Maine Bonds for Water Project, Question 3

Bonds for Water Project:

“Do you favor a $3.4 million bond issue to support drinking water programs, to support the construction of wastewater treatment facilities and to leverage $17 million in other funds?”

If passed, the measure would:

* Fund the state’s revolving loan fund that communities can apply to for low-interest loans.
* Stipulate that every $1 of state money raised will attract $5 in federal money, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Argument FOR:
- The $40.5 million the state has spent since 1988 from the clean water and drinking water revolving funds have leveraged $201 million in federal funds

This is interesting in that this question, so far, has no organized opposition.

My recommendation: YES

It is so hard to judge some of these out of state ballot issues. I am interpreting the supporting argument to mean that everyone feels there is a strong return on investment for the financial output. There seems to be no opposition since the other ballot measures are garnering most of the attention. The governor, a senator and a congressperson support this measure.

There are no websites for either side.

presidential positions

HERE is a link, provided by GRIST, on the two major candidates and their positions on Endangered Species.

Know who your voting for.

Colorado Amendment 58

Anyone who knows me knows this occupies the smallest of special places in my heart. I mean, come on…. Amendment 58 involving the environment. It’s like it’s destiny….

So here goes. Let’s hope I can do it justice.

Amendment 58: Scholarship Initiative Fund

It will end a 30 year tax subsidy only allowed to big oil and gas companies. It increases the amount of severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies and put this money towards college scholarships for state residents, renewable energy projects, transportation projects, water treatment grants, and wildlife habitat.

If passed it would:
– End property-tax deductions for the oil and gas industry that allow producers to take a credit of up to 87.5% of the prior year’s property tax liability from their severance taxes
– Direct the new revenues as follows:
o 60% to the Colorado Promise Scholarship Fund
o 15% for local impact of the oil and gas industry on transportation and water quality
o 15% for wildlife habitat
o 10% to clean energy projects.

Bottom line, for the last 30 years, $300 million dollars of taxpayers money has been, effectively, handed over to big oil and gas companies. This is a chance to invest that money in scholarship programs, renewable energy and land preservation.

Argument FOR:
– It ends a tax subsidy given to big oil companies, and instead uses that money for scholarships, renewable energy, and preservation.
– It will maintain energy cost to consumer at one of the lowest rates in the region
– It does not increase taxes, it makes oil companies pay taxes.
– economists report that there will no effect on gas and oil prices.

Argument AGAINST:
– will not solve higher education issues and the requirements for the scholarships will not be met by the target group of low and middle income families.
– claims there is a tax increase, as well as, a increase in gas and oil prices.
– “If Colorado policymakers want to pursue a sound energy policy, they ought to keep taxes low and reduce government interference in the markets that are capable of delivering innovative energy solutions to consumers. Attempts to punish successful industries and redirect money to programs favored by politicians have failed to solve our energy problems in the past, and there’s no reason to think this effort will be any different.”

My recommendation: YES

There is a lot of money being dumped into negative ads by the oil and gas industry. They want to serve their best interest by retaining the $300 million they get every year. From what I have read, which includes the plethora of supporters on this amendment, from the Governor to all of the environmental organizations to most of the major newspapers, I think it is safe to conclude that this should pass.

There is a website in FAVOR of the amendment.
There is no website for the opposition.

Rhode Island Question 1 and 2

Can anyone out there help me on this one? I cannot get much information, at all.

Question 1 and 2: Transportation and Open Spaces Bonds

Question 1:
– Authorize the Rhode Island state government to borrow $87,215,000.
– With the money, provide funds to the Department of Transportation to match available federal funds and to provide direct funding for improvements to the State’s highways, roads and bridges.
– Match available federal funds and to provide direct funding for commuter rail.
– Purchase new buses and/or rehabilitate existing buses in the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority’s bus fleet.

Question 2:
– Authorize the Rhode Island state government to borrow $2,500,000.
– With the money, provide funds to “purchase, or otherwise permanently protect through the purchase of title to, development rights, conservation easements and public recreation easements, greenways and other open space, recreation lands, agriculture lands, forested lands and state parks.”

