166 GT States CP

STATES CPDDI 2008 GT Aman

States Counterplan States Counterplan.......................................................................................................................................1

Generic STATES COUNTERPLAN 1NC (GENERIC)...........................................................................................4

Solar Power CP1NC: SOLAR POWER CP (1/2).................................................................................................................52NC Counterplan Solves Best.....................................................................................................................72NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BEST.....................................................................................................82NC CP KEY—REVITALIZES SOLAR POWER....................................................................................92NC CP SOLVES COMPETITIVENESS................................................................................................102NC SOLAR ENERGY SOLVES............................................................................................................11THEY SAY: PERM DO BOTH................................................................................................................12THEY SAY: STATE SPENDING............................................................................................................13

Terrestrial Sequestration CP1NC: Terrestrial Sequestration CP............................................................................................................142NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES..............................................................................152NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING.........................................................172NC CP SOLVES BETTER THAN CAP-&-TRADE AFFS...................................................................20AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION COUNTERPLAN 1NC............................................................212NC AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES BEST...............................................................221NC FUNDING MECHANISM CP.........................................................................................................242NC FUNDING MECHANISM SOLVENCY.........................................................................................252NC FUNDING MECHANISMS SOLVE...............................................................................................27

Hybrid Cars CP1NC HYBRID CARS (1/2).......................................................................................................................282NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE..................................................................................................................30

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) CP1NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR CP..........................................................................................342NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR SOLVES................................................................................35LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR KEY GOOD—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC). 36

Nuclear Power CP1NC: NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLAN.........................................................................................372NC: Tax Credits Revitalize Nuclear Power.............................................................................................382NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUEL USE................................................................................402NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUELS.......................................................................................412NC SOLVENCY MODULE: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................422NC SOLVENCY MODULE: COMPETITIVENESS/ECONOMY.......................................................43THEY SAY: NUCLEAR POWER UNSAFE...........................................................................................45RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNTERPLAN 1NC...................................................................................462NC INCENTIVES SOLVE—LEAD TO CONTRACTS........................................................................47

1


2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES WIND POWER..................................................................................492NC COUNTERPLAN SOVLES SOLAR POWER................................................................................502NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BIOMASS/BIOFUELS......................................................................51

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CPREGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE COUNTERPLAN 1NC.............................................522NC RGGI SOLVES WARMING............................................................................................................532NC RGGI SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE..............................................................................................552NC RGGI SOLVES BIODIVERSITY....................................................................................................562NC RGGI SOLVES POLLUTION.........................................................................................................572NC RGGI SOLVES THE ECONOMY...................................................................................................582NC RGGI SOLVES EU RELATIONS...................................................................................................591NC: BUILDING TAX CREDIT CP........................................................................................................602NC: BUILDING TAX CREDIT SOLVES..............................................................................................61

AT/They SayTHEY SAY: STATES LACK UNIFORMITY.........................................................................................64THEY SAY: NON- COMPLIANCE.........................................................................................................65THEY SAY: ELECTRICITY RATES RISE............................................................................................66AT: STATE SPENDING...........................................................................................................................67AT: CALIFORNIA SPENDING...............................................................................................................68NON-UNIQUE: CALIFORNIA DEFICIT HIGH....................................................................................70NON-UNIQUE: CALIFORNIA DEFICIT HIGH....................................................................................71AT: X BILL SOLVES THE DEFICIT......................................................................................................72AT: TAX CUTS RESOLVE THE DEFICIT............................................................................................73STATES COST EFFECTIVE...................................................................................................................74AT: PERM.................................................................................................................................................75AT: PERM.................................................................................................................................................76AT: PERM.................................................................................................................................................77AT: CONGRESSIONAL CIRCUMVENTION........................................................................................78AT: CONGRESSIONAL CIRCUMVENTION........................................................................................79AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN - DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE..................................................80AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN - DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE..................................................81AT: Court Strike Down- Compact Clause.................................................................................................82AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- SUPREMACY CLAUSE.......................................................................83AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- FOREIGN INTERVENTION................................................................84AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- FOREIGN INTERVENTION................................................................85AT: STATES RACIST..............................................................................................................................86AT: RACE TO THE BOTTOM................................................................................................................87AT: RACE TO THE BOTTOM................................................................................................................88AT: RACE TO THE BOTTOM................................................................................................................89Theory2NC: 50 STATE FIAT..............................................................................................................................90

Affirmative2AC: CALIFORNIA BUDGET DA (GOP IN/L).....................................................................................91

2


Uniqueness: California Deficit Decreasing...............................................................................................94Uniqueness: State Deficits Decreasing......................................................................................................95Link: CP -> State Deficit Spending..........................................................................................................96Link: California.........................................................................................................................................98Link: New York.......................................................................................................................................100Link: Alternative Energy Expensive.......................................................................................................101Delayed Budget Kills California’s Economy..........................................................................................103Deficits Kill California’s Economy.........................................................................................................104California Key to National Econ.............................................................................................................106State Economies Key to National Econ...................................................................................................109

3


STATES COUNTERPLAN 1NC (GENERIC)

