component of greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions
could significantly alter the world's environment and lead to the global warming predicted by most atmospheric scientists. The
combustion of fossil fuels releases more than 6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The United States alone is
responsible for 23 percent of these emissions. Clean energy sources, such as solar energy, can help meet rising energy demands while
reducing pollution and preventing damage to the environment and public health at the same time. Solar energy is an excellent
alternative to fossil fuels for many reasons: It is clean energy. Even when the emissions related to solar cell manufacturing are counted, photovoltaic
generation produces less than 15 percent of the carbon dioxide from a conventional coal-fired power plant. Using solar energy to replace the use of
traditional fossil fuel energy sources can prevent the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. Using solar energy to supply a million homes
with energy would reduce CO2 emissions by 4.3 million tons per year, the equivalent of removing 850,000 cars from the road. Solar
energy uses fewer natural resources than conventional energy sources. Using energy from sunlight can replace the use of stored energy in natural resources such
as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Energy industry researchers estimate that the amount of land required for photovoltaic (PV) cells to
produce enough electricity to meet all U.S. power needs is less than 60,000 square kilometers, or roughly 20 percent of the area of
Arizona. Solar energy is a renewable resource. Some scientists and industry experts estimate that renewable energy sources, such as
solar, can supply up to half of the world's energy demand in the next 50 years, even as energy needs continue to grow.
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
PGE and the Energy Trust of Oregon are also working with ProLogis, the largest owner of warehouses in the world, to convert 17
Portland-area roofs into the equivalent of a 3.4-megawatt solar power plant. "So far we've done about 750 rooftops in Oregon," says
Peter West, the trust's director of renewable energy. "Just think about all the roofs in Oregon. We've barely touched the
possibilities."That's a common theme throughout the industry. For all of the renewed excitement about solar energy, it holds less than
one-tenth of 1% of the world's energy market. The possibilities for growth and innovation seem endless, but it remains to be seen
whether the industry will succeed where it failed during the previous oil crisis in lowering costs to compete without subsidies.
Eventually, it will come down to results. Until then, Oregon's new crop of solar innovators will be humming along to meet demand,
scrambling to prove that the state's incentives have been money well spent. Schumacher is confident that the red-hot market for solar
is no passing phase this time, and the main reason behind that is money. "Nobody ever made any money in this business before now,"
he says. "Now the timing is right," says Schumacher. "There is money to be made. People are willing to invest and take risks because
they see there is no other way out. We have to get rid of our oil dependence. There's no other way. It's got to be done."
RACE TO THE TOP EXPONENTIALLY INCREASES THE SOLVENCY OF BETC- OREGON AND ARIZONA PROVE
Arizona Republic 6/21/08 Arizona losing fight for solar jobs among Western
stateshttp://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/06/21/20080621biz-solarincentives0621-ON.html
Arizona is getting its "clock cleaned" in the competition among Western states to land solar-panel manufacturing companies within
their borders, according to the economic-development group that is losing the fight. At least nine companies that make solar
equipment have passed up the Valley of the Sun in the last year in favor of neighboring states, according to the Greater Phoenix
Economic Council. From those nine projects alone, Arizona is missing out on more than 3,800 jobs, $2.3 billion in investment and
$732 million in state and local revenues during the next decade, GPEC President and CEO Barry Broome said. Adding insult to the
solar losses - four of the projects went to notoriously rainy Oregon. "That's an eye-opener," Broome said this week as he endorsed a
state tax-incentive package to help bring solar manufacturers to Arizona. "Some people would argue that Oregon is not that business
friendly." GPEC still has 11 solar companies scouting Phoenix for new manufacturing locations, representing 4,800 jobs and $5.5
billion in investments, but Broome isn't confident that without incentives his group will be able to out-compete Oregon, New Mexico,
Texas, Nevada, California and Colorado. "We've been essentially shut out," he said.3 Attractive jobs Solar-manufacturing jobs should
be attractive to Phoenix because the region not only boasts a sunny climate, but is losing comparable jobs in the semiconductor
industry that could be replaced by solar-industry jobs, he said. The number of Arizonans working for semiconductor and related
device manufacturers has fallen from nearly 34,000 in 2001 to about 22,000 in 2007 amid layoffs, Broome said."That's only going to
get worse," he said. Arizona is planning at least two major solar-thermal power plants, and state utilities are required to get 15 percent
of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power by 2025. But those commitments alone aren't enough
to convince companies to move manufacturing plants here when other states are offering cash incentives, Broome said, which he does
not endorse. Tax incentives proposed Broome is proposing fast action at the state Legislature, which has about a week left in session.
Broome said it is important to move quickly on incentives because the companies GPEC has spoken with about relocating to Arizona
will make their decisions in the next 12 to 18 months. His proposal includes a transferable income-tax credit and property-tax relief
for solar companies relocating to Arizona that pay at least 150 percent
[Continued]
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
10
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
11
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
The company has hired more than 50 people and is accepting applications for crystal growers and wire saw operators. Ford predicts
the number of jobs will double by the end of the year as the company works out the kinks in its new process and gears up to meet
demand. "The solar industry is a locomotive that has already left the station," he proclaims, "and it is accelerating." Solaicx and PV
Powered are growing quickly and may one day raise further capital by going public. But for now their combined market share is
minuscule compared to that of SolarWorld, the vertically integrated German giant that is building the nation's largest solar factory
plant in Hillsboro. SolarWorld vice president Bob Beisner says his company considered the option of building in Asia to save on labor costs and
rejected it. "We made a decision to manufacture in the U.S. because we feel the U.S. will become one of the biggest marketplaces for solar in the world over the next
five to 10 years. For us to be here makes perfect sense. It will help us to diversify our risks, and the euro exchange rate makes it very favorable to be manufacturing
in the U.S. We were also dissuaded by intellectual property rights laws in China."
12
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
RESEARCHERS AGREE THAT SOLAR ENERGY IS THE MOST EFFICENT REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSIL FUELS
Business & Education 6/7/08 *American Chemical Society* ( Environmental Science and Technology Solar power cuts
pollution http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jun/business/kc_solarpower.html)
A new report confirms that solar electricity is energy-efficient and reduces CO2 emissions.. Over their 30-year life spans,
photovoltaic panels with an area of 10 square meters can spare the planet up to 40 metric tons of CO2. That is how much pollution
would be generated by burning fossil fuels to get the same amount of electricity. The findings were released this May in a report by
an international consortium of solar-energy producers. Additionally, photovoltaic systems can pay back the energy required for their
production, installation, and dismantling in 1956 months. Even better, solar panels deliver 818 times that amount over their
lifetimes. Researchers based their conclusions on a worldwide survey of existing studies on solar products and compared solar
performance in the 26 countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
13
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Sunlight falls everywhere, but America's pursuit of solar power is increasingly narrow. Before 2006, almost all electricity from solar in the United
States was generated by solar photovoltaic panels. But by 2012, almost half of our on-grid solar electric capacity will be in ten concentrating solar thermal plants in
the deserts of the Southwest. Some observers believe the future of solar energy is centralization. They point to the lower price of
concentrated solar electricity promised by new plants. They confuse price and cost. Recently completed centralized solar thermal-electric plants are
similar in cost to decentralized PV projects. Centralized solar has a lower price because federal solar incentives discriminate against decentralized and locally
owned residential rooftop installations and skew investment toward commercial projects This policy bias manifests itself in two ways. The major solar power
incentive is a tax credit. But to use a tax credit you must have tax liability. So the Investment Tax Credit is a de facto incentive for non-residential
installations, because the average American isn't sitting on a lot of tax liability. To add to the homeowner's disadvantage, the federal solar tax credit is
capped for residential solar projects, but not for commercial ones. Take two people, both wanting a 3 kilowatt (kW) solar panel on their roof. Bob
is a business owner, and Harry a homeowner. The total cost of the installation is $24,000. Bob gets $7,200 from the investment tax
credit while Harry gets only $2,000, just because he's putting the panels on his house. Bob can also depreciate his panel's value. State
solar policies offer support for residential solar, but these rarely offset the federal discriminatory incentives. Why do we care whether
solar energy is harnessed on a few hundred square miles of Nevada or on millions of individual rooftops? Why do we care if solar
arrays are owned by those who use the electricity generated? One reason is economic. Decentralized power avoids a significant investment on
new transmission lines, and avoids the losses attendant to transmitting electricity over long distances. Distributed ownership also means distributed economic
benefits, as the power payments (or savings) and tax incentives are spread more widely. But there are powerful reasons that go beyond economics or
physics. New transmission lines will go through someone's backyard. That will require utilities to seize private property, something
worth avoiding. And when people produce their own power they begin to take greater responsibility for their energy use. The more
efficient they become, the more independent they become. Solar thermal electric power has the advantage of having on site storage
systems that can store heat energy long into the evening hours. This promises to make solar energy firm power rather than intermittent
power. Power can be generated even when the sun doesn't shine. But federal policy doesn't prioritize or reward solar energy storage
a policy that would make sense. If it did so, one could expect that entrepreneurs would quickly refine and install storage systems
with rooftop solar systems. There's a better way. Remove the cap on residential tax credits and level the playing field. Amend the tax
credit and make it refundable, so folks without large tax liability the majority of Americans can join the solar revolution. Or
better yet, replace all the tax incentives with a feed-in tariff like the one that has created a tidal wave of solar development in
Germany. Unlike tax credits or buydowns, a feed-in tariff pays for performance, allows anyone to produce renewable energy, and
doesn't require annual Congressional renewal or appropriations. It is a policy that mirrors the abundance and availability of sunlight
with a limitless potential for solar energy investment. Sunlight shines everywhere and American solar energy policy should encourage us to harness it
everywhere, as well.
14
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
renewable energy specialists from law firms such as Stoel Rives and Ater Wynne, research firms such as Clean Edge, developers such
as Commercial Solar Ventures, plus the growing legion of distributors and marketers moving into Oregon. The nation's first renewable
energy undergraduate degree at the Oregon Institute of Technology should bring more expertise into the industry, as will training
programs through Portland Community College and research efforts at the University of Oregon and Oregon State University . New
products ranging from solar-powered skylights and scooters to the City of Portland's goofy solar-powered garbage cans are just the beginning. The next big thing will
probably be building materials with solar cells incorporated into them.
15
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
OR
PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES AND IMPLEMENT CARBON TAXES TO ENCOURAGE TERRESTRIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION.
16
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
any new tax incentives should be directed towards the owners that are actively harvesting timber, if possible.
CARBON TAX IS EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFUL AND INCREASES US ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
Roberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming
and Tax Policy, lexis 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135, 2002
The scientific effectiveness of a tax proposal is another important consideration. The scientific effectiveness of a pro-posal needs to be evaluated
both before it is adopted (ex ante) and after it has been implemented (ex post). n525 An ex ante evaluation would be based on price elasticities of the affected products
(such as energy and energy intensive prod-ucts, such as steel) and the costs of abatement. n526 The demand for total energy use is somewhat inelastic in the short term,
but becomes more elastic in the long term. n527 Cross-price elasticities measure the effect that the change in price in one product has on the price of a competing
product. n528 In crafting a GHG mitigation instrument, governments should consider the environmental impacts of cross-price elasticity, and design the instrument to
shift use from high emitting sources to low emitting sources. n529 The OECD concludes that environmentally related taxes, by raising the
price of certain fuels, can result in significantly lower demand and pollution. n530 However, competing provisions, such as oil and gas
subsidies, can complicate the ex ante evaluation of a GHG mitigation proposal. n531
Ex post evaluation, which is typically more reliable, cannot be done until the proposal is implemented. n532 Exam-ining the results of carbon
taxes implemented in other countries can approximate an ex post evaluation of a proposal. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway have all
imposed carbon taxes for at least ten years. n533 Belgium, Austria, and Germany impose taxes on energy use. n534 These countries also cut some combination of personal income tax, social security contributions, corporate tax, or the tax on capital with the increased revenues raised by the carbon tax. n535 The average revenue
raised by environmentally related taxes imposed by OECD countries is two percent of GDP and six percent of total tax [*1211] revenues.
n536 Sweden, Norway, and Finland have conducted ex post studies of the effectiveness of their carbon taxes. n537 The Swedish study
showed that CO[2] emissions from the heating, industrial and housing sectors were about nineteen percent lower in 1994 than in 1987. n538 The Norwegian study
showed a twenty-one percent decrease in CO[2] emissions from stationary combustion plants. n539 The Finnish study concluded that carbon emissions would have
been seven percent higher in 1998 if carbon taxes had not been im-plemented. n540 As discussed above, many Americans fear that GHG mitigation would
place U.S. industry at a competitive disad-vantage. n541 Studies cited above show that the U.S. economy as a whole could improve as a result of GHG
mitigation, but energy intensive industries are likely to argue for exemptions from a tax on CO[2] emissions to preserve their com-
17
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
partnerships whether it is the DOE regional partnership program, the NEG/ECP, or another alliance states can find information and
a network to support the development of sequestration.