My recommendation: ???

I’m sorry but I just don’t want to make a recommendation without more information. I cannot find anything about who supports or opposes this, what the true costs are, how it will be implemented, etc., etc.

Unless someone out there has some more information….? please.

Vote for the Environment

Here are some links to evaluate your presidential choice and their environmental policy.

A great “at a glance” sheet of the top five candidates can be found HERE.

HERE is a link to all the current and past candidates and their records.

And finally, HERE is a list of the leading newspaper endorsements and excerpts on energy policy.

Thank you to Grist for compiling all this data.

And HERE is a list of all (president, congress, senate) the endorsements from the League of Conservation Voters.

Ohio Issue 2

Continuing series on Election 2008. This is the point where I find it so curious how other states label things…. do we have “issues” in California? Maybe this is a research item… the difference between a proposition, an issue, and a question. Huh.

Issue 2: Clean Ohio Fund Act

If approved by the voters, the measure would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes.

Argument FOR:
– It will not raise taxes.
– It will provide money for environmental clean-up and quality.
– It will create jobs.

Argument AGAINST:
– The economy is in bad condition. The state of Ohio should not be authorized to go into further debt; it should, instead, be tightening its belt and only spending money on immediate priorities.

My recommendation: YES

From what I can tell this has bipartisan support across the board; governor, senators, and other elected officials. It allows the Clean Ohio program to continue which has already created thousands of jobs, not to mention all the environmental support like clean water, preserving family farms, and clean up of abandoned industrial sites. The opposition states that the Ohio citizens have to pay all the money back that is borrowed, but with the creation of the jobs, it may be an even exchange.

HERE is the only website I could find.

California Proposition 7

Continuing series on Election 2008 Propositions

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.

* Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
* Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
* Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.
* Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission.
* Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
* Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
* Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.

Fiscal Impact:
* Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.

* Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates – and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues – are more likely. In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown

Argument FOR:
– It would make California the world leader in clean power technology.
– It would help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs.
– It meets environmental protection standards as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act and Desert Protection Act.
– Provides for review by local government.
– Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables
– Provides a “feed-in tariff” for any size project, under which utilities must buy power offered by renewable energy companies that is cost-effective.
– Strengthens penalties for utility non-compliance by eliminating the current cap on penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission

Argument AGAINST:
– so poorly written that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
– will force small wind and solar companies out of the market. It excludes renewable plants smaller than 30mw from counting towards the new requirements. Today, nearly 60% of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. Excluding small providers will eliminate a major source of clean power and thousands of jobs.
– contains a provision that virtually guarantees that electricity consumers will pay 10% above market rates for renewable power forever – even when the costs of solar and wind sources become more competitive. Nothing in the text of the initiative limits increases in electric bills to 3% as proponents claim.
– will cost consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions per year in higher electric rates – a $300 increase per household per year. By eliminating competition from smaller renewable providers and creating a seller’s market that forces customers to pay 10% above market for renewable energy, Prop. 7 will increase costs to electricity consumers and taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. That’s why the non-partisan Legislative Analyst cautions that “…the prospects for higher electricity rates are more likely in the short term…” and the initiative might “…also lead to higher long-run electricity rates.”
– will slam the brakes on renewable energy development. It locks into law many flaws that are currently stifling renewable power development in California and creates new roadblocks to renewable development. Prop. 7 arbitrarily shifts authority over the renewables market from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Energy Commission, which could lead to significant delays, added bureaucracy and costly lawsuits.
– Prop. 7’s problems would be virtually impossible to fix. No changes can be made without another vote of the people or an unlikely 2/3 vote of the legislature.

My recommendation: NO

On the surface this proposition seems fantastic; making California the clean energy leader and new jobs. Who could argue with that? But, I tend to believe the hundreds of organizations against this measure that feel, yes, it is a great idea, but this measure needs to be written better. Under this measure, we may have more jobs, which would be good cause we would need more money to pay for our increased bills. I also am a supporter of small businesses and this slams the brakes on their expansion, giving all the power to utility companies that are not under any governmental regulation. I also think it says something when 3 leading newspapers are for the measure, while 40 newspapers are against.

