Washington Policy Blog

Are the Green Police just a Cheap Trick?

During last night's Super Bowl, Audi's ad portrayed a fictional future when the green police check to ensure that each of us is being environmentally correct. Once scene features the green police going through people's garbage and when a man tries to throw away an orange peel, he is cited for a compost violation.

These advertising folks sure have a creative mind! Where would they get such an absurd view of the future?

Bolden is an inspector for the city of Seattle and after the new year starts on Sunday, he'll start issuing fines to businesses that violate the city's law by mixing their recyclables with ordinary trash.
- Seattle Times, December 31, 2005

Oh. Well, certainly the part of the commercial where they arrest the guy for owning incandescent light bulbs would never happen.

Turn out the lights on traditional incandescent bulbs. A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months.
- USA Today, December 16, 2007

Maybe being an ad man is easier than I thought.

P.S. If anyone can find a link to a carbon-sniffing aardvark, please pass it along.

 

The Environmental Cost of the Governor's Climate Executive Order

"Communities would continue to be exposed to air pollution, new or expanded businesses face stricter pollution control requirements and the state might suffer federal sanctions..."

"Slower response to businesses and industries that need air quality permits to start or expand operations..."

"Won't be able to identify, assess and respond to toxic hotspots; won't be able to develop response to and reduce risks from toxics like benzene, chromium and formaldehyde;..."

These are just a few of the impacts the State Department of Ecology says will result by shifting $1.6 million from current projects to implement the Governor's executive order on climate change, signed last spring.

When the legislature rejected the Governor's bill on climate change, she signed the order which included elements that, in then Ecology Director Jay Manning's words, "go beyond the bill’s requirements." To fund these efforts, the Department of Ecology moved funding from a number of current activities, shifting it to implement the Executive Order. Last June, the Office of Financial Management itemized where the funding would come from and what activities would not take place as a result of the funds sweep.

The spreadsheet, which can be read here, outlines cuts to a number of current projects. The impacts range from failure to respond to toxic hotspots, reduced work on improving air quality and increasing the wait time for businesses to receive permits.

What is remarkable is that the Governor's executive order does nothing to reduce carbon emissions in the near future. It is a laundry list of planning efforts, including "Continue to participate in the Western Climate Initiative," "develop emission benchmarks, by industry sector, for facilities the Department of Ecology believes will be covered by a federal or regional cap and trade program," "develop by September 1, 2010, recommendations for forestry offset protocols," and the like.

Contrast the speculative impact of those planning processes to the near-future impacts on environmental quality by shifting the money, not only to the projects listed above, but to other projects that face the chopping block in this tough budget. Cliff Traisman of the Washington Conservation Voters told Publicola last month that there were a number of important environmental projects facing cuts this year, including:

• Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Department of Ecology:  $500,000

• Solid Waste Cleanup, Department of Ecology:  $273,000

• Funding to prevent long-term storage of mercury, Department of Ecology: $300,000

• Air Quality Activities, Department of Ecology:  $300,000

• Water Quality Cleanups, Department of Ecology:  $204,000

• Water Quality Monitoring, Department of Ecology:  $200,000

All of these combined add up to $1.77 million, just over the amount being diverted to the legislatively-rejected climate policy.

Too often, environmental priorities are set based on the latest political fad without consideration of what is lost or the alternatives. By signing the executive order, the Governor committed the state to cutting projects designed to defend air and water quality, help businesses create jobs while meeting environmental regulations and clean up toxics and hazardous waste. Of course the rejoinder, even from the environmental community, will be that we need to fund all of these things. That, however, is exactly the attitude that rejected setting priorities and led us to the current situation. Whether they want to admit it or not, if projects aren't economically sustainable, they aren't environmentally sustainable.

Until we change the approach to setting environmental priorities, we will continue to fund politically-motivated projects at the expense of projects with real environmental benefit.