TEXT: THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OBSERVATION ONE: COMPETITION THE COUNTERPLAN COMPETES BY AVOIDING DISADS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

OBSERVATION 2: SOLVENCY STATES SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE BEST—FOUR REASONS (HISTORY, INNOVATION, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MODULES, PRECISE ENFORCEMENT)

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 concrete advantages to giving state and local government a significant role in implementation of environmental policies. These are evident from consideration of the progress of climate change initiatives in the United States to date. As noted by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), states have greater flexibility that allows them to innovate with less severe consequences and provide models for future federal legislation. State and local government programs can allow bottom-up decision-making with greater stakeholder involvement. This allows the development of more precisely focused targets and strategies that are tailored to local conditions and are more likely to succeed.

4


1NC: SOLAR POWER CP (1/2)

TEXT: THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OR OFFER A BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDIT MODELED AFTER THE CREDIT OFFERED BY

THE STATE OF OREGON.


OBSERVATION 2: SOLVENCY

BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDITS IMMEDIATELY MAKE THE SOLAR INDUSTRY VIABLE ON A NATIONAL SCALEBen Jacklet 6/23/08 ( First place investigative reporter Oregon Business Magazine http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/31828/pg/10003)

John Schumacher developed a revolutionary idea to lower the cost of solar power during the last oil crisis 33 years ago. Answering a call from the U.S. government for solar innovations, he invented a closed-loop, low-energy system to produce high-quality polysilicon for solar cells. He was certain his process would improve efficiency throughout the solar industry, but he never got to find out. Support from the government faded as oil prices returned to earth, and investors didn't fill the gap. Schumacher reluctantly dropped his plans and proceeded with a successful career that saw him earn over 40 patents and create hundreds of high-paying R&D jobs through the various technology companies he created in California. Three decades later, Schumacher is getting another chance to make his solar system a reality - in Oregon. His company, Peak Sun Silicon, has broken ground on a polysilicon manufacturing plant in Millersburg, north of Albany, with ambitious plans to raise $718 million and create 500 jobs by the end of 2011, generating r w materials for a solar manufacturing industry that is growing robustly both globally and in Oregon. State officials predict that by this time next year Oregon will reach $1.4 billion in committed capital for solar manufacturing. And that figure doesn't include the earnings of a growing legion of system installers, distributors, marketers, electricians, researchers, financial consultants, lawyers and architects who plan to be soaking up rays and revenues as the push to solar intensifies. Oregon is betting big on all forms of renewable energy, but none has drawn more investment and business interest than the burgeoning solar industry. At the world's largest solar trade show in Munich, Germany, in April there was one U.S. state with its own booth: Oregon. Solar entrepreneurs enticed by lucrative incentives, most notably the German powerhouse SolarWorld, are pouring into the Oregon market, and more are being recruited, making the state's goal of a "self reinforcing cluster" in the solar industry seem less like wishful thinking and more like concrete reality. Residential solar installations are up 35%, commercial projects are on track to quadruple from 2007 to 2008, and the market looks even sunnier to the south, where California has launched a $3.35 billion solar initiative that will further boost demand for solar equipment that is more and more likely to be made in Oregon. The timing is serendipitous. The weak dollar is boosting exports and sending oil prices to all-time highs. New concerns and laws regarding climate change are strengthening a market that is firmly established in Europe and growing everywhere else. Venture capital investments in solar energy topped $1 billion in the U.S. last year, and two of the hottest stocks on Wall Street have been First Solar in Phoenix and Sun Power in San Jose. With a strong Silicon Forest workforce familiar with the basic technology used in solar manufacturing and some of the most generous subsidies offered by any state , Oregon has positioned itself to capitalize mightily on what New York Times columnist Thomas

[continued…]

5

http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/31828/pg/10003


1NC SOLAR POWER CP (2/2)

[continued…]Friedman recently labeled " the next great global industry - clean power ."but for all of the investor exuberance regarding solar, the fact remains that solar energy is not even close to eclipsing wind power, much less coal, hydro and even nuclear energy. For solar to compete without exorbitant subsidies, costs must come down. That is the goal of the solar companies expanding in Oregon, and the industry as a whole. Joseph Reinhart, executive director of the Oregon Solar Energy Industry Association, says solar's future is rooted not in idealism but in "continued and sustained profitability." A veteran of the semiconductor industry, Reinhart doesn't 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.

SOLAR POWER INDEPENDENTLY SOLVES EACH 1AC ADVANTAGEA.E.O. 05 (Arkansas Energy Office, “Arkansas Renewable Energy: Solar Energy”http://www.arkansasrenewableenergy.org/solar/solar.html )

Solar energy can play a key role in creating a clean, reliable energy future in Montana. The benefits are many and varied. Consumers who use these technologies will benefit directly and immediately. Using solar energy produces immediate environmental benefits . Electricity is often produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The combustion of these fuels releases a 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.