18
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
In response to government, business, and individual commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, carbon is now a priced
environmental asset or commodity in the global marketplace. The United States carbon market is in its formative stages. States and
regions are developing climate change strategies and policy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and mandatory markets are forming at the regional and state
levels. The Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, established by Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
provides a means for organizations and individuals to record their baseline emissions and emission reductions.
TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES GHG EMISSIONS FORESTS ARE COST EFFECTIVE AND VITAL TO
SOLVING US EMISSIONS
Roberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming
and Tax Policy, 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135 lexis, 2002
Forests are already playing a vital role in solving the problem of global warming. 284 The carbon sequestration capacity of U.S. forests is significant . 285 The
EPA estimated annual U.S. carbon sequestration at 270 million metric tons carbon equivalent. 286 This means that U.S. forests and other carbon sinks offset
approximately 17.7% of total U.S. anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 through 1999. 287 However, increasing forest harvests and land-use
changes reduced the total net carbon sequestration resulting from land use and forestry activities by approximately seven percent between 1990 [*1177] and 1999.
288 Harvard Forest researchers found that long-term rates of carbon sequestration were directly affected by the forest's management . 289 Some researchers
note the negative effects of forestry based carbon sequestration. 290 It may be hard to determine the net CO[2] effect of forestry
projects because of difficulty in baseline measurement, difficulty in measuring CO[2] flows, and leakage concerns. 291 Forestry
projects could also pull funds from technology development. 292 Forestry projects are relatively low cost, compared to technology development, and so
may lower the price of tradable clean development mechanism ("CDM") credits. 293 However, researchers that note the negative aspects of forestry
projects also note their collateral benefits: protecting biodiversity, preventing soil erosion, and improving watershed management. 294
Other researchers argue that forest conservation is inconsistent with maximizing carbon sequestration and advocate clear-cutting
followed by replanting. 295 Clear-cutting, though, disturbs forest soils that also store significant amounts of carbon. 296 Newly planted
saplings take many years before reaching maximum carbon storage capacity. 297 A newly planted clear-cut does not protect
biodiversity, prevent soil erosion, or improve watershed management. 298 Mature forests continue to absorb carbon, while providing
these other benefits. 299 [*1178] Therefore, mature forests should be harvested sustainably, while areas that have already been
deforested should be reforested. 300
19
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
WE COULD LIVE 25 TIMES MORE EXTRAVAGANTLY AND STILL OFFSET CARBON FROM PRESERVING
FORESTS TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION IS EFFECTIVE
Bruce Brunta, Historian of Plummers Hollow, How much carbon does our forest sequester?,
http://plummershollow.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/how-much-carbon-does-our-forest-sequester/, 2008
Plants take in CO2 and harness the energy of the sun to drive the chemical reaction that melds carbon with water, producing the
substance of stem and leaf and releasing oxygen. When darkness or drought bring this process of photosynthesis to a halt, plants respire, just as
humans do. That is, plants breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. But over the long life span of trees in an undisturbed forest, huge reservoirs of carbon
are stored for great stretches of time in the organic matter in soil as well as in living wood . Most relevant to Plummers Hollow, Levy describes
measurements of the intake and storage of carbon done at the Harvard Forest, in Petersham, Massachusetts, starting in 1989. The stand that scientists
measured, predominantly an oak-maple forest, had been flattened by a hurricane in 1938. In the first year of the study, the 50-year-old forest was
absorbing 0.8 tons of carbon per acre per year. Previous calculations by ecologists had suggested that a forest of that age should be reaching its
maximum ability to absorb carbon, but measurements at the Harvard Forest 15 years later showed that the rate of carbon sequestration had doubled.
In other words, a 65-year-old forest absorbed 1.6 tons of carbon per acre per year . Other studies suggest that much older forests may continue to
store carbon as they age the older the trees, probably, the more and more carbon they store . The idea the author is driving at is that there may
be some very convincing arguments, in addition to familiar ones about wildlife habitat and water conservation, for preserving a lot of forest lands
uncut. Older forests help in the fight against global warming . The Harvard Forest is of course not Plummers Hollow, but we also own a mostly oak-maple
forest. Excluding about 80 acres out of our 650 acres of land, where a savage cutting was performed 16 years ago before we could buy it, and excluding another 70
acres of recent blowdowns, open meadows, talus slopes, and places that have been selectively logged in the last 30 years, we still have at least 500 acres of forest
ranging from 80 to 120 years old. A 15- to 20-acre section of Laurel Ridge inside and above the large deer exclosure is closer to 200 years old, but much of the
remaining 500 acres was last cut in the late 19th or very early 20th centuries. Thus, if the comparison to the Harvard Forest is roughly valid, I would speculate that the
forest land in Plummers Hollow may be capturing 800 tons of carbon per year, and perhaps quite a bit more. But other than showing that the property captures so
many tons of carbon per year, how does this stack up against the amount of carbon we as a family contribute to the atmosphere through our annual activities? A variety
of websites provide simple calculators so people can input data relating to their daily lives home heating, transportation, consumption of goods and get an
estimate of how much carbon they contribute to the global atmospheric problem. Ignoring the carbon footprint of the Guest House and its occupant, but including our
one jet flight this year, the Carbon Footprint Calculator adds together a variety of estimates and comes up with a figure of 14.134 tons per year. The calculator provided
by the Nature Conservancy returns a figure of 42 tons of carbon per year. A third calculator shows that we contribute 10.2 tons per year. Averaging those three
calculations we come up with 22 tons per year. The conclusion: our (mostly) healthy, moderately old, primarily hardwood forest offsets the
carbon footprint of roughly 36.3 households with a reasonably low-consumption lifestyle like ours. Or to express it another way, we
could live 25 times more extravagantly, wasting resources wildly, and still be net savers of carbon simply by preserving our
private forest from being logged. Not to sound greedy, but if state and federal governments are serious about combating global
warming, perhaps forest landowners should get tax credits for not cutting their woods , comparable to the subsidies long enjoyed by
farmers who enroll arable land in the Conservation Reserve Program.
20
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
21
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
evaporation of water off leaves. n277 Unlike his son, former President George H. W. Bush advocated a "no-regrets" approach to
national environmental policy, which would not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide other societal benefits. n278 These
policy options stressed "energy efficiency, conser-vation, renewable energy, planting trees to enhance CO[2] sequestration from the
atmosphere, and substitution of fuels producing little or no CO[2]." n279 In fact, one commentator said that former President Bush
made trees "a kind of fet-ish of his Administration." n280 For example, the President allocated $ 175 million to plant 1 billion trees in
1990. n281 Calling trees "the oldest, cheapest, most-efficient air purifier on Earth," Bush also [*1176] declared, "we need to refor-est
this bountiful Earth." n282 Taking the lead on conserving forests would also set a good example for other nations facing rapid
deforestation. n283
CARBON TAXES ARE SUPERIOR TO TRADABLE PERMITSFLEXIBILITY PROMOTES INNOVATIONS AND
PREVENTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
Roberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming and Tax Policy,
lexis 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135, 2002
While early attempts at pollution regulation generally involved "command and control regulation," there is a growing consensus for
using market-based instruments to effect environmental reform. n511 Market based instruments include pollution taxes, pollution
subsidies, and tradable permits. n512 Pollution taxes are generally considered the "gold stan-dard" of market-based instruments. n513 Pollution taxes
allow polluters the flexibility to use the most cost-effective means of reducing their emissions, in contrast with command and control regulations, which typically
specify standards for the means of reducing pollution . n514 Pollution subsidies work in [*1209] much the same way as pollution taxes: the
polluter can use any cost effective means of reducing emissions and has an incentive to do so if the cost is less than the amount of the
subsidy. n515 However, pollution subsidies can create perverse incentives. Because a subsidy reduces the costs of entering a pollutive industry, it may
encourage greater investment in the industry and thus more pollution. n516 Tradable allowances, or permits, set a quantity limit for emissions and permit market
forces to determine who will use the allowances. n517
The effect of a pollution tax is to cap the costs of abatement. n518 Alternately, the effect of a tradable allowance is to cap the quantity of
emissions. n519 Cost restrictions, such as pollution taxes, work better than quantity restrictions when "health or environmental damages are not very sensitive to
short term emissions levels or when concerns exist about potentially high costs." n520 As the damages from GHG emissions result from cumulative
exposure, short term increases in GHG emissions cannot be traced to large environmental damages. n521 Accordingly, for abating
GHG emissions, price instruments such as carbon taxes can be expected to be more efficient and effective than quantity in-struments such as tradable
allowances. n522 Tradable allowances may lead to environmental hot spots in low-income communities, n523 and diminish the pressure on emitting
companies to make technological changes to restrict GHG emissions. n524
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
PASS LEGISLATION THAT MANDATES A CHANGE IN ANIMAL FEED RATIONS AND REQUIRES RICE
FERTILIZATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AIMED AT REDUCING AGRICULTURAL METHANE
PRODUCTION.
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
METHANE CAUSES SUBSTANTIALLY MORE WARMING THAN CO2THIS ALLOWS OUR REDUCTIONS TO
HAVE A GREATER BANG FOR THEIR BUCK.
PREFER OUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT PROVES THAT OUR COUNTERPLAN HAS A QUANTIFIABLE IMPACT ON
WARMING AGRICULTURE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 40% OF ANTHROPOGENIC METHANE. IGNORE
AMBIGUOUS AFF SOLVENCY DEFICITS IN THE WORLD OF OUR HYPER-SPECIFIC SOLVENCY CLAIM.
THERE IS A MASSIVE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE CARBON SEQUESTRATION
EPA, 06 (U.S. Environment Protection agency, October 19, National Mitigation Analysis
http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/mitigation_national.html)
The potential to sequester additional carbon and reduce emissions of other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in agriculture and forestry is an
important element for U.S. climate policy. New EPA Technical Report Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and
Agriculture This section of the Web site provides information on GHG mitigation analysis in U.S. agriculture and forestry, i.e., the
technical and economic potential to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce other GHG emissions. Key practices to enhance
sequestration and reduce other GHG emissions in U.S. agriculture and forestry include changes in cropland tillage, tree planting,
changes in forest management, forest preservation, and biofuel substitution. One particular study in 2001 (McCarl and Schneider in
Science) suggests that approximately 200 to 560 million metric tons of additional CO2-equivalent units per year (about 50 to 150
carbon equivalent units) could be achieved through changes in agricultural soil and forest management, tree planting, and biofuel
substitution. These particular results considered the incentive to improve land-use practices at prices of $10 and $50 per metric ton of
additional carbon stored. Other mitigation studies for the U.S. can be found at the Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Forum, Exit disclaimer a forum that was created by EPA, USDA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Farm Foundation. The
purpose of the Forum is to bring together leading experts to compare and discuss different biophysical and economic analyses of GHG
mitigation opportunities in U.S. agriculture and forestry, among other topics.
SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING
EPA, 06 (U.S. Environment Protection Agency, October 19, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry
http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/)
Carbon sequestration is the process through which agricultural and forestry practices remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere. The term sinks is also used to describe agricultural and forestry lands that absorb CO2, the most important global
warming gas emitted by human activities. Agricultural and forestry practices can also release CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere. New EPA Technical Report Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and Agriculture Sequestration
activities can help prevent global climate change by enhancing carbon storage in trees and soils, preserving existing tree and soil
carbon, and by reducing emissions of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). For more information on the science, emissions,
and reduction opportunities for these and other non-CO2 gases, please visit our non-CO2 gases page
24
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
25
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Alliance to coordinate public benefit fund investments in renewable energy. The Clean Energy States Alliance is composed of funds in
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin.
26
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
27
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
28
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
experiences as well. One of the major lessons in that respect has been the importance of writing clear legislative language regarding
the funding and operation of public benefits programs. More than one state has experienced significant delays due to arguments over
the meaning of ambiguous wording in its legislation. Similarly, there have been times where policy conflicts between different
branches or agencies of government have held up public benefit program implementation (e.g., the legislature establishes a general
intent, but the public utility commission refuses to write the implementation rule).11 On balance, however, the experience to date with
public benefit funds has been quite positive. Most importantly, they have proven to be a very effective mechanism for sustaining
energy efficiency improvements in restructured electricity markets.
29
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
PROVIDE TAX CREDITS TO CAR BUYERS BASED ON THE GAS EFFICIENCY OF THE CAR.
30
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
31
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
the environmental, health, and political detriments associated with fossil fuel use can be de-creased, even without hybrid vehicles.
Therefore, with hybrid vehicles, the potential for improvement in these areas increases significantly. There is a real need for
Americans to change their behavior in reference to fossil fuel use. Personal vehicles contribute to a particularly large portion of the pollution in our
atmosphere, and this pollution unequivocally leads to health problems. Furthermore, dependence on Middle Eastern oil, has and may continue to
exacerbate political tensions in that region. However, curing these problems is within our reach. Mann demonstrates how even minor changes in
how we drive can cause major decreases in pollution from personal vehicles, and in turn, significantly improve health condi-tions. n27
Furthermore, Wald insists that a relatively small increase in fuel efficiency can significantly cut dependence on Middle Eastern oil. These results can be
achieved without hybrids; however, more can be achieved with them. The next Part will discuss why hybrids are the best short-term
solution to curing the United States' environmental, health, and political ills.
32
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
33
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
VEHICLE EFFICIENCY EMPIRICALLY SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCY 1979 OIL CRISIS PROVES
Roberta James, Assistant Attorney General at Maryland Environmental Services, OIL AND THE ENVIRONMENT: REDUCING
OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR, University of Baltimore School of Law, 15 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 1, *, 2007
Oil consumption in the U.S. became a concern during the 1970s. 7 By the second oil crisis in 1979, the U.S. was consuming 18.5
million barrels of oil per day. 8 Automobile use accounted for a significant portion of that consumption. 9 As a result, Congress passed
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 10 in 1975, which included a set of standards for fuel economy in passenger cars and light
trucks. These standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") Standards, 11 "provide for improved energy
efficiency of motor vehicles...." 12 From 1979 to 1983, U.S. oil consumption dropped from a high of 18.5 million barrels of oil per day
in 1979 to a low of 15.2 [*3] million barrels per day in 1983. 13 Considering the significant amount of oil consumed by vehicle use
and the "34 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled" (VMT) between 1975 and 1985, 14 many experts attributed the reduction in oil
consumption during this time to increased vehicle fuel efficiency. 15
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Roberta James, Assistant Attorney General at Maryland Environmental Services, OIL AND THE ENVIRONMENT: REDUCING
OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR, University of Baltimore School of Law, 15 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 1, *, 2007
Moreover, government regulation can be particularly useful for advancing technology in the area of automobile equipment and
environmental protection. For example, the "technology-forcing" regulation under the Clean Air Act 85 produced the catalytic
converter and the three-way catalyst in the 1970s and 1980s. 86 These emissions' technologies helped reduce automobile pollution in
the face of increased VMT. 87 As explained in a study by Carnegie Mellon University, manufacturers have little motivation to develop
new technologies absent a compliance requirement or certainty in the marketplace. 88 Furthermore, companies are hesitant to invest in
research and development [*11] (R&D) for fear that, once a technology is developed, others will be able to duplicate it without the
additional R&D costs incurred by the company responsible for the original development. 89 That company will have reduced its profits
by spending on R&D while the other companies that were able to duplicate the technology will not have spent any money on R&D. 90
Regulation requiring a certain technology would force all companies within an industry to develop a product to fulfill the requirement, and even lead to better
technologies as companies compete for the most efficient and cost effective product on the market.
35
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR IS KEY TO PREVENT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS AND IS COST-SAVING
Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, et. al. (Industry Professionals for Clean Air, Environmental Defense Fund,
Environmental Integrity Project) May 2008. Houston, We have a problem. http://www.toxictexas.org/pdfs/Houston%20We
%20Have%20a%20Problem.pdf
Fugitive emissions are leaks from equipment like valves, connectors, pumps, and compressors. According to TCEQs 2004 Point
Source Emission Inventory for Harris County, 42 percent of butadiene emissions, and 28 percent of benzene emissions, were fugitive emissions. And,
fugitive emissions are likely underestimated. In 1999, EPAs National Enforcement Investigation Center found refinery leaks were on average 10 times
greater than reported.81 Although there have been some improvements since 1999, facility audits still show significantly elevated leak rates,
particularly at chemical plants. Fugitive emissions often mean lost profit because the gases leaking into the air could otherwise be sold or used onsite as
fuel. As a result, many requirements for reducing these leaks result in cost-savings. Federal and state regulation of fugitives is generally done through Leak
Detection and Repair (LDAR) programs. These programs set a leak limit (called a leak definition), require periodic monitoring, and establish a
timeline for repairing leaks. Petrochemical companies should implement enhanced leak detection and repair programs that include the following: A
well-managed LDAR program: a written LDAR program covering all units in toxic service should include a facility-wide leak goal
with compliance established on a unit-by-unit basis, training for LDAR employees, contractor accountability and LDAR audits,
including annual independent audits. Components on the delay-of-repair list should be included in leak rates.
36
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
37
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
TURNS CASE: VOCS CAUSE AIR TOXICS LEADING TO DISEASE, WARMING, AND CROP DAMAGE
Draft Oil and Gas Ozone Reduction Strategy 2/26/08 Leak Detection
http://ozoneaware.org/documents/APCDOZISSUEPAPEROGleakdetection_000.pdf
The EPA reports that natural gas processing plants and associated compressor stations emit an estimated 36 billion cubic feet (Bcf)
of methane annually. More than 24 Bcf of total methane losses from gas plants are fugitive emissions from leaking compressors and
other equipment components such as valves, connectors, seals, and open-ended lines.1 While health benefits are not quantified here,
it is understood that reducing direct emissions of VOCs will reduce air toxics and other criteria pollutants. This will reduce the
incidence of human health impacts caused by pulmonary, cardiovascular, respiratory, and nervous system disease. Because ozone
damages crops, forests, and other natural plant life, all would benefit if emissions are reduced. This strategy would also reduce
emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change.
38
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
39
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
40
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
41
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
42
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
43
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Nuclear power has been presented as providing net environmental benefits. Specifically, nuclear power makes no contribution to
global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power also produces no notable sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, or
particulates. When nuclear power is produced, nothing is burned in a conventional sense. Heat is produced through nuclear fission,
not oxidation. Nuclear power does produce spent fuels of roughly the same mass and volume as the fuel that the reactor takes in.
These spent fuels are kept within the reactors fuel assemblies, thus unlike fossil fuels, which emit stack gasses to the ambient
environment, solid wastes at nuclear power plants are contained throughout the generation process. No particulates or ash are emitted.
Waste from a nuclear plant is primarily a solid waste, spent fuel, and some process chemicals, steam, and heated cooling water. Such
waste differs from a fossil fuel plants waste in that its volume and mass are small relative to the electricity produced. The waste is
under the control of the plant operators and subsequent waste owners or managers, including the Department of Energy, until it is
disposed. Nuclear waste also differs from fossil fuels in that spent fuel is radioactive while only a minute share of the waste from a
fossil plant is radioactive. Solid waste from a nuclear plant or from a fossil fuel plant can be toxic or damaging to the environment,
often in ways unique to the particular category of plant and fuel. Waste from the nuclear power plant is managed to the point of
disposal, while a substantial part of the fossil fuel waste, especially stack gases and particulates are unmanaged after release from the
plant.
44
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
45
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
in the partnership theyve created and actually produce a new unit that makes sense, that will cause nuclear power to break away even more. Sen.
Corker said Chattanooga is at the hub of the technology corridor that stretches from the NASA rocket building facilities in Huntsville, Ala., to the
pioneering nuclear research done in Oak Ridge, Tenn. PDF: New Nuclear Plant Status Video: Watts Bar control room simulator Article:
Tennessee: New nuclear plants get more expensive Chattanooga also sits in the middle of the area where most new nuclear reactors are being
proposed in the Southeast. With its river and rail lines and historic ties to nuclear power, Chattanooga is well positioned to land manufacturing and
design facilities the industry is trying to bring back to America, said J.Ed. Marston, vice president of marketing for the Chattanooga Area Chamber of
Commerce. Critics of nuclear power question whether the long-talked-about revival of nuclear power will take hold. These plants are just too risky
and expensive, so for all the talk about a renaissance, no utility has yet committed to building any new plants, said David A. Kraft, an anti-nuclear
activist who heads the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service.
46
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
47
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
OR
OFFER TAX CREDITS TO COMPANIES WHO PARTICIPATE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY CONTRACTS SIMILAR
TO THAT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY.
OBSERVATION ONE: COMPETITION
THE COUNTERPLAN COMPETES BY AVOIDING DISADS LINKED TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION.
OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCY
THE SCES RENEWABLE ENERGY CONTRACT HAS CREATED A STANDARD FOR ALL FORMS OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY USE
Edison International July 2, 2007 New Southern California Edison Renewable Energy Contracts Tap Four Generation Types
Wind, Solar, Biomass, and Geothermal http://www.edison.com/investors/ir_news.asp?id=6792
ROSEMEAD, Calif., July 2, 2007 - Southern California Edison (SCE), the nations leading purchaser of renewable energy, has signed
six new renewable energy contracts that could provide the utilitys customers with up to 480 megawatts1 of low-carbon generation enough power to serve
314,000 average homes. The agreements, subject to approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), include two valuable baseload geothermal
contracts with Ormat and Caithness. Baseload projects produce power around the clock and therefore contribute significant amounts of
energy. Two new wind contracts tap wind resources in Apple Valley and a promising new source of wind energy in the Baja
Peninsula of Mexico, the latter with new California renewable provider Sempra Generation. Additionally, SCE has signed a baseload
biomass contract based on a new power contracting option the utility introduced in May 2007 to help smaller biomass generators.