Audit: School districts owe state $699,000

The State Auditor's Office released two audits this morning on K-12 school districts' compliance with state law. The audits found that school districts owe the state at least $699,219 due to reporting errors that resulted in overpayments. Reporting errors also resulted in just under $118,000 in underpayments to school districts. The state also overpaid an additional $463,000 to school districts for the Learning Assistance Program (LAP) in 2008.

According to the State Auditor:

"School districts receive state funding based on their enrollment, certificated instructional employees' education and experience (referred to as staff mix) and student transportation. These three areas constitute 70 percent of the money districts receive. It is critical that school districts accurately report this information to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

At the direction of the Legislature, our Office verifies the accuracy of what districts report to OSPI. This report includes the detailed results of our audits of the reporting in those three areas for fiscal year 2008.

For fiscal year 2008, we recommended districts repay at least $699,219 to the state. We also found reporting errors that led to a total of $117,676 in underpayments to districts. OSPI will make the final determination on the amount to be recovered."

Here are the audit reports:

• 2008 apportionment report
• Learning Assistance Program

Bill introduced to amend I-960

Nine Democratic Senators (Prentice, Murray, Kohl-Welles, Regala, Fairley, Ranker, McDermott, Kline, Keiser) introduced a bill today to amend the provisions of the voter approved I-960.

Here are the details on SB 6843: Preserving essential public services by temporarily suspending the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases and permanently modifying provisions of Initiative Measure No. 960 for improved efficiency and consistency with state budgeting:

• Section 1: Changes the ten-year reporting requirement for the impact of tax and fee increases to include only those fiscal years in the biennium the tax or fee would first take effect and the subsequent four fiscal years. The fiscal analysis is restricted only to bills scheduled for public hearings.

• Section 2: "(c)(ii) For legislation enacted between the effective date of this section and July 1, 2011, any action or combination of actions by the legislature that increases taxes may be taken with the approval of a majority of members elected to each house of the legislature.
  
  (d)(i) The legislature also finds that voter-approved initiatives may fundamentally change the services which the state provides, increase service levels of current programs, or mandate the state to provide new services. The legislature further finds that many of these voter-approved initiatives lack a dedicated funding source, which impacts the legislature's ability to fund other services. It is therefore the intent of the legislature to provide a means for the legislature to raise new revenue to fund voter-approved initiatives so existing education, public safety, health care, and safety net services for the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable people may be preserved.
  
  (ii) Any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises taxes may be taken with the approval of a majority of members elected to each house of the legislature if the revenue is for the purpose of funding a voter-approved initiative."

• Section 3: Allows the legislature to permanently "modify" tax preferences with a simple majority vote.

• The bill also eliminates the requirement for advisory votes on tax increases not ratified by the voters. 

Here are additional details on past suspensions of the state's 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases and the need for constitutional protections.

Toyota stock falls 6% after USDOT Secretary tells owners to stop driving them

Toyota Stock Quote
LaHood backtracks on Toyota statement

Should tax increases require a 2/3 vote?

The worst kept secret of the 2010 Legislative Session is the majority party's plan to "suspend" the state's 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases.

If they follow through with this decision, this would be the third time voter approved tax restrictions have been "temporarily" set aside by lawmakers. Previous suspensions occurred in 2002 and 2005.

This disregard for the voter's intent is despite the fact on three separate occasions citizens have voiced their support for requiring lawmakers to reach a broad consensus and secure a 2/3 vote to raise taxes. Votes in support of the 2/3 restriction occurred in 1993, 1999, and 2007.

Despite numerous legislative amendments to the section of law containing the tax restriction, the Legislature has never fully repealed the mandate from voters that tax increases require a 2/3 vote.

Rather than continue the current charade of “suspending” the law every time lawmakers want to raise taxes while saying they are honoring the will of the voters and leaving the law on the books, they should refer the question to the voters as a constitutional amendment.

This would follow the model used in 2007 for the school levies constitutional amendment. At that time some lawmakers voting in favor said they merely wanted to give the voters a say.

Doing the same thing for the state's 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases would finally put to rest this debate.