6

http://www.arkansasrenewableenergy.org/solar/solar.html


2NC Counterplan Solves Best

OFFERING A BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDIT MAKES THE SOLAR INDUSTRY COMPETITIVE- EXT 1NC JACKET ’08 EVIDENCE. THE MAGNITUDE OF OUR CP’S TAX CREDIT DISTINGUISHES IT FROM EVERY CREDIT CURRENTLY BEING OFFERED. MODELED AFTER OREGEON, OUR CP WILL OFFER A 50% TAX CREDIT ON ALL SOLAR INVESTMENT. OREGON’S EXPERIENCE PROVES THAT AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT AND WILL RESULT IN INVESTORS POURING DOLLARS INTO SOLAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

STATE SUBSIDIES WILL MASSIVELY BOOST THE SOLAR INDUSTRY – PROFIT IS THE CRITICAL INTERNAL LINK Ben Jacklet 6/23/08 ( First place investigative reporter Oregon Business Magazine http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/31828/pg/10003)

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 states”http://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…]

7

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/06/21/20080621biz-solarincentives0621-ON.html



2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BEST

[Continued…]of the median state wages and 80 percent or more of their employee health-coverage premiums. The transferable income-tax credit would allow companies that are slow to generate significant cash flow a means of earning revenue by selling the credit to another company that could cash it in incrementally over five years, he said. It would be capped at 10 percent of the capital investment a company makes in Arizona. The property-tax provision also would be based on the amount of money invested and paid to employees. Despite giving solar companies a break, the proposal wouldn't bankrupt the state, and would in fact create revenue within 15 years if it succeeds in attracting any large manufacturers here, Broome said. Proposal has supporters Rep. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, is among the supporters. "We have the sun, we have the semiconductor workforce talent that has been here a while, but people are moving elsewhere and we need to be able to capture that," Meza said. "The budget is in deficit, but that is apples and oranges. What we are talking about here is a new business environment and infrastructure to bring long-term revenue to the state." The idea for solar incentives was wrapped into a job-stimulus package unveiled this week. Rep. Lucy Mason, R-Prescott, said she is asking to withdraw a bill of hers that is stalled and amend it to add the solar-incentive language and possibly pass it on its own. Mason said she has been working with GPEC on the proposal since February. "They were seeing this real opportunity for Arizona, but we kept losing these manufacturing companies," she said. "They keep going elsewhere because our tax policies just didn't allow a company to pencil out a successful operation here." Mason said she instructed Broome to "chisel out" the most effective incentive possible without affecting the troubled state budget. "With this whole proposal, I feel very confident this will create a revenue-positive situation in the future," Mason said Friday. GPEC hired Elliott D. Pollack & Co. of Scottsdale, a noted economic consulting firm, to review the proposal. The agency concluded the tax incentives would generate revenue from the state within 15 years, but that under certain circumstances the state would be forgoing tax revenue in some of the interim years. Salt River Project, which has been active at the Legislature this session because of other bills dealing with electricity generation, has followed the incentive package. "We support it," SRP spokesman Scott Harelson said. "We would prefer it include incentives for other renewable products. But our only concern is that because this bill has been introduced somewhat late in the game, it might cause some confusion with other bills that we are working on." Mason said she and other supporters of the incentives are working to inform other lawmakers of the proposal. "As much as I like the idea and want to see a bill move forward, I'm concerned my colleagues are wary of last-minute or perceived last-minute introduction of a bill, even though this has been in the works a long time," Mason said. Some big losses Broome hopes the incentives will add to the state's solar pedigree. Tempe boasts the headquarters of First Solar Inc., the top-performing U.S. stock last year. But the company's manufacturing and commensurate jobs are in Ohio, Germany and Malaysia. Stirling Energy Systems Inc. has offices in Phoenix, but also keeps offices in California and conducts research at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque. Germany-based Schletter Inc. recently announced a 22,000-square-foot facility to make brackets for solar panels in Tucson, joining Global Solar Energy, Solon America Corp. and Prism Solar Technologies Inc. in that city. But the missed opportunities have been big. Among the more prominent companies to pass building facilities in Arizona in the last year was Palo Alto, Calif.-based Ausra Inc., which announced in December its first solar-thermal manufacturing plant in the U.S. would go to Las Vegas. Solar-thermal power plants use mirrors to concentrate solar heat and make steam and electricity. The Ausra plant will make components for a power plant planned in California. Then in January, Germany-based Schott Solar announced plans for a solar-thermal plant in Albuquerque, which also will make more traditional black solar panels. The Schott facility will start with 350 employees and could expand to 1,500, according to the company. Intel Corp., Arizona's 12th largest employer, announced earlier this week it would create a solar subsidiary in Oregon. The economic benefit of the Intel's SpectraWatt division was announced too recently to be included in the missed-opportunity costs that Broome calculated for his proposal. "We didn't even have a conversation with Intel," Broome said. "We were not even considered."