Finally, solar energy was added to the portfolio through a photovoltaic proposal . We applaud our suppliers commitment to renewable energy,
said Stuart Hemphill, SCEs director of renewable and alternative power. The clean power generated as a result of these contracts will contribute
significantly to Californias ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals. The new contracts result from SCEs 2006
competitive renewable energy solicitation. SCE plans to seek approval of the agreements from the CPUC in the near future. For more about SCEs renewable energy
program, go to www.sce.com/renewables. Related Facts - SCE leads the nation in renewable power delivery, procuring about 13 billion kilowatt-hours of
renewable energy per year, more than any U.S. utility. - SCE currently serves between 16 percent and 17 percent of its customers needs with renewable energy. The
utility continues to work toward meeting the goals of Californias renewable portfolio standard. By 2010, SCE hopes to have contracts which, when fully operational,
will represent 20 percent or more of our customers energy needs. - Prior to SCEs new bio-energy initiative, California biomass projects with generating capacities
between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt had limited opportunities to sell their energy. SCEs new Biomass Standard Contract opens the door for these projects, and it
provides a faster, simpler way for biomass projects below 20 megawatts to sell their power to utility customers. - SCEs renewable portfolio currently has the ability to
deliver more than 2,700 megawatts of electricity. Recent contracts added to the portfolio will increase its capacity when they begin to operate . The current
portfolio includes: * 1,021 megawatts from wind. * 892 megawatts from geothermal. * 354 megawatts from solar. * 221 megawatts
from biomass. * 128 megawatts from SCE-owned small hydro.2 * 95 megawatts from independently owned small hydro. Tax
incentives make renewable energy affordable Elizabeth Brown, Patrick Quinlan, Harvey M. Sachs and Daniel Williams March 2002 (Tax Credits for Energy
Efficiency and Green Buildings: Opportunities for State Action American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy http://www.aceee.org) This report
focuses on tax credits, the third option for increasing energy efficiency on a state level, for the following reasons: Tax credits directly
reduce taxes. In general, the incentive is given as a credit on personal or corporate income taxes. Some mechanisms have been developed to
provide equivalent incentives for non-profit organizations (such as schools) by allowing the general contractor or other party to claim the credit. Sales tax reductions
or waivers are used in Maryland for specific appliances. They are directly coupled to the sales transaction, which seems to give the reductions or waivers influence
beyond the scale of the discount (5%). Tax deductions, particularly applicable to construction programs, typically take the form of
accelerated depreciation for efficiency investments. Tax credits for energy efficiency, however, typically have implications beyond
pure energy savings. For example, green buildings programs (see Chapter 3) promote resource efficiency and sustainable building
principles that make the buildings healthier for employees and the environment . Energy efficiency is just one of a broad range of
benefits. Therefore, although the main focus of this report is on energy efficiency tax incentives, the impacts are much more broad
and beneficial.
48
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), an investor-owned electric utility, offers a production incentive to customers who
generate electricity with eligible biomass-energy systems, including landfill gas, municipal solid waste, wood and wood waste, fuel
cells, digester gas, and sewer gas. Separate contracts are available to facilities with capacities of less than 1 megawatt (MW), facilities
greater than or equal to 1 MW but not greater than 5 MW, and systems greater than 5 MW but not greater than 20 MW. The seller
may select a term of 10, 15 or 20 years. The production incentive payment is tied to the Market Price Referent, which increases
annually. Participants will receive the rate that is available when their project comes on-line for the duration of their contract period.
The Market Price Referent for 2008 varies from $92.71 per megawatt-hour (MWh) to $95.72 per MWh, depending on the length of
the contract. All renewable-energy credits (RECs) convey to SCE. On April 25, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued
Executive Order S-06-06, which sets goals for energy produced by biomass resources. SCE voluntarily initiated this program in
accordance with the order.
STATE TAX INCENTIVES SPUR RENEWABLE INVESTMENT
Elizabeth Brown, Patrick Quinlan, Harvey M. Sachs and Daniel Williams March 2002 (Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency and Green
Buildings: Opportunities for State Action American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy http://www.aceee.org)
States play a fundamental role in addressing energy use and the adoption of energy efficiency measures at the regional and local level.
States can provide tax incentives that foster technology options matched to the needs of their residents. This report describes the current status of
energy efficiency and green buildings tax incentives that states offer. Our goal is to assist state policymakers in designing and
evaluating their own programs by providing insights about current programs in other states. A properly designed state tax incentive has both
short-term and long-range benefits. In the short run, the incentive can effectively increase market share of an advanced technology or practice that otherwise would
be harder for the states residents, businesses, and other organizations to find . By itself, the states action increases the visibility of the technology or practice and
validates it with the states credibility. Greater market share launches a virtuous circle: As market share increases, more market actors (salespeople,
specifiers, installers, etc.) become vested in the technology or practice because it can be more profitable than the status quo and can increase
customer satisfaction. This vestment induces more firms to enter the market and the resulting competition can drive down prices and further
increase market share. At some point, market share is large enough that the technology or practice is clearly cost-effective and has broad support from those who
profit from it. By then, a state tax credit is no longer needed and building codes and other regulatory mechanisms can be revised to make
use of the technology or practice mandatory. State-funded energy efficiency incentive programs increase consumer choices by inducing innovation in the
private sector. The programs thus benefit state energy, economic, and environmental objectives. The private sector needs encouragement to provide products
and services that address broader energy security, system reliability, environmental, and economic goals. In particular, market failures limit private
investment in cost-effective efficiency measures; for example, projected returns may be lower than for other, non-energy investments
or technology deployment timeframes may be too long. Tax credits can accelerate customer acceptance and increase market share for high-efficiency
products and services. Benefits accrue to the state and its residents, the United States and its citizens, and the global climate.
49
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
50
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
51
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
ROSEMEAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Southern California Edison (SCE) today signed a contract to procure an additional 245
megawatts of solar power for its customers with Pasadena, Calif.-based eSolar in the nations first commercial effort using power
tower solar thermal technology. The project, which will be built in the Lancaster area of California, is expected to begin delivering
energy in 2011, with a total of 105 megawatts of renewable solar power by 2012, ramping up to 245 megawatts by 2013. SCE is
currently the nations leading purchaser of solar energy, buying more than 90 percent of U.S. production. Solar is the great
untapped energy resource for California its renewable and plentiful, said Stuart Hemphill, SCE vice president, Renewable
and Alternative Power. We rely on innovative companies such as eSolar to help expand our industry-leading portfolio and to secure
access to the most promising technology solutions. Each pre-fabricated module consists of several solar towers each associated with
thousands of heliostats, or mirrors. The mirrors precisely track the sun over the course of the day and reflect light to a receiver at the
top of each tower. The concentrated light boils water in a central receiver, routing the steam to a traditional turbine to produce
electricity. eSolars solar thermal technology is unique in that it uses shorter towers, small mass-manufactured mirrors and advanced
tracking software, achieving economies of scale within a minimal footprint and easy connection to transmission lines. SCE buys for its
customers more than 90 percent of all solar energy produced. In 2007, the utility procured about 12.5 billion kilowatt-hours of
renewable energy, more than any other utility or state. Renewable energy comprises about 16 percent of SCEs total energy Southern
California Edison Contracts with eSolar for Solar Tower Power portfolio. SCE currently has sufficient contracts in place that, when
delivering, will meet 20 percent or more of its customers energy needs with renewable energy.
52
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
53
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
54
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
(caps) on the carbon dioxide emissions produced by power plants in each participating state. For each ton of carbon dioxide a plant emits, it must purchase one
allowance. RGGI's market-based approach will reward plants that reduce emissions (since they will save money by purchasing fewer allowances), and has served
as a model for federal legislation, as well as for other countries seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions .Importantly, New Hampshire's RGGI law ensures that a
substantial portion of the funds raised through the auction of carbon pollution allowances will be used to fund investments in energy efficiency that benefit residents and eventually help
lower electricity bills.Hoffer continued: "The Granite State's environmental community worked together to ensure the maximum feasible amount of RGGI auction proceeds will be
invested in energy efficiency, and that will allow New Hampshire to take a big step forward in reducing its energy demand at a time when energy costs are skyrocketing. The RGGI
states have shown tremendous leadership on this issue, and we are very excited that New Hampshire has passed a strong RGGI law. But signing RGGI into law is just the beginning.
We look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders across the state to reduce global warming pollution and increase energy efficiency through innovative strategies that reward
smart climate practices."To date, ten states have committed to participate in RGGI, including Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, California and Delaware.
55
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
56
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
My bill to combat global warming gives a green light to green technology, which translates into green dollars and green jobs.
America can run the new green energy economy or get run over by it. We can wait and pay dearly to import this technology from
abroad, or we can lead with what will become major high tech exports of American products. Lets encourage those high-wage greencollar jobs here at home. Instead of an energy policy which consists of little more than holding hands with Saudi princes and doing nothing as gas prices soar,
jobs go overseas, and our planet overheats, we can combat global warming in a way that is right for the environment, right for our economy, right
for our health, and right for our national security. Global warming is this generations greatest challenge, and we need everyone at
the table now to develop a comprehensive solution, said Congressman Blumenauer. We face a carbon constrained economy, and
ignoring this will cost consumers and the environment dearly. A cap and trade system will allow us to create and transfer value. This means that by
cutting emissions, we can generate revenue to invest in renewable energy sources, create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I can think of no
better opportunity and no better time to start.
57
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Brand and others are betting that successful trading of carbon will kick-start the creation of other cap-and-trade systems for ecological
services like watershed protection, biodiversity, and erosion control. But it's more complicated than it sounds. Carbon disperses and
has a global impact. A Latin American butterfly or a Myanmar riverbank? Not so much. "Those are local assets," explains Jesse Fink,
a cofounder of Priceline.com and a prominent eco- capitalist. The challenge is connecting global capital markets so that a butterfly
matters as much, financially, to an investor in Chicago as it does to a farmer in Costa Rica. That will require the creation of a whole
new financial transaction infrastructure, combining local businesses that can authenticate commodities on the ground with
international registries, remote sensing, canopy monitoring, and other mechanisms to monitor and standardize trades. Tough? Sure.
But many experts see these kinds of deals as inevitable. When carbon cap-and-trade comes online in the US, there will be no shortage of demand,
because most of corporate America will be shopping for mitigation credits. Build a cap-and-trade framework for other eco-assets and firms will profit not just from the
sale of carbon offsets but from quantifiable gains in soil conservation, biodiversity, and watershed protection.
58
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
that by providing that auction proceeds in excess ofthe threshold prices of$12 or higher in 2009 and 2010, $13 in 2011 and 2012, $14
in 2013 and 2014, and $15 in 2015, will be rebated to ratepayers. For example, if allowance prices reach $13 in 2009, $12 / ton will be
allocated to energy efficiency, and $1 / ton will be allocated to ratepayer rebates.
59
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
The RGGI legislation under consideration by the legislature would enable New Hampshire to ultimately reduce electricity costs and have a
positive economic impact for our State. This is accomplished by selling CO2 allowances at auction and investing the proceeds in energy efficiency as a positive
step toward insulating our economy from ever-increasing energy costs. Doing nothing, or too little would be to passively accept higher costs. That
would be detrimental to New Hampshires economic development.An independent analysis by UNH has concluded that adoption of the RGGI
legislation is in the states best economic interest and will have positive economic impacts. UNH projects that investment in energy efficiency measures will
reduce average industrial and residential energy bills within three years and that by 2018, RGGI would increase state employment by over 800 jobs and add $63
million to the New Hampshire economy. A further advantage of this program is that it will address rising heating as well as electrical costs.
60
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
61
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
OFFER TAX CREDITS TO BUSINESS AND PERSONAL INCOME TAXPAYERS WHO USE ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY. THIS CREDIT SHOULD BE MODELED AFTER NEW YORK'S GREEN BUILDING TAX CREDIT
PROGRAM.