Here are the websites:
FOR Prop 7
AGAINST Prop 7

Minnesota HF 2285

I have to admit that one of the more interesting aspects of researching all of the ballot measures is that I am learning so much of how other states operate and hold elections.

HF 2285: Dedicated Funding for Natural Resources and Arts

Summary: Dedicates a new 3/8 of one percent sales tax for a 25-year period to the following purposes:
- 33 percent to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife;
- 33 percent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation (at least five percent of the this amount must be spent only to protect drinking water sources);
- 14.25 percent to support the state’s parks and trails; and
- 19.75 percent for the arts and cultural heritage purposes.

Four different and specific funds (outdoor heritage fund, parks and trails fund, clean water fund, and arts and cultural heritage fund) and one account (sustainable drinking water account within the clean water fund) would be created for the monies to be deposited in.

States the dedicated monies must supplement traditional sources of funding for the above purposes.

Requires that land acquired by fee with money from the outdoor heritage fund under this section must be open to the public taking of fish and game during the open season unless otherwise provided by law.

States that if the base of the sales and use tax is changed, the sales and use tax rate in this section may be proportionally adjusted by law to within one-thousandth of one percent in order to provide as close to the same amount of revenue as practicable for each fund as existed before the change to the sales and use tax.

My recommendation: YES. Anything that preserves land takes care of what is already there is good by me.

Missouri Proposition C

Continuing series on Election 2008. This one is from Missouri.

Proposition C: Clean Energy Initiative

If it is approved by voters, it will create a renewable electricity standard in the state. The standard would require utility companies to gradually increase their usage of renewable energy annually until 15 percent of the energy used in the state is renewable. The initiative would also require that energy rates not increase by more than one percent annually.

This is what I have found out:
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass (including ethanol) and hydropower. The required renewable energy sources must equal the following percentages of retail sales:

• 2% by 2011
• 5% by 2014
• 10% by 2018
• 15% by 2021.

Of the total renewable energy sources required to be sold, at least 2% shall be solar sources. Also, any rate increase to consumers resulting from this measure must be no more than 1%.

A “no” vote simply means that utilities will not have to purchase from a renewable source.

These is no impact on taxes fore this to pass.

My recommendation:
This proposition seems very straight forward, so I am recommending a YES vote. Aside from the fact that there is no fiscal impact, and the utility companies have 3 years to comply with a 2% increase, which seems more than reasonable, the main point of this is that we have to move to renewable resources. HAVE TO. Also, from what I can tell, there is not one publication, utility, newspaper, etc., that has publicly opposed this measure.

There are no website for either position.

Georgia Amendment 1

To be clear… since I live in California, it has been difficult getting information of items on other states ballots. But, I am trying to research as much as I can about the issues that effect the environment. If you live in a state that I am writing about, and have more information, please feel free to send it along.

Amendment 1: Forest Preservation Amendment or HR 1276

This is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that would encourage the preservation, conservation, and protection of the state’s forests through the special assessment and taxation of certain forest lands and assistance grants to local government.

Arguments FOR:
– The amendment will ensure that as Georgia continues to grow and develop, it will continue to protect the forests in the state.
– This amendment will affect very little taxable land value, and is a worthwhile investment in helping keep our forest lands.

Arguments AGAINST:
– Rural school districts would lose valuable tax base, and although the measure authorizes the General Assembly to appropriate grants to local governments to offset the loss of tax revenue, there is fear that school districts will suffer.
– While the wording indicates that this is a program to protect the state’s forests, this is not a state land purchase set aside for the benefit of all Georgians. It is in reality a bill to provide property tax relief for paper companies and others that have forest land holdings in excess of 2,000 acres.

My recommendation: YES

I have to say it is very hard to find information about this Amendment. What I can tell you is that it seems everyone is in support of this passing, so who I am I to judge. The biggest issue I find is that in order to be considered for preservation it has to be over 200 acres. But the flip side is that maybe the people who have 200+ acres are the same people that can afford an addition tax.

There are no websites for either position.

« Previous Page — Next Page »