8


2NC CP KEY—REVITALIZES SOLAR POWER

TAX INCENTIVES SPUR SOLAR POWER DEVELOPMENTRick Chapo June 27, 2008"Financial Incentives for Your Business to Use Solar Power" http://www.greenbuildingarticles.com/Article/green-building---tax-credits----Financial-Incentives-for-Your-Business-to-Use-Solar-Power-/1825

When it comes to running a business, much of the necessary focus is on the bottom line. Many businesses, however, fail to realize they can seriously cut energy costs by going solar. Tax Incentives Federal and State governments know the best way to initiate change is to provide an economic benefit. When it comes to energy, governments try to make the use of solar energy as economically attractive as possible to businesses. This is done through granting tax incentives in the form of tax credits and deductions . Depending upon which government agency is involved, federal or a particular state, corporations can get tax credits and deductions ranging from 10 to as high as 35 percent of the cost of purchasing and installing solar energy systems. Net Metering On top of the tax incentives given to businesses for going solar, a majority of states now offer incredible cost savings through net metering. Net metering refers to state laws that require utilities to purchase power generated from solar systems used by businesses at the same price the utilities would otherwise charge the business. If the business is producing energy in excess of what it is using, the energy is sent into the utility grid and the building power meter actually runs backwards. Since many businesses are closed two days a week, this effectively means the utility is buying the power on said days. Net metering is an incredibly effective means of slashing utility costs. Solar Loans Businesses can gain further benefits through going solar by taking advantage of government solar financing programs. These loan programs offer incredible terms in an effort to promote the use of renewable energy and make sense for both new construction and renovations. Typically created as state programs, these solar loans offer financing for the purchase and installation of the equipment. The loans typically have seven to 10 year terms, and are offered as no interest or extremely low interest financing. Combined with the economic benefits of net metering, such loans make the decision to go solar a slam dunk. Each state tends to handle the promotion of alternative energy in different ways and with different benefits. When combined with federal programs, businesses can reap a financial benefit from using solar energy sources.

9

http://www.greenbuildingarticles.com/Article/green-building---tax-credits----Financial-Incentives-for-Your-Business-to-Use-Solar-Power-/1825

http://www.greenbuildingarticles.com/Article/green-building---tax-credits----Financial-Incentives-for-Your-Business-to-Use-Solar-Power-/1825


2NC CP SOLVES COMPETITIVENESS

BETC SOLVES GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS Ben Jacklet 6/23/08 ( First place investigative reporter Oregon Business Magazine http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/31828/pg/10003)

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."

10



2NC SOLAR ENERGY SOLVES

REVITALIZING THE SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRY SOLVES THE AFF – THAT’S 1NC A.E.O. ’05 EV. SOLAR ENERGY IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY WITH AN ENORMOUS POTENTIAL. WITH INCREASED INVESTMENT SOLAR ENERGY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SUPPLY ½ OF THE WORLD’S ENERGY NEEDS. A MODEST INCREASE IN SOLAR USAGE WILL OFFER THE ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIVALENT OF REMOVING 850,000 CARS FROM THE ROAD – DRAMATICALLY CUTTING AIR POLLUTANTS, OIL USE, AND GHG EMISSIONS

SOLAR POWER SOLVES- BEST CLEAN ENERGY SOURCE AVAILABLEReuters 4/10/08 (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1079284820080410?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

PARIS (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's oil minister on Thursday slammed biofuels, saying they did not protect the environment or help supply security, but added solar power had to be considered one of the best clean energy sources. "Let's be realistic, ethanol and biofuels will not contribute to the protection of the global environment by reducing (carbon dioxide) emissions, they will not increase energy security, nor will they reduce dependency on fossil fuels to any appreciable degree," Ali al-Naimi told an oil conference. "Biofuels are not the solution," he added. The rise in biofuel use was largely due to government subsidies, high import taxes and financial favoritism vis-a vis others, he added. "That's why we have to look beyond biofuels... and concentrate instead on truly renewable sources of energy," he said, adding that solar power was perhaps the best clean energy source available in all parts of the world. "It is abundant, clean and available to all," he said. "There is a great chance to expand its usage to all parts of the world especially in developing countries and to all economic sectors and activities including power generation, manufacturing and so on," Naimi said. What was needed, he said, was to expand the use of solar energy and to make solar cells more effective to make the transmission of solar power more cost effective. "For our part we are giving that sort of energy special attention," he added.(Reporting by Muriel Boselli; Editing by Margaret Orgill)

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 19–56 months. Even better, solar panels deliver 8–18 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.

11

http://www.eupvplatform.org/fileadmin/Documents/Brochure-indicateurs_26_pays.pdf

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jun/business/kc_solarpower.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1079284820080410?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1079284820080410?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0


THEY SAY: PERM DO BOTH

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT OBSTRUCTS THE LOCAL USE OF SOLAR ENERGY John Farrell 6/23/08 *research associate on the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self- Reliance* (“Concentrating Solar Decentralized Power: Government Incentives Hinder Local Ownership” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=52829 )

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.