In 2000, New York enacted a Green Building Tax Credit for business and personal income taxpayers. The credit can be applied
against corporate taxes, personal income, insurance corporation taxes and banking corporation taxes. The incentive applies to owners
and tenants of eligible buildings and tenant spaces which meet certain "green" standards. These standards increase energy
efficiency, improve indoor air quality, and reduce the environmental impacts of large commercial and residential buildings in
New York State, among other benefits. The original 2000 legislation (Period one) allowed applicants to apply for a Credit
Component Certificate in years 2001-2004 and to claim the credits over five years. Legislation in 2005 (Period two) extended the
program, allowing applicants to apply for a Credit Component Certificate from 2005-2009. Taxpayers who are issued an Initial Credit
Component Certificates for Period two have nine taxable years (2006-2014) to claim the credits. The original law provided for $25
million in credit certificates; the 2005 legislation added another $25 million. Owners and tenants must work through an architect or
engineer who will help obtain a credit certificate from the state for their project. The credits are distributed over a five year period with
any unredeemed portion able to be carried forward indefinitely or transferred to a new owner or tenant.
62
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
BUILDING TAX CREDITS UNIQUELY SOLVE THE CASE DSIRE 07 SAYS THAT THESE TAX CREDITS HAVE
EFFECTIVELY INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND AIR QUALITY AND IS CURRENTLY HELPING TO
REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LARGE BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK
2.
SUBSIDIES - GIVING TAX CREDITS ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO AFFORD EXPENSIVE NEW TECHNOLOGIES
WHILE VALIDATING GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES
ACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) 2008
Opportunities for State Action: Green Buildings Tax Credit www.aceee.org/energy/buildfs.pdf
Green building tax credits are designed to encourage sustainable building practice. This should decrease natural resource depletion
for both construction and the energy bills of the structure. Advocates claim that better materials also result in a healthier workforce.
Credits allow early adopters in the market to overcome the early price barriers to new technologies and practices while increasing
the market share of green buildings and technologies . Equally as important, tax credits validate green building practices through
the states visible endorsement. As the market share for green buildings increases, the barriers to these practices will decrease and
the credits will no longer be needed. Tax credits enacted to date have an explicit cost ceiling allowing their fiscal cost to be accurately
estimated. Green building tax credits work with the market to form a lasting change.
3.
*THE GREEN BUILDING TAX CREDIT WILL SPARK A CHAIN REACTION THAT WILL BRING AMERICA TO
ENERGY STABILITY*
NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) 2002
New York's Green Building Tax Credit http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/nnytax.asp
In May 2000, New York became the first state to offer an incentive package to developers who build environmentally sound
commercial and apartment buildings. This innovative tax law -- or "green building credit" -- is aimed at encouraging the housing
materials and construction industries to adopt green practices on a large scale by providing tax credits to building owners and tenants
who invest in increased energy efficiency, recycled and recyclable materials and improved indoor air quality. The credit allows
builders who meet energy goals and use environmentally preferable materials to claim up to $3.75 per square foot for interior work
and $7.50 per square foot for exterior work against their state tax bill. To qualify for the credit, a building must be certified by a
licensed architect or engineer, and must meet specific requirements for energy use, materials selection, indoor air quality, waste
disposal and water use. In new buildings, this means energy use cannot exceed 65 percent of use permitted under the New York State
energy code; in rehabilitated buildings, energy use cannot exceed 75 percent. Ventilation and thermal comfort must meet certain
requirements, and building materials, finishes and furnishings must contain high percentages of recycled content and renewable source
material and cannot exceed specified maximum levels of toxicity. Waste disposal and water use must also comply with criteria set
forth in the new law. Ten percent of the cost of ozone-friendly air-conditioning equipment, 30 percent of the installed cost of fuel cells
and 100 percent of the cost of built-in photovoltaics (PV) solar panels may also be recouped through the credit. Fuel cells, which emit
only carbon dioxide and water, and PV panels, which convert sunlight directly to electricity with no emissions at all, both carry high
up-front costs compared to conventional energy delivery technologies. By offsetting these initial costs, the tax credit will help make
it affordable for building developers, owners and tenants to invest in a cleaner and healthier future . By including the green
building credit in its state budget, New York has laid the groundwork for a shift to environmentally progressive building
technologies. The new policy has the potential to set an important precedent as other states, such as Maryland and California,
develop similar programs; and the tax credit's many supporters -- ranging from environmentalists to the Real Estate Board of New
York -- hope it may eventually also serve as a model for federal legislation. Because residential and commercial buildings account for
37 percent of the energy consumed in the United States each year (primarily in the form of electricity), making buildings more
environmentally sound is a key step toward moving America's energy budget in the direction of sustainability. Although the
green building credit alone will not ensure this, and is not yet designed to apply to small residential units such as single-family
dwellings, it has the potential to set off a chain reaction throughout the building industry . If the credit can help make green
building materials and techniques viable for large projects, the demand these projects create may generate economies of scale that
will make green building affordable for the small consumer.
63
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
64
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Massachusetts performed a cost/benefit analysis on its legislation for both the public and private sectors. The costs in the public sector
include the lost tax revenues from the credit and reduced revenues from utility taxes. Public benefits included increased employment,
increased construction spending, reduced health costs, and reduced environmental costs . In Massachusetts, the public benefit payback
period was estimated to be 6 years, with a public profit from the credit of over 6million dollars after 10 years. In the private sector,
costs include increased construction costs for green building features, and the benefits include reduced utility costs, higher
productivity, and reduced operating and maintenance costs. The private sector payback is projected at 2 years. The Massachusetts
report can be found at http://www.gbreb.com/greenbuildings/main.htm.
65
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
and focusing on reliable offset protocols (i.e., credits for reductions outside of the power sector) in a subsequent design phase.
66
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
67
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
68
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
NO LINK STATES WILL PAY FOR THE COUNTERPLAN BY INCREASING A PUBLIC BENEFIT TAX. THIS IS
NORMAL MEANS AND WILL NOT CAUSE DEFICIT SPENDING
Nadel and Kushler 2K, (Steven Nadel and Marty Kushler co-lead the Utilities and Public Benefits Program for the American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Washington, DC, a nonprofit research organization specializing in programs and policies for
promoting energy efficiency October, Public Benefit Funds: A Key Strategy for AdvancingEnergy Efficiency, The Electricity
Journal, Science Direct)
As of this writing, a total of 23 states and the District of Columbia have formally passed an electric restructuring policy, either through
legislation or regulatory order. In addition, two states (Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed statewide public benefits funding
legislation without adopting restructuring. Of these 26 states, 20 have included specific requirements to support energy efficiency in
their legislation and/or regulatory orders. By far the most common policy mechanism enacted is the use of a small, nonbypassable perkWh charge attached to the distribution service bill (typically called a system benefit charge or public benefit charge). These
surcharges are commonly set based on historic expenditures for public benefit programs. But by transferring the charge to distribution
service, the cost is shared evenly by all customers, regardless of whether they purchase electricity from a traditional utility or a new
independent provider. The amount of this charge has generally been in the range of 0.5 to 3.0 mills per kWh (a mill is a tenth of a
cent). Table 3 lists funding levels by state. 5 B. Accomplishments While it is of course too soon to draw firm conclusions about the
relative success of public benefit fund policies regarding energy efficiency, the early indications are quite positive. Collection of the
fund revenues and actual implementation of the energy efficiency programs has begun in at least 10 states, with several states having
had their programs in the field now for at least two years. Some of these states are briefly discussed below. In addition, these public
benefit policies receive high marks from various stakeholders in the respective states. As part of an ongoing study, ACEEE has been
interviewing multiple parties (i.e., administrators, utilities, advocate groups, etc.) in each of the states with such public benefit policies
in place. Respondents were asked to assign a letter grade (A to F) to two aspects of the situation in their state: 1) the adequacy/quality
of the on paper policy that their state had adopted, and 2) the administrative execution/ implementation of that policy thus far. The
results from approximately 50 interviews spread across the states indicate that respondents had an overall fairly positive regard for the
public benefits policies adopted by their state. The median grade assigned was a B, and over 80 percent of respondents assigned a B
or an A. Grades assigned for implementation to date tended to be about the same or slightly lower, although in about one-third of
cases respondents felt it was too soon to make a judgement.
69
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020740
A second group of assumptions that underlie other federal proposals, such as those putting a cap on costs of emissions control or those
basing their approach on the questionable concept of GHG intensity, are also flawed. Specifically, the assumptions that economic
growth is closely tied to energy prices and that energy prices will rise due to climate policy are incorrect. State actions provide
substantial evidence on the economic benefits of climate change mitigation. Recent state plans show net economic savings from the
combined effects of specific, proven actions at the state level when combined with long-term transitions toward new technologies,
systems, and practices. The economic performance of these plans is driven both by the new energy economy and by opportunities to
save energy and diversify supply through a host of reform actions. Today, energy prices are significantly higher than a decade ago
when international treaty negotiations peaked, and they are widely expected to increase for the indefinite future.
70
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
spending cuts and Democrats are talking about new taxes and the governor is wandering around in no man's land. So what's new? What
we're seeing is a more intense version of a fundamental conflict over taxes and spending that began 30 years ago, ever since voters slashed
property taxes by passing Proposition 13 and the state assumed many billions of dollars in burden for schools and local governments.
71
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
72
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
employees averaging $85,000 annually in pay and benefits, which costs taxpayers $29 billion alone. In comparison, private industry
per capita pay and benefits average $45,000.
CALIFORNIA IS IN A FISCAL CRISIS
Guardian, 08 (June 5, International: Around the world Lexis)
California crisis
The state of California is in fiscal crisis. The gap between revenues and spending is estimated at 10bn, or about a fifth of its general
budget. Town councils within the state have been hit, like the state government, by reductions in proceeds from property taxes.
Vallejo, a town in the San Francisco Bay area, went into bankruptcy after the local authority ran out of money and the state could offer
no financial support. Though the Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut taxes, he is discussing with the Democratcontrolled state assembly a temporary tax on high earners and service charges on residents.
JOB LOSS, REAL ESTATE MELTDOWN, SALE COLLAPSE, WEAK TOURISM, PUBLIC SECTOR DECLINE,
ABSOLUTE ZERO GROWTH, LOW BIZCON - CALIFORNIAS ECONOMY IS DOOMED
Mike Hodgson, Asssociate Editor, Adobe Press, State economy dark on the horizon,
http://www.theadobepress.com/articles/2008/06/26/news/southcounty/news08.txt, Jun 26, 2k8
However, the forecast for Californias economy is considerably more gloomy, as the projects analysts expect a protracted
recession. Thats the essence of predictions delivered Tuesday by the Economic Forecast Project staff at a breakfast program in
Sacramento. Many analysts have concluded that the United States economy is in recession, said Executive Director Bill Watkins in
his report on the nations economic activity. Some go farther and claim that they expect something along the scale of the
Depression, he continued. To be polite, this is balderdash. In fact, Watkins said, the United States economy has been remarkably
resilient despite the real estate meltdown and the financial crisis. To be sure, (the nations) growth is very slow, but it does appear to
be growing, Watkins said. Project analysts believe it will take the nation about a year to reach a real economic growth of 3 percent,
the long-term average. However, the forecast for California is not so bright, although it does hold a hint of optimism if not as
bad as can be considered optimistic. The Economic Forecast (Project) presents a rather bleak forecast for Californias economy,
Watkins said in his executive summary for the state forecast. Essentially, we expect a protracted recession, but not one as bad as we
saw in the 1990s or in the early part of this decade. Of all Californias negative economic indicators, the elephant in the room is the
states $15 billion budget deficit, forecasters said. Overall, Californias economy looks pretty weak, Watkins said. Much of the
state is losing jobs. The real estate market is in meltdown. Retail sales are collapsing. Tourism has been surprisingly weak. The public
sector will decline. The state has no budget, and policymakers have no idea how to create one. We see little reason to be
optimistic about Californias economy. While the nations job market has grown, Californias has shrunk, and the projects
analysts said the states job growth is rapidly approaching zero. They noted retail sales have declined for eight consecutive
quarters, and there is no sign of a turnaround. Median home prices have plummeted and are still falling, and foreclosures are at
record levels, all of which have had a severe impact on the construction industry
But the big problem is the state budget crisis, for which there are no politically palatable options. That uncertainly will
prevent businesses from expanding in, moving to or investing in California, the analysts said.