We previously made this recommendation in our Policy Guide:

"Since the legislature has repeatedly suspended the voter-approved requirement that tax increases require a two-thirds vote for approval, constitutional protections are needed. These protections, however, should not be limited to state taxpayers, but should extend to local taxpayers as well.

To encourage government officials to build a strong public consensus on the need for any proposed tax increase, a two tiered approach should be adopted. Government officials should utilize two different options to raise the tax burden:

1. with a two-thirds vote of the legislative body or;

2. with a simple majority vote pending ratification by the voters via a referendum.

Either option would help assure that a broad consensus is reached and the taxpayers are included on any policy decisions that would result in an increase in their tax burden."

Here are details on other states with constitutional vote restrictions for tax increases.

Refocus Department of Commerce on...wait for it...Commerce!

In early 2009, the State Legislature passed EHB 2242, changing the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to the Department of Commerce. In July 2009, during the official name change ceremony, the Governor declared that the new Department of Commerce would focus on ensuring a "successful business environment that provides good, family-wage jobs," and that "We will continue to focus on keeping the companies and jobs we have, and bringing new business to our state."

At WPC's Statewide Small Business Conference last November, new Commerce Director Rogers Weed expressed his surprise at the fact that his department not only did not have a team focused on the needs of small businesses, but did not even have one person focused on small businesses. 

The old CTED's vision? "Multiply the value of our people, programs and performance through the power of working together." Its mission statement? "Invest in Washington's communities, businesses and families to build a healthy and prosperous future." 

More ambiguous statements might be possible, but not likely. 

The new Commerce mission statement is "to grow and improve jobs in Washington state." 

Its "Defining Commerce" report, issued to the Legislature late last year, lays out the new priority areas for the Department. These include "global" priorities such as competitiveness & innovation, education & workforce training, efficient regulation, and infrastructure investment. 

Four other focused priority areas include focuses on rural and small business development and assistance. 

This Legislative Session, policymakers are considering proposals that would move several of the old CTED programs out from Commerce and reassign them to departments that are more relevant. It was an understood, if unwritten, fact that CTED had become a catch-all department for programs that had trouble fitting elsewhere. 

By the end of 2008, CTED had over 150 programs, many of them having nothing to do with commerce, the business climate or assisting businesses (this probably had something to do with its ridiculous vision and mission statements). HB2658/SB6515 would start the process of reassigning programs such as the County Public Health Assistance, Development and Disabilities Endowment, Community Mobilization, Independent Youth Housing, Office of Crime Advocacy, Drug Prosecution Assistance, Office of Long-Term Care Ombudsman, and others to more appropriate agencies. Take the Office of Crime Advocacy as an example. This should not be in Commerce but should be in a Department such as DSHS, which is better equipped to handle this type of issue. 

The goal is to re-focus the Department's activities to become more closely aligned to its mission statement of "growing and improving jobs." A good example of this was moving the small business functions of the Office of Regulatory Assistance out from underneath the Governor's office and reassigning it to Commerce. 

It is important that the Commerce department be able to focus on its mission statement without undertaking programs and projects that do not fit within its core functions. 

Dept. of Ecology says we reduce CO2, trust us!

This morning the House Ecology and Parks Committee is holding a public hearing on HB 2772, which requires state contractors to contractually provide performance standards for reducing greenhouse gasses. The act would also require climate expenditures, prior to implementation and expenditure, to provide information on estimated cost and reductions of greenhouse gas.

Of note is the fiscal note provided by the Office of Financial Management and the state’s Department of Ecology.  In part the note reads:

“The costs of this bill are indeterminate but expected to be significant…. Ecology cannot at this time estimate the future number or scope of individual agency activities that would reduce greenhouse gases or the time and staff resource required to calculate specific emission reductions or the cost of CO2e reduced for each activity.”

If Ecology is unable to measure or account for the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then how will policymakers know that their policies are effective and responsible?

However, this is the point of HB 2772, to bring accountability, ensuring that the states goals to reduce greenhouse gasses are achieved. 