12

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=52829


THEY SAY: STATE SPENDING

NO LINK TO STATE SPENDING – INCREASED BUSINESS PAYS OFF THE SUBSIDY MAKING IT OBSOLETE Ben Jacklet 6/23/08 ( First place investigative reporter Oregon Business Magazine http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/31828/pg/10003) Large manufacturers aren't the only Oregon businesses investing in subsidized solar. Kettle Foods, Pacific Botanicals, PepsiCo, Gerding Edlen and Sokol Blosser Winery are just a few of the companies that have installed solar systems on their rooftops with support from the Energy Trust of Oregon. Kacia Brockman, the trust's senior solar program manager, says incentives can make solar installations attractive, with a return of up to 8% over the life of the investment. "It's not a huge moneymaker, but it is a sound investment," she says. "And it's very low risk, because the systems are guaranteed to produce power for 20 years." The more systems that are installed, the more demand there is for workers with solar expertise. In 2003 the trust had 12 "trade allies" to collaborate on solar installations. That number has grown to more than 100, according to Brockman. The trust also has helped train more than 750 union electricians to assist with solar installations. There is also more work than ever for 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.

13



1NC: Terrestrial Sequestration CP

TEXT: THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OR PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES AND IMPLEMENT CARBON TAXES TO ENCOURAGE TERRESTRIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION.


OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCYCOUNTERPLAN SOLVES BEST – ENCOURAGES COMPANIES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, INCREASE COMPETITIVENESS, AND AVOID THE AFF PITFALLS

Roberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming and Tax Policy, lexis 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135, 2002The United States has the lowest environmental taxes of all OECD countries. n607 Imposing a carbon tax would pro-vide revenue for increased reductions in other forms of taxes, while providing collateral benefits. The collateral benefits would include decreased health risks, lowered chance of catastrophic flooding, and preservation of climate dependent ecosystems . A carbon tax would not necessarily reduce American industry's competitiveness. The OECD notes that competitive concerns are lessened when substitutes are available (such as fuel cell technology) and when the carbon tax revenues are recycled back into the business sector. n608 A carbon tax would provide the "stick" to go along with the "carrot" of tax incentives for alternative energy sources and carbon sequestration. Furthermore, pollution taxes avoid some of the pitfalls of other market-based instruments. n609 The Bush Administration appears to favor voluntary emis-sion reductions over mandatory caps. n610 While a carbon tax is theoretically a voluntary measure because industry can choose to reduce emissions to avoid the tax, it seems unlikely that this Congress would impose another tax on business, even if it planned to recycle the revenues from that tax to reduce other tax burdens. n611 [*1221] Switzerland has implemented an alternative that might be politically possible: the Swiss rule provides for a carbon tax to be imposed only if industry fails to attain emission abatement objectives by voluntary means. n612 The Swiss rule is economically similar to the cap-and-trade proposals n613 combined with a safety valve discussed above. n614Finally, the United States should listen to other countries and cooperate in the Kyoto Protocol. n615 Taking a uni-lateral stance against the Protocol damages America's reputation and may inspire other countries to deny cooperation in other important international initiatives. The voluntary emissions "intensity" reductions proposed by the President as an alternative to Kyoto cannot be relied upon to actually reduce emissions, as the target would increase as GDP increases. n616 C. Incentives for GHG Mitigation A tax credit for carbon sequestration would preserve forests and wildlife as it helps control climate change. The Presi-dent's global climate plan appears to support incentives for carbon sequestration, although details have yet to be re-vealed. n617 Carbon-intensive industries would be persuaded to invest in aforestation and forest conservation programs. Such a credit would have to be carefully crafted so that the forestry projects effectively sequester carbon. Senator Brownback's proposal to create an implementing panel would provide effective safeguards. n618 Making the credit transferable could enhance its attractiveness. Transferability facilitates low cost compliance. n619 [*1222] While I recommend providing a credit for domestic carbon sequestration, a credit could be extended to in-ternational sequestration projects. For example, the Brazilian Amazon contains about forty percent of the world's re-maining tropical rainforest and has the world's highest forest destruction rate. n620 Researchers note that carbon-offset funds paid to developing countries could help promote forest conservation by changing the economic forces driving forest destruction. n621 A domestic credit is preferable because the benefits of conserving forests would then stay at home, thereby enabling local residents to forge a bond with nature. That bond must exist to justify taking action to pro-tect nature and, ultimately, our own quality of life.

14


2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES

EXTEND 1NC MANN EVIDENCE – CARROT AND STICK SOLUTION UNIQUELY ENCOURAGES PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN CARBON SEQUESTRATION. ORGANIZATIONS WILL BEGIN TO INVEST IN AFORESTATION AND FOREST CONSERVATION IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE COSTS THEY INCUR FROM THE CARBON TAX. THIS TWO-PRONGED APPROACH WILL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION TO GHG

TAX INCENTIVES TOWARDS PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS SOLVE --- NIPFS HOLD UNTAPPED POTENTIAL TO OFFSETTING GHG EMMISIONSRoberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming and Tax Policy, lexis 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135, 2002