73
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
05
(Michael,
Schwarzenegger withdrew support from previous efforts to use initiatives for pension reform and reducing bureaucracy. But what is
perhaps most disappointing is his fiscal-reform initiative. While his Live Within Our Means Act is a well-intentioned effort to minimize the severity of
the next budgetary shortfall, it fails to place effective curbs on spending. Such curbs are necessary to ensure long-term fiscal solvency in the
Golden State. Shoring up California's finances has been one of Schwarzenegger's top priorities since taking office. During the recall campaign and after
his inauguration, Schwarzenegger considered promoting an expenditure limit to reduce the $38 billion deficit his predecessor, Gray
Davis, left behind. Yet Schwarzenegger instead compromised with Democratic legislators to support a measure that would tighten California's balanced-budget
amendment. Since that time, Schwarzenegger has kept a tight lid on government spending and earned the top grade among all governors
in the Cato Institute's 2005 "report card" on governors. Still, California remains over $8 billion in debt. As a result, Schwarzenegger is
promoting the Live Within Our Means Act, a ballot initiative designed to minimize the size of the next budgetary shortfall. Under this
proposal, spending increases would be limited to average revenue growth for the previous three years. As such, when revenues are
booming, part of the money would have to be diverted to a reserve fund. Then when the economy slows, money from the reserve fund
could be used to maintain expenditures.
74
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
75
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
76
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
AT: PERM
THE PERM LINKS TO ELECTIONS: THE INCLUSION OF FEDERAL ACTION ASSURES THE BUSH WILL
CAPITALIZE ON THE PLAN AND GIVE CREDIT TO MCCAIN.
Adler, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law,
07 (Jonathan H., WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67, Lexis)
Some of the factors that influence state regulatory decisions are readily apparent, such as wealth, knowledge and interest-group
pressure. The influences of federal regulation on state regulatory choices, particularly insofar as such influences are felt indirectly,
may be less obvious. Nonetheless, it should be evident that federal policy decisions should have some effect on state policy choices
concerning the existence, scope and contours of state regulatory programs. These effects can occur whether intended or not. In some
instances, federal action may even preclude or discourage welfare-enhancing initiatives at the state and local level. This Article
suggests a framework for categorizing and analyzing how federal policy decisions can influence state regulatory choices. The federal
influence can be either "positive"--resulting in greater levels of state regulation--or "negative." Federal influence can also be direct or
indirect. Direct influences include federal preemption and the creation of various incentives and penalties for state action or inaction,
including conditional preemption and conditional funding. Indirect influences may be less obvious, but are no less important. Federal
action--or perhaps even federal inaction--can encourage greater state regulation by reducing the costs of initiating regulatory action or
by altering state policy agendas. At the same time, federal regulation may discourage states from adopting or maintaining more
protective environmental rules or even "crowd out" state-level regulatory action by reducing the net benefits of state-level initiatives.
Building on prior research and analysis of federalism in environmental law and policy, n10 this Article further seeks to reexamine some
of [*70] the conventional assumptions that underpin many discussions of the proper federal-state balance in environmental policy.
Among other things, this Article suggests that insufficient attention to the effects of federal action on state policy choices can reduce
the scope and effectiveness of environmental protection efforts. For example, if federal regulatory action has the potential to
discourage or crowd out state regulatory efforts, the adoption of a federal regulatory floor may actually lower instead of raise the
aggregate level of environmental protection in a given jurisdiction. n11
77
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
AT: PERM
FEDERAL REGULATIONS CAUSE STATES TO ABANDON MORE STRINGENT MEASURES
Adler, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law,
07 (Jonathan H., WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67, Lexis)
Just as federal attention to a given environmental concern may increase the demand for state-level action, the adoption of a given
federal standard may send a signal that discourages the adoption or maintenance of more [*95] protective state regulations.
Specifically, the adoption of a given regulatory standard by a federal agency sends a signal that the standard is worthwhile. n118
Among other reasons for this effect is that federal policy-makers, particularly federal agencies, are presumed to have substantial
technical expertise. Thus, their actions may convince state policy-makers (or their constituents) that additional safeguards are
"unnecessary" or that the benefits of more stringent regulatory protections are not worth their costs. The magnitude of this effect is
likely to correspond with the magnitude of the difference between the relevant federal and state standards. In this way, federal
standards can discourage state policy-makers from adopting and maintaining more stringent measures of their own, even where such
measures could be justified. As a practical matter, the federal "floor" may become a "ceiling" as well. This effect is not merely
hypothetical. There are numerous examples of state legislation designed to prevent state environmental agencies from adopting
regulatory standards that are more stringent than federal rules. n119 Between 1987 and 1995, nearly twenty states adopted at least one
statute limiting the ability of state agencies to adopt regulatory controls more stringent than relevant federal standards. n120 Some
states focus on a given environmental concern, while others have general prohibitions against the adoption of any environmental rules
more stringent than applicable federal standards. n121 New Mexico and Colorado, for example, have statutes prohibiting the
promulgation of air pollution controls more stringent than those required by federal law. n122 Virginia law bars state regulatory
authorities from requiring greater amounts of water treatment than mandated under the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"). n123 Other
states have general prohibitions against agency promulgation of environmental rules more stringent than federal law. n124
FEDERAL POLICIES CROWD OUT THE STATESREDUCES DEMAND FOR STATE ACTION
Adler, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law,
07 (Jonathan H., WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67, Lexis)
A second potential negative indirect effect of federal regulation on state regulatory choices is crowding out. This occurs because
federal regulation may serve as a substitute for state-level regulation, thereby reducing the benefits of adopting or maintaining statelevel protections. Insofar as voters in a given state demand a certain level of environmental protection, there is no reason to expect
states to duplicate federal efforts when a federal program satisfies that demand, particularly if a state has not already created such a
program. If the federal floor is greater than or equal to the level of environmental protection demanded by a state's residents, that state
has no reason to adopt environmental regulations of its own once the federal government has acted. To the extent that this effect
occurs, it is separate from--perhaps even in addition to--the signaling effect described above. The claim here is not simply that states
regulate less than they would absent federal regulation--although this claim is almost certainly true. Rather, the claim is that some
states that would adopt regulations more protective than the federal floor, absent the imposition of federal regulation, have not done so
due to federal regulation and may not do so in the future. If this hypothesis is correct, the net effect of federal environmental
regulation in at least some states could be less environmental protection than would have been adopted had the federal government not
intervened. To see how this could occur, recall that the demand for environmental regulation in any given jurisdiction tends to increase
over time as wealth, [*99] technical capability, scientific knowledge, and environmental impacts increase. n131 In any given state (as
in the nation as a whole), there is an initial period ("Period A") during which the demand for a given type of environmental protection
is relatively low. The costs of adopting environmental regulations in this period are greater than the benefits of adopting any such
protections. These costs include the costs of developing, drafting, and passing legislation; the costs of creating a new policy program,
drafting and implementing regulations, defending the regulations from any potential legal or administrative challenges, creating a
means to monitor and enforce regulatory compliance; and so on. In addition, there are opportunity costs of devoting state resources
and political capital to the cause of environmental protection as opposed to some other policy goal. As discussed earlier, the demand
for environmental protection has tended to increase over time along with increases in living standards. n132 At the same time,
increases in technical knowledge and administrative
[Continued]
78
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
AT: PERM
[Continued}
efficiency may lower the costs of a given regulatory program. Eventually, a state will enter a second period ("Period B") in which the
benefits of a given environmental regulatory program are greater than the costs of initiating, implementing, and operating such a
program. Absent any federal interference, the hypothetical state will not adopt environmental regulations in Period A, but will adopt
such regulations in Period B. See Figure 3. This is the environmental transition discussed in Part I. In Period A, the demand for
environmental protection is insufficient to justify the costs of implementing environmental protection measures. By Period B,
however, the demand for environmental protection has risen due to increases in wealth and knowledge, among other factors. At the
same time, increases in technical capacity and scientific understanding have reduced the cost of adopting environmental protections.
As a result, in Period B a state will adopt Q[B] amount of environmental protection. n133 [*100] The timing of Period A and Period B
will vary from state to state. This is clearly the case as different states have enacted different environmental regulatory measures at
different times--some before the adoption of federal environmental regulation, some after, and some not at all. Looking at the history
of various environmental concerns, such as air quality, water quality, or wetlands, it is clear that many states moved from Period A to
Period B for these environmental concerns at various times prior to the onset of federal regulations in the 1970s. In many other states,
however, a federal regulatory floor was adopted before the onset of Period B. [*101] For states that went through their environmental
transition and entered Period B prior to the enactment of federal environmental protection, whether the adoption of a federal
regulatory floor increased the aggregate level of environmental protection in that state depended upon whether preexisting state
policies offered greater or lesser levels of protection than the relevant federal policies. For states in which the onset of Period B begins
after the adoption of federal regulations, the enactment of a federal regulatory floor will, at the time of enactment, increase the
aggregate level of environmental protection in that state. However, this may not be the case over time. In states that desire a greater
level of protection than that provided by the relevant federal regulations, it is not clear that the existence of the federal regulatory floor
will result in an equal or greater level of protection than would be adopted were it not for the federal regulations. This is because
federal regulation will, to some extent, act as a substitute for state regulation. As a result, the adoption of federal regulation has the
potential to reduce the demand for state regulation and, in some instances, even result in less aggregate regulation in a given state than
would have been adopted absent federal intervention. In short, federal regulation can crowd out state regulation. The potential for such
a crowding-out effect is illustrated in Figure 4. The existence of federal regulation will reduce the demand for state regulation by an
amount equal to the extent to which federal regulation is a substitute for state regulation of the same environmental concern
(Q[FReg]). This substitution effect will reduce the net benefit of adopting state-level environmental regulations from OCQ[B] to
OC'Q'[B]. By reducing the net benefits of state-level environmental regulation in this manner, federal regulation has the potential to
crowd out state-level environmental protections, even if the quantity of environmental protection demanded in the state is greater than
that provided by the federal government. In such cases, the aggregate level of environmental protection will be lower with federal
regulation than it would be without it. [*102]
79
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
CIRCUMVENTION EMPIRICALLY DENIED --STATES HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT ARE
MORE STRINGENT THAT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
McKinstry, and , Dernbauch 08 (Robert B. McKinstry partner at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, John C. Dernbach professor of
law at Widener University, Federal Climate Change Legislation as If the States Matter, Nat. Resources & Env't., Downloaded from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031552)
There are also a number of measures that are best achieved by state policies and are not readily amenable to national standards or a
market based approach. Most notably, many reductions will need to be achieved through mechanisms that the courts and Congress
have long recognized as lying within the primary jurisdiction of the statesincluding land use, building codes, local transportation
and utility regulation. Others will be achieved by states adopting more stringent standards than nationally applicable ones, as
California and 11 other states have already done in the case of mobile source emissions standards, see Green Mountain Chrysler
Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, slip op. Case No. 2:05-CV-302 (D. Vt. 2007), and as many states are likely to do if a national
renewable portfolio standard should be adopted. As noted above, state climate plans have relied on a wide variety of these sorts of
mechanisms, including smart growth policies, open space and forest conservation programs, agricultural incentives, renewable
portfolio standards, and a variety of incentives and fees, to achieve significant GHG reductions. These state experiences can also be
scaled up to determine what states might achieve nationally (S).