New study: advanced treament removes drugs from environment

A new study by the Washington Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Municipal Wastewater and their Removal by Nutrient Treatment Technologies, shows the benefits of utilizing advanced technologies to remove trace elements of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from the environment.

The following key findings were pulled from the study:

“Secondary treatment alone achieved high removals for hormones and steroids.”

“Approximately 21% of the 172 analytes were reduced to below reporting limits by conventional secondary treatment, whereas 53% were reduced to below reporting limits by at least one advance nutrient-removal technology.”

“Roughly 20% of the 172 analytes (mainly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) were found only in the biosolids and not the wastewater samples.”

In conclusion the study finds that, “Results of this screening study indicate that the combination of enhanced biological nutrient removal and filtration processes provides the greatest PPCP removal.” Though many wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to the Puget Sound do not utilize these methods today, the study also found that , “other options…may further reduce PPCP and nutrient concentrations in municipal discharges.”

Previously we have shared with the Legislature our report: Drug Take-Back Programs: What Will They Solve?

Below are a couple of the key finds from that report.

1. To date, no science has been provided to show that take-back programs reduce the amount of drugs in the environment. This, in part, is because the drugs being found in the environment come from human and animal excretion after the use of drugs. As a side note, all of the take-back programs, including the B.C. program, as well as others in the U.S. and across Europe, were designed to deal with drugs in the environment and not drug abuse. Comparisons to other programs should be limited to their effectiveness on the environmental protection, which we have shown is not supported by science.

2. The EPA and White House have issued a clear directive for the disposal of unused or unwanted drugs. The federally established standards, “are designed to reduce the diversion of prescription drugs, while also protecting the environment.” These standards call for the disposal of unused or unwanted drugs by placing them in landfills, not flushing them.

Before the Legislature adopts any policy to mandate producer led take-back programs several key questions still need to be resolved, such as what is the source of PPCP’s in the environment? What is the cost for removal? And will take-back programs effectively achieve the current policy goals being considered?

Is it time to restructure higher education?

The legislature is currently considering numerous proposals to grant higher education institutions expanded tuition authority. The proposals have received mixed support from the state's 4-year institutions.

In light of the state's long-term budget outlook, serious consideration must be given to reforming the way the state finances higher education. The Washington Policy Center believes the state's four-year universities need to be empowered to have more control over their budget and finances and be less dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

One potential model is to allow the state's universities to transition to business enterprise status. In 2004, Colorado and Japan moved in this direction.

Here is what Colorado lawmakers decided:

"The general assembly finds that greater resource flexibility for state institutions of higher education can enhance more educational opportunities, as well as increase educational excellence.

The general assembly hereby finds and declares that:

(a)  The provision of higher education services is a business and;

(b)  For the purposes of determining whether an institution or group of institutions may be designated as an enterprise, it is sufficient that the institution or group of institutions receives less than ten percent of its total annual revenues in grants from all Colorado state and local governments combined and the governing board of the institution of higher education or group of institutions has authority to issue revenue bonds on behalf of such institution or group of institutions."

Here are details on what occurred in Japan:

“The Japanese higher education system has recently undergone a dramatic change. Reforms, passed in 2004, granted independent corporation status to the 87 national universities. While they will still be part of the public sector, they are to be independently managed with their staff no longer being civil servants. They will also be able to set their own tuition fee levels, but may not exceed 110 percent of the standard tuition fee set by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance.” (Source)

“Even after reform, the new National University Corporations remains basically ‘national’ in the sense that the state remains responsible for their functions, providing the major part of the funds that they need. Their personnel and other operational costs will be covered by ‘operational grants’ from the government. The grants will be ‘block grants’ which can be used at the discretion of each university without designated applications. It will be also possible to carry the grants over to subsequent years. For facilities of national universities, ‘capital development funds’ will be allocated separately.” (Source)

In Japan, the majority of universities are private versus public.

Moving to a high tuition/high financial aid model while providing the smaller state universities with the type of "block grants" used in Japan to help with the transition, may hold promise for restructuring how Washington partners with the four-year universities.