Tax incentives should be designed to influence behavior in those who would not otherwise engage in that behavior - otherwise they simply present a windfall to the taxpayer. 373 Would tax incentives change the behavior of private forest owners? Non-industrial private forestland offers many benefits, including timber and protection of the environment and, as of 1992, made up nearly half of the nation's forestland. 374 Studies indicate that , depending on the region involved, owners holding between eight percent and thirty-two [*1189] percent of total private forest acreage never intend to allow logging . 375 Another study conducted by the U.S. Forest Service revealed that preservationist owners, who do not intend to allow timber harvesting, hold title to ten percent of the private "forest land" in Michigan. 376 Applying these percentages on a national basis, preservationist owners protect over thirty-three million acres of forest wilderness. 377 Because NIPF owners generally are not interested in managing their lands for maximum timber harvest, their forests are "underutilized sources of biomass for storing atmospheric CO2" that can offset GHG emissions. 378 The National Research Council believes that NIPFs offer "the greatest opportunity for increasing terrestrial carbon storage in the United States because of their availability (compared with land currently in cultivation) and under-use as illustrated by their low stocking density and volume estimates ." 379 Given that some NIPF owners are already conserving timber through inattention or preservationist tendencies, 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 COMPETITIVENESSRoberta 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. n531Ex 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 per-sonal 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-petitive position. n542

15

http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3862d15a3e3c4ad1448b9881f574f855&docnum=5&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAl&_md5=7671335e642dc0c8d1f82e0a53e7b337&focBudTerms=carbon%20sequestration%20AND%20state%20w/10%20government%20OR%20governments&focBudSel=all#n379








2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES

ONLY STATES CAN SOLVE – ACCESS TO SPECIFIC REGIONAL EXPERTISE, INFORMATION, AGENCIES, AND DISSEMINATION SYSTEMSMelissa Chan and Sarah Forbes, Employees of National Energy Tech Lab of DoE, Carbon Sequestration Role in State and Local Actions, http://204.154.137.14/energy-analyses/pubs/slfinal_1.pdf, 2006

States have several tools at their disposal to develop carbon sequestration programs. States are experts of their respective domains. Though there are a variety of opinions about the roles that state agencies may play, and this is not a conclusive description, here are a few examples of how states can support carbon sequestration projects. Institutional resources vary by state; states can use their agencies and offices to disseminate information about carbon sequestration projects and risks to the general public, as well as aid the responsible development of carbon sequestration. Here are a few preliminary ideas for building upon existing knowledge and expertise: State geological surveys may have information about state topography, fractures, potential reservoirs for storage, quality of rock and soil, that could support terrestrial and geologic sequestration. State environmental agencies can provide regulatory guidance to validate emissions offset, and ensure that quality of environment and health are maintained as projects are developed. State agricultural and forestry boards can aid the development of terrestrial sequestration. State commerce agencies can help manage credit trades, coordinate market activity, and consolidate offsets for trades. Overall, states have a variety of expertise readily available to them. In collaboration with regional 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.

16


2NC TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES WARMING

CARBON SEQUESTRATION SOLVES GHGS – STATE CARBON MARKETS ARE SUCCESSFUL AT PROMOTING REDUCTIONS

Forest Service 08 (USDA, “Carbon Sequestration”, http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/carbon.shtml)Interest in terrestrial carbon sequestration has increased in an effort to explore opportunities for climate change mitigation. Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by trees through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, branches, foliage, and roots) and soils. Carbon sequestration in forests and wood products helps offset fossil fuel emissions, one of the key drivers of human-induced climate change.Sustainable forestry practices can increase the ability of forests to sequester additional atmospheric carbon while enhancing other ecosystem services, such as improved soil and water quality. Planting trees, restoring forested ecosystems, and improving forest health are some of the ways to increase forest carbon. Harvesting and regenerating forests can also result in net carbon sequestration in wood products and new forest growth. Investing in forest carbon sequestration projects is a cost-effective way to complement corporate greenhouse gas reductions or allowance purchases.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 EMISSIONSRoberta 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

17


















http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/carbon.shtml



CARBON SEQUESTRATION WILL BE THE LINCHPIN OF CURBING GLOBAL WARMING – CUTTING 20 PERCENT OF GHG EMISSIONSChicagotribune, Emissions fix may lie beneath us, http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-overheated3oct18,0,2180210,full.story, 2007

But burning brown coal produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide, the major culprit in global warming. So Australia is trying out an ambitious idea: capturing carbon dioxide emissions and pumping them into storage in natural reservoirs below ground.Carbon storage has been experimented with for more than a decade. But the Latrobe Valley effort under development would dwarf all existing projects. Its scale is a reflection of the dramatic global need to find clean ways to continue using coal. In a world in which more than 80 percent of energy comes from fossil fuels, finding a way to catch greenhouse gas emissions and lock them away permanently could dramatically reduce climate change. The International Energy Agency says the technology, if proven effective, could provide 15 percent to 20 percent of the total greenhouse gas cuts needed worldwide to stabilize the climate, making it potentially a more important contributor than any other technology. Just as important, underground storage would allow nations that depend on major coal deposits, among them the United States, China and Russia, to continue burning coal, dodging both economic slowdowns and criticism for wreaking environmental havoc.