80
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
81
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
82
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
So, what is legal? A renewable portfolio standard alone does not raise commerce clause issues. A limitation on the in-state location of
resources for inclusion in the portfolio could run afoul of the commerce clause.27 As long as the state regulation does not discriminate
on the basis of geography of energy supply, it will be evaluated under the Pike balancing test. Incidental discrimination, in fact,
against interstate commerce is not impermissible if balanced by a compelling state interest and if accomplished in the minimally
intrusive fashion.
83
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
COUNTERPLAN WILL NOT BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE- DOES NOT THREATEN THE
SUPREMACY OF THE US
Huffman and Weisgall 08 (Robert K. Huffman. Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown University Law Center, a partner at the law
firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jonathan M. Weisgall, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown University Law Center,
vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. Winter, Climate Change and the
States: Constitutional Iss ues Arising fr om State Climate Protection Leaders hip, downloaded from
http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/)
Compacts Clause
The Compacts Clause, Article I, 10, cl. 3, reads in part: No state shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign power[.]54 In reviewing claims under the Compacts Clause, courts look generally to whether states are attempting to enhance
their power at the expense of the federal government. Where an agreement is not directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political
power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States, it does not fall within the scope of the Clause and will not
be invalidated for lack of congressional consent.55 The first question that courts look at is whether a contractual arrangement, such as a
cap-and-trade system, reaches the point of being a compact under the Compacts Clause. If it is a compact, then it generally must be
approved by Congress or it will be invalid.56 Once approved by Congress, it reaches the level of federal law. Thus, for an unapproved
state-to-state or stateto- foreign-party relationship to be valid, it must not reach the formality of being a compact for these purposes.
To answer the first question, whether an arrangement is an agreement or compact, the courts look to the general indicia of a compact.
The Supreme Court summarized the relevant factors in Northeast Bancorp v. Federal Reserve,57 a decision involving an agreement by holding
companies to purchase banks: The . . . statutes . . . both require reciprocity and impose a regional limitation . . . . But several of the
classic indicia of a compact are missing. No joint organization or body has been established to regulate regional banking or for any other purpose. Neither
statute is conditioned on action by the other State, and each State is free to modify or repeal its law unilaterally. Most importantly, neither statute
requires a reciprocation of the regional limitation .58 From the passage above, one can draw some general criteria for determining whether a
contractual relationship is an agreement or compact. There should be some sort of joint organization or body to govern the agreement,
if necessary. It should be binding; that is, no state can freely remove itself from the agreement. And it must require a reciprocity of the
regional limitation, meaning that one party cannot agree to a nationwide program while another believes the agreement only covers a
handful of states. Regarding a regional cap-and-trade program, courts are unlikely to find that RGGI or a similar program is a compact, unless the agreement
contains language that conditions actions (in one state) on actions by other states and is not freely revocable by participant states. It appears, based on Northeast
Bancorp, that a voluntary union, which allows for a state to back out should it not want to participate, would not be considered a compact for the purposes of the
Clause. However, it is difficult to see how a linked international cap-and-trade framework could be crafted so as not to constitute a
compact or even a treaty, which would be impermissible under Article I, 10, cl. 1, regardless of the presence or absence of
congressional approval. In order to have a properly functioning linkage between markets, there would need to be guarantees regarding
enforceability and permanence. Without legally enforceable guarantees about the quality of the credits being traded, the markets are
unlikely to succeed.
84
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
nationwide price for carbon would likely be interpreted as directly conflicting with state programs; in the alternative, courts would
probably hold that federal efforts occupy the field of GHG regulation. But lacking such a program, as is currently the case, it is difficult to see any
way in which a state-organized cap-and-trade program could be preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
85
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
86
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
87
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
88
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
FOR THE LAST 5 DECADES NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN EVERY MARKET IN AMERICA HAS BEEN A RACE TO THE
TOP
Edward Gresser (Ed Gresser joined PPI as Director of the Project on Trade and Global Markets in February, 2001, after a 10-year
career in the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration. Author "Freedom From Want: American Liberalism and the Global
Economy 2007 http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=3286
Investment is among the most emotional and divisive subjects in the modern debate over trade, globalization, and the world economy.
Critics of open market policies routinely assert that foreign direct investment (i.e. money corporations invest in factories and other
facilities overseas) serves as a sort of "rabbit" in the "race to the bottom" -- that the lure of weak labor and environmental standards in
poor countries is leading American companies inexorably to the poorest nations with the worst-paid workers and the most permissive
environmental laws. These are natural and powerful fears; and they have been at the heart of resistance to open trade policies for a
decade. In 1993, Ross Perot's vision of a "giant sucking sound," with American jobs and factories streaming south to Mexico, summed
up the case against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); similar fears animated demonstrators at the 1999 World
Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Seattle and opponents of the trade bills of 2000 on China, Africa, and the
Caribbean. As a new administration builds on the record of the 1990s, they will be the most powerful obstacles to creation of a Free
Trade Area of the Americas, a more open Asia-Pacific trading environment, a new WTO Round, and the other major initiatives of the
new decade. A look at the record, however, shows a reality strikingly at odds with these fears. Trends in American direct investment,
consistent not only in the 1990s but across the five decades in which American administrations have sought trade and investment
liberalization, are almost diametrically opposed to prevailing perceptions. In fact, American companies appear to be racing not to the
bottom, but to the top. Throughout the postwar era, and in recent years as well.
89
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
90
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
91
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
California has a huge deficit, a looming cash crisis, an angry public and pressure to raise taxes -- and in this dismal state of affairs, the
state's minority Republicans see opportunity. GOP lawmakers hope to use their leverage over the state budget, which cannot pass
without some of their votes, to roll back landmark policies implemented by Democrats and the governor. Among them are curbs on
greenhouse gas emissions, regulations banning the dirtiest diesel engines and rules dictating when employers must provide lunch
breaks for workers. None of those laws has any direct connection to the state budget; changing them will do nothing to close
California's $15.2-billion deficit. And the Democrats who control the Legislature already have rejected Republican proposals to delay
or eliminate the laws through the regular legislative process. But as pressure mounts on lawmakers to resolve the budget crisis, the
GOP's renewed requests could get some traction. Republican clout grows along with the state's financial problems -- at least during the
summer budget season. "We think the budget is an appropriate place to talk about these issues," said Sen. George Runner (RLancaster). "We are setting them on the table for discussion." Runner acknowledges that the proposals won't help balance the books in
the coming fiscal year, but he argues that they would stimulate the economy and thus generate cash for the state over time. "They are
reasonable issues to bring up" now, he said. Lawmakers are making little progress in those negotiations. Legislators did not meet their
June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget, and they are saying publicly that a spending plan is unlikely to be in place by the
July 1 start of the fiscal year. The state will run out of cash in September, according to the state treasurer, and finance officials say
that borrowing to remain solvent will be extremely tough without a budget in place by July. Securing a loan takes time, and lenders
look for an enacted budget as assurance that the state will have enough cash to repay them. Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for as
much as $11.5 billion in new taxes -- though they have not specified what they want to tax. Republicans say cuts in government
services and programs are the way to go -- though they, too, mostly demur when it comes to specifics. Republicans have made clear,
however, that relaxing the environmental and labor laws would put them in more of a mood to compromise. That position has drawn a
sharp rebuke from Democrats and activists. "Using a fiscal crisis to delay and roll back protections for Californians is just wrong,"
said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern called the GOP lawmakers "a dwindling minority
trying to exploit the limited leverage they have." Environmentalists are particularly outraged by the Republican call for a delay in the
curbs on greenhouse emissions. The global warming measure is one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proudest accomplishments. It
has landed the governor, himself a Republican, on the covers of magazines around the world. State officials are drafting rules for
implementing the emissions caps, which are scheduled to take effect in January 2010. GOP legislators say complying with the rules
will be costly for businesses at a time when they already are reeling from the poor economy and higher oil prices. They want the
governor to exercise a provision in the law that allows him to postpone implementation by declaring that it would cause the state
"significant economic harm." "We've got a major downturn in the economy," said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, leader of the state
Senate's Republicans. "We're trying to convince the governor to give us more time on this." Republicans are making the same case for
new rules requiring retrofitting of diesel engines on trucks, tractors and heavy construction equipment. The engines are a leading
source of pollution and have been singled out by scientists as a cause of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions for
respiratory problems in California each year. Supporters of the laws say that the sickness they will prevent and the boost they will give
to "green" technologies promise to be far more helpful to California's economy than a delay in their implementation. Schwarzenegger
has said through aides that he does not wish to postpone environmental regulations and won't let the budget situation sidetrack his
long-term goals. But he also says nothing is off the table. "We have open doors where everything is on the table," Schwarzenegger
said in a speech last month to the California Peace Officers Assn. "I don't want to go and say to anything, 'No.' " Schwarzenegger
spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor is interested, for example, in working with Republicans on a relaxation of workplace
rules that dictate when employees must be granted lunch breaks. The governor, an ally of the state Chamber of Commerce and other
business groups, is sympathetic to complaints from business owners that some workplace rules cost them money without benefiting
employees. The example most often cited comes from restaurant owners who say they must give their workers breaks at particular
times, even if it is in the middle of the busiest shift, when many would rather be working tables to collect tips. The Legislature must
sign off on changes to such laws, something Democrats say they have no intention of doing. Their labor allies say budget season is a
cynical time to raise the issue. "If these were viable policy proposals, they would pass on their own merits," said Emily Clayton,
policy coordinator with the California Labor Federation. Republicans, she said, "are trying to hold the budget negotiations hostage."
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
with tax increases. Republicans are ready to ax state programs. That's sure to cause plenty of political wrangling this summer and in
the meantime - a lot of Californians will be paying the price.
CALIFORNIA MUST HOLD THE LINE ON SPENDINGCP PUSHES THE STATE INTO A FISCAL CRISIS
Karasmeighan, budget policy analyst at the Cato Institute, 08 (Elizabeth, May 12, Arnold Must Wield the Knife Cato,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9392)
This week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will release a revised budget proposal to rein in spending and set California on firm financial ground. As in the
economic slowdown earlier this decade, state revenue growth has slowed. California is once again the poster child for poor fiscal management, and
legislators in other states should watch it and learn. With an estimated gap between proposed spending and revenues of up to $20
billion, it's going to take more than Schwarzenegger's proposals to tax property insurance and close tax loopholes to fix the state
budget. Each new cut in spending will likely bring a new constituency to picket the governor's mansion, but Schwarzenegger rode into office
on a pledge to reduce waste, and he should push not only for a 10 percent across-the-board cut in general spending, but also to eliminate specific programs
and vacant public employee positions. California could start closing the gap by selling an estimated $1 billion in surplus state property, including the Los
Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The governor should return the state government to its core functions by abolishing the Department of
Conservation, cutting environmental protection spending, and diverting the special funds from those programs to the general fund
($2.5 billion). He could also eliminate spending for many small projects that litter the budget, such as the California Science Center
($20 million) and the New Deal-style Conservation Corps ($41 million). In the last few years, California's general fund budget has grown by
over 30 percent faster than personal income, and certainly faster than revenue growth. California general fund spending rose 32
percent from the 2004 to 2008 fiscal years, peaking at more than $103 billion. But total state spending, which includes general and special funds,
rose even faster. According to the governor's budget summary, total state spending rose a stunning 39 percent to $145 billion in the 2008
fiscal year from $104 billion in the 2004 fiscal year. By way of comparison, the National Association of State Budget Officers found
that general fund budgets across the 50 states rose on average 7 percent in 2005, 9 percent in 2006, and another 9 percent in 2007. If
there is a budding state fiscal "crisis," it is being driven by excess spending. Schwarzenegger has repeatedly called for spending restraint, then compromised the
second he was prodded by legislators. This year, he has another chance to push for action .
94
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
95
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
96
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
spending.