WE COULD LIVE 25 TIMES MORE EXTRAVAGANTLY AND STILL OFFSET CARBON FROM PRESERVING FORESTS– TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION IS EFFECTIVEBruce Brunta, Historian of Plummer’s 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 Plummer’s 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 Plummer’s 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 Plummer’s 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.

18



AFFORESTATION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE GHG EMISSIONSClaussen and Arroyo, 01 (Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Strategies for the Global Environment , Vicki Arroyo, Director of Policy Analysis for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change: Science Strategies , & Solutions, Google Books, Pg 39)Although policies to reduce greenhouse has emissions may impose costs no agriculture, they also create substantial economic opportunities for agricultural producers. For example, afforestation (planting trees) to sequester carbon is a prominent strategy for mitigating greenhouse has emissions, and is a potential opportunity for agriculture because enough marginal agricultural land exists in the United States to offset a considerable amount of carbon emissions (Adams et al./ 1999a; Marland et al., 1999). The potential benefits of this afforestation strategy are broad-based; planting trees creates a low-cost source of biomass, alternative fuels, and carbon-based materials. Some estimates suggest that tree planting on marginal agricultural lands can be a significant contributor to mitigation at a relatively low cost compared with reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels (IPCC, 1996b).

TERRESTRIAL SEQUESTRATION PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN REDUCING GHGRabe, holds a joint appointment with the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 02 (Barry G., November,“Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Pew Center on Climate Change Report, downloaded from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/)

Forestry parallels agriculture in its potential as a source of carbon sequestration, bot h through the maintenance of existing forests and the planting of new trees. Some states have even begun to link these areas, exploring whether planting trees on low-producing cropland might be a useful long-term strategy for reducing GHG releases. In turn, international deliberations have proven increasingly receptive to incorporating “carbon sinks” created by forests into national calculations of greenhouse gases. Numerous international efforts have promoted expanded tree-planting in recent decades. These include the 1986 Noordwijk Declaration, whereby environmental ministers from 68 countries adopted a goal of increasing forest cover by 30 million acres per year. Nationally, former President George H.W. Bush launched the America the Beautiful Program in 1990, intended to plant nearly one billion additional trees per year. Many of these initiatives have attempted to combine the aesthetic and ecological benefits of expanded tree cover with potential impact on greenhouse gases. These factors converged in Minnesota in the late 1980s. At the very time the state legislature began to endorse the idea of expanded commitment to forestry, including shade-oriented plantings in urban areas, state officials began to consider a number of possible steps to reduce state GHG emissions. In 1990, the Minnesota legislature noted that “trees are a major factor in keeping the earth’s carbon cycle balanced , and planting trees and perennial shrubs and vines recycles carbon downward from the atmosphere.” It called upon the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to complete a study on future strategies for promoting and funding expanded tree planting (Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 587, Section 2).

FORESTS HAVE A LARGE INFLUENCE ON WARMINGEPA 06 (U.S. Environment Protection Agency, October 19, “Frequently Asked Questions: Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry,” http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html)

Forests and soils have a large influence on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most important global warming gas emitted by human activities. Tropical deforestation is responsible for about 20% of the world's annual CO2 emissions (IPCC Special Report on LULUCF (2000) Exit disclaimer). On a global scale, however, these emissions are more than offset by the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by forests and agriculture. Therefore, agricultural and forestry activities can both contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, as well as be used to help prevent climate change, by avoiding further emissions and by sequestering additional carbon. Sequestration activities can be carried out immediately , appear to present relatively cost-effective emission reduction opportunities, and may generate environmental co-benefits. At the same time, it is important to recognize that carbon sequestered in trees and soils can be released back to the atmosphere, and that there is a finite amount of carbon that can ultimately be sequestered.

19

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/


2NC CP SOLVES BETTER THAN CAP-&-TRADE AFFS

COUNTERPLAN IS SUPERIOR TO CAP-AND-TRADE – INCREASE COMPETITIVENESS AND ENCOURAGE INNOVATIONRoberta Mann, Associate Professor of Law, Widener University-Wilmington, WAITING TO EXHALE?: Global Warming and Tax Policy, lexis 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135, 2002Reducing fossil fuel use and conserving forests for carbon sequestration would have benefits reaching beyond GHG abatement. n266 Burning fossil fuels produces pollutants that adversely affect human health. n267 Some researchers assert that air pollution from fossil fuel use "already [is] sickening or killing millions throughout the world." n268 Re-ducing emissions from just nine coal-fired power plants in the Midwest could avoid 300 deaths, 2,000 respiratory and cardiac hospital admissions, 10,000 asthma attacks, and 400,000 lost workdays due to respiratory symptoms. n269 In 1995, the World Health Organization ("WHO") and the World Resources Institute ("WRI") estimated that nearly 700,000 air-pollution related deaths occur each year. n270 Based on analysis of published studies, researchers con-cluded that GHG mitigation in four urban areas, Mexico City, New York City, Santiago (Chile), and Sao Paulo (Brazil), could save 64,000 lives through 2020. n271 President Bush has announced a plan to reduce pollution, called "The Clear Skies Initiative," which employs a cap-and-trade strategy to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions. n272 The initiative sets [*1175] a cap on the total emissions, and then permits free market trading of emissions allow-ances. "In theory, emissions trading offers a more cost effective means of meeting an environmental goal than a uniform standard, whenever marginal costs vary between plants." n273 While a cap-and-trade strategy has had some success, n274 Professor David Driesen notes that cap- and-trade strategies can stifle innovation and result in concentrated local pollution. n275Reducing GHG emissions by conserving forests confers additional benefits; forests have recreational value, as well as being a potential source for life-saving pharmaceuticals. n276 Urban trees serve as a kind of outdoor air-conditioner, providing shade and evaporative cooling by 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 PERMITS—FLEXIBILITY PROMOTES INNOVATIONS AND PREVENTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOW INCOME COMMUNITIESRoberta 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. n517The 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