97
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
98
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
99
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Link: California
CALIFORNIA IS ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY. NO MONEY FOR EXCESS PROJECTS
Rick Keene (Assemblyman Rick Keene is the Assistant Republican Leader in the California State Assembly. He represents the 3rd
Assembly District in the State Legislature.) Other Voices: Tax increases will kill jobs, hurt families June 20th 2008
http://www.theunion.com/article/20080620/OPINION/850746/1024&parentprofile
Democrats in the California Assembly finally came forward with a state budget plan after months of jeering from the sidelines. Their so-called
balanced budget plan is anything but, and will actually cause our state's severe financial problems to grow much worse. Ignoring our $17 billion
budget shortfall, Assembly Democrats have proposed increasing spending by $3 billion next year, while California stands at the brink of
bankruptcy. Democrats have proposed $6.4 billion in tax increases to fund their spending plan, yet they are unwilling to specify where
those tax increases will occur, other than some rhetoric about eliminating tax "loopholes." These so-called tax "loopholes" that
Democrats want to eliminate include taking away the child dependent tax credit, a $2.4 billion tax increase on every family with
children, and the senior citizen tax credit, creating a $255 million tax hike on seniors living on a fixed income. Even worse, they have
discussed eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, a $5.3 billion tax increase on homeowners. These are not the loopholes
the Democrats would have us believe; rather, these are simply more burdensome tax increases on hard-working, middle class
Californians. But these are only a few of the many taxes California families will be paying if Democrats have their way. As a matter of
fact, this year they have proposed more than $30 billion in higher taxes on Californians this year, including higher property taxes, gas
taxes, sales taxes, income taxes an new taxes on beer, online sales and grocery store bags. Their budget plan shows they will stop at
nothing to increase taxes, even knowing it will hurt working families and threaten our economy and jobs. Too many families right now are
having a difficult time trying to make ends meet with record-high prices for food and gas. Having to pay higher taxes on top of that will cause tremendous hardship for
many Californians. Make no mistake, California did not run up a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit because we aren't paying enough in
taxes. Our budget problems were caused for only one reason - wasteful and excessive government spending . Earlier this year, my Republican
colleagues and I put forward several responsible reforms this year that would reduce spending and jumpstart our economy. Our
reforms would have put more dollars in the classroom during this tough budget year and let government stretch limited budget dollars
to their fullest. Unfortunately, our ideas were voted down. We will never succeed in solving our budget problems if we continue to
play political games and mindlessly insist on oppressive tax increases on hard-working families. Only by having the courage to make
the tough, but necessary decisions about spending and taking steps to get government under control can we hope to solve this state's
structural deficit. I stand ready to work with Gov. Schwarzenegger and my Democratic colleagues to pass a fiscally responsible
budget. By setting aside partisanship and working together, I am confident we can get the job done for California. Assemblyman Rick
Keene is the Assistant Republican Leader in the California State Assembly. He represents the 3rd Assembly District in the State
Legislature.
CALIFORNIA IS ON THE EDGE OF BANKRUPTCY.
Lifson in 08 (Thomas Lifson, Retired professor at Harvard business school, Bankrupt Government in California, May 7 2007,
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/bankrupt_government_in_califor.html)
The city council of Vallejo, California voted last night to declare bankruptcy. Will the state of California follow? It may be far-fetched now, but thinking the
unthinkable occasionally has value.The problems facing Vallejo bear some comparison to those of the state in which it is located.
Vallejo spends about 80% of its budget on personnel costs, more than the state's share. But California is locked into extremely generous
labor contracts which not only offer high salaries and benefits to groups such as prison guards (many of whom earn six figures with overtime -not bad for a job which does not require college) and bureaucrats, but which promise generous retirement benefits, including gold plated
health care for life. Years ago, a study concluded that state employees were paid about 30% more than their private sector counterparts
for jobs of comparable skill level and responsibility. And California state employees are not widely renowned for the competence or
hard work. To say the least.Vallejo's budget deficit is $16 million dollars, not an extreme sum for a city of 116,000. California's budget
deficit estimates for the coming year are 10 or 20 billion dollars , a sum that would require crippling tax increases to fund. Already a high tax
state driving a flood of businesses and affluent residents to Nevada, Arizona, and elsewhere, California would cripple its future if
taxes were raised that much. The migrants fleeing California mostly are being replaced with low income, service-consuming
immigrants, some of whom have papers.Nobody has even whispered about the possibility of the state going bankrupt. But the power
of state employee unions, and the lock that Democrats have on the state legislature, make it extremely unlikely that the unions can be
confronted and pay and benefits go in any direction but up. There is no political will to impose cuts. So self-defeating drastic tax increases,
driving the state further into a vicious cycle, may be the only alternative the political process
Continued
100
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
Link: California
Continued
offers.So how to solve the problem of excessive spending, when the political process will not yield any cuts of a magnitude capable of
making a difference?Of course no politician, least of all Arnold Schwarzenegger, wants to go down in history as the many who led his state into
bankruptcy. G. Mennen "Soapy" Williams, who took Michigan into bankruptcy, will forever be remembered for that act. But how will
the Governator cope with the looming fiscal crisis, facing a legislature which only knows how to raise taxes? Will he be willing to
raise taxes that much?It would be rash to predict a bankruptcy. That would be an extreme solution. And its effect on national credit
markets could be extremely bad. But I see no other possibility for reducing state employee compensation to reasonable levels,
consistent with external labor market realities. If fingers could be pointed at greedy Wall Street capitalists, perhaps state employees
would compare their options on the actual labor market with their compensation minus x percent and less generous retiement, and
decide to soldier on.I was frankly creeped-out recently when the State began offering a new bond issue directly to the California
public with radio advertising. It suggested to my cyncial mind that these securities would not be the best investment. No doubt I will
be attacked for even raising the thought. But I am not about to buy any California debt.I will be watching the reaction to Vallejo's
bankruptcy. Vallejo's problems, like those of the state, are principally due to mismanagement, not an underlying economic illness. Vallejo is
an attractibe and historic place (briefly the capital of California twice) surrounded by growing suburban developments (many of them
currently distressed with unsold housing, to be sure). The now-closed Mare Island shipyard is prime real estate being converted to
private use. There is probably little that needs to be corrected in Vallejo besides poor political leadership and resulting excessive
spending.Runaway spending is California's problem. I see no solutions to that in the normal political process .
101
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
102
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
projects with high economies of scale are cheaper. Only ideal virgin geothermal sites and selected upgrades at existing renewable sites
are economic for new capacity under current technology and market prices. The stubborn competitive gap between renewable
generation and its rivals explains why renewable-energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels are trying to get governments to
set quotas, and not just continue or expand current subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from
leading mainstream environmental groups: hydroelectric for destroying river habitat, wind for killing birds, solar for desert
overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. Meanwhile, natural gas, which has a
substantial cost advantage over renewables, even after imputing a "social cost" for alleged air-emission "externalities," has emerged as
the most economical "green" fuel heading into the new millennium. Current state and federal efforts to restructure the electric industry
are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for politically favored renewables,
wind and solar being foremost. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewable technologies are likely to create inconsequential
or negative environmental benefits, worsened electric generation overcapacity in most regions of the United States, higher electric
rates -- and new environmental pressures, given the heavy resource requirements (concrete, steel, glass and land) needed to
significantly increase wind and solar generation projects beyond their current size of one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. output. Mandatory
labeling of electricity sold to consumers, sought by some, should be rejected as costly and invasive of business competition. "Green pricing" programs
offered to consumers to voluntarily subsidize renewable-energy-based electricity generation, particularly in the transition from
monopoly to competitive provision, should not be involuntarily cross-subsidized by the "nongreen" portfolio or depend on
government subsidies. While market competition and civil society can ultimately decide the fate of "green pricing" programs, political
subsidies for "green energy" must be removed to allow true market decision-making. Environmentalists should respect consumers'
decisions to define "green" energy however they wish, or even forgo "green energy" entirely, given the real and heterogeneous
environmental costs of every energy alternative -- fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS STILL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN FOSSIL FUELS. GENERATING COSTS HAVE RISEN
DUE TO HIGHER MATERIAL COSTS, LABOR COSTS, AND DEMAND.
Smith 07 (Rebecca Smith, Reporter for the Wall Street Journal, The New Math of Alternative Energy, February 23 2007,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8813)
For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas . Even
though the fuel was often free -- such as wind or the sun's rays -- alternative-energy producers had to plow lots of money into finding the best way to
capture that energy and convert it into electricity. Fossil-fuel producers, on the other hand, could draw on billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and decades
of know-how. Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by
new technology and renewed development interest. Alternative energy still can't compete with fossil fuels on price. But the margins are narrowing,
particularly since oil and gas prices have been rising. The math looks even more favorable if you consider the environmental cost of
fossil fuels -- which most purely economic calculations don't. Alternative energy still faces obstacles to mainstream success. Many
projects need government or utility subsidies and incentives to be viable. Generating costs have risen recently for some types of renewable
resources, pushed by higher materials prices, labor costs and demand. Supply chains are prone to hiccups, and wind and solar-energy resources
need backup sources of power to compensate on windless or cloudy days.
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
In a March 2004 report Eurelectric and the Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers in Europe pointed out that "Introducing
renewable energy unavoidably leads to higher electricity prices. Not only are production costs substantially higher than for
conventional energy, but in the case of intermittent energy sources like wind energy, grid extensions and additional balancing and
back-up capacity to ensure security of supply imply costs which add considerably to the end price for the final consumer." "Reducing
CO2 by promoting renewable energy can thus become extremely expensive for consumers," though both organisations fully support
renewables in principle. The economic disadvantage referred to will also be reduced as carbon emission costs become factored in to
fossil fuel generation.
104
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
105
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
106
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
of credit to back the debt, the state's plight can't all be blamed on Schwarzenegger any more than he could blame Davis five years ago.
``We confront a more volatile mix of fiscal, political and market challenges than we faced in 2003,'' California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, said
in an e-mailed response to questions. ``The new ingredient is turmoil in capital and credit markets. And every additional dollar we shell out to
Wall Street is a dollar we can't spend on educating our kids, providing health care for our families and keeping our communities clean
and safe.''
107
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
nation, its economy would rank fifth in the world. No wonder it's so influential.
CALIFORNIA HAS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY IN THE US A RECESSION WOULD SPILLOVER
Property Wire, Friday, 18 January 2008
California and Florida close to recession
http://www.propertywire.com/news/north-america/california-and-florida-close-to-recession-20080118153.html
California and Florida are very close to recession or may even be entering it, many economists are reporting. The cause stems from housing markets there. Other
markets face recession too. As reported in Financial Times (FT.com ) California and Florida are either entering or about to enter a period of
recession. California is the country's largest economy while Florida is the fourth largest. Around the country, many of the largest
economies are hitting recession marks. Other states such as Ohio and Michigan are believed to already be headed into recession due to poor
housing markets there, coupled with poor economy. Both states have seen large numbers in terms of job loss. Other states, which traditionally have
been considered good property investment states, such as Nevada and Arizona are also likely to feel the impact of recession. Their property markets
are on the likely road out of the property boom that has been lingering for several years. California's economy is very largest, the 10th
largest in the world, if California was an independent country . While states do not usually call a lagging economy a recession, as
only nations actually are attributed to this term, regional recessions are often labelled as such. Perhaps the likely reason behind this,
according to reports by the Financial Times is that home sales have fallen drastically here. Sales fell by 30 to 35 per cent in these
economies, which is coupled by the fact that home prices fell over 10 per cent in both California and Florida through November of
2007. Florida existing home sales are down 20 per cent, which Florida existing condo sales are down 29 per cent. Florida has a huge
number of unused condos on the market. Consumer confidence here stands at 74 per cent.
108
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
109
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
110
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
111
STATES CP
DDI 2008 GT
Aman
provided (and continue to provide) the stimulus that carried the United States through a major national economic downturn and years
of sustained growth.
112