20


AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION COUNTERPLAN 1NC

1NC : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PASS LEGISLATION THAT MANDATES A CHANGE IN ANIMAL FEED RATIONS AND REQUIRES RICE FERTILIZATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AIMED AT REDUCING AGRICULTURAL METHANE PRODUCTION.

OBSERVATION ONE: COMPETITIONTHE COUNTERPLAN COMPETES BY AVOIDING DISADS LINKED TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION.

OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCY

FEED RATIONING AND FERTILIZATION MANAGEMENT REDUCE AG-BASED METHANE IN THE SHORT-TERMClaussen and Arroyo, 2001 (Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Strategies for the Global Environment , Vicki Arroyo, Director of Policy Analysis for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change: Science Strategies , & Solutions, Google Books, Pg 39)

Agriculture is both a receptor of possible climate changes arising from greenhouse gas emissions and a source of greenhouse gases, including CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2)). The agriculture sector is an energy-intensive industry, but because it is a relatively small share (less than 3 percent) of the economy, it is a relatively minor user of fossil fuels and hence a minor contributor to U.S. CO2 emissions. Nonetheless, agriculture constitutes 40 percent of anthropogenic sources of methane (primarily from rice and cattle production), and 8 percent of N2O (mainly from nitrogen fertilizer), The understanding of agriculture’s contribution to these emissions has increased considerably over the past decade, leading to several potential strategies for reductions. Methane reduction strategies include changes in animal feed rations in the short run and genetic and dietary improvements in the long run, as well as changes in rice fertilization and other management practices. Reduced use of nitrogen fertilizer, particularly those easily volatilized forms such as anhydrous ammonia, could reduce N2O emissions, as could the use of advanced fertilizer techniques (controlled release and deter placement), better management of manure use, and better timing applications.

SOLVES THE CASE – SOIL SEQUESTRATION GETS A GREATER BANG FOR THE BUCK AND WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON GHG EMISSIONS Rabe, holds a joint appointment with the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 2002 (Barry G., November,“Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Pew Center on Climate Change Report, downloaded from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/)

Industrial activity has tended to overshadow natural resources in many debates over future climate change initiatives. This is particularly true in developed countries such as the United States, where sectors such as agriculture constitute an increasingly small share of the economy. Nonetheless, agricultural activity is responsible for 8 percent of U.S. CO2-equivalent 2 GHG emissions, mostly in the form of methane due to livestock cultivation and nitrous oxide due to fertilizer use. Despite its relatively small contribution to emissions, this sector has substantial opportunities to mitigate climate change, because (1) reductions in these non-CO2 greenhouse gases yield substantially greater bang for the buck in terms of “global warming potential,” and (2) it could offset emissions from other sectors through increased storage of carbon in farm land. “Additional amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soils by relatively minor changes in agricultural practices,” noted Richard Adams, Brian Hurd, and John Reilly. “‘Growing carbon’ on agricultural lands would create a new crop for farmers” (Adams, Hurd, and Reilly, 2001). According to U.S. Department of Agriculture analyses being utilized by Nebraska and other agricultural states, American cropland has the potential to sequester about 154 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon per year, more than eight percent of total U.S. emissions. The issue of animal waste and possibilities for reduced methane release are addressed later in this report with an analysis of a new initiative in North Carolina.

21


2NC AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES BEST

EXT THE 1NC RABE AND CLAUSSEN EVIDENCE -- AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION IS THE PRIME PLACE TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS. RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES OFFSET EMISSION PRODUCTION IN OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY. AGRICULTURE SEQUESTRATION UNIQUELY SOLVES THE CASE BECAUSE METHANE CAUSES SUBSTANTIALLY MORE WARMING THAN CO2—THIS 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 WARMINGEPA, 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

22


2NC AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION SOLVES BEST

ANIMAL WASTE IS A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF GREENHOUSE GASSESRabe, holds a joint appointment with the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 2002 (Barry G., November,“Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Pew Center on Climate Change Report, downloaded from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/)

Animal waste, however, constitutes a particularly challenging form of waste management with potential climate change impact , most notably through generation of methane releases. This is a growing concern in agricultural states that have large animal-raising industries, particularly given the increasing concentration of these activities into enormous concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). North Carolina has probably faced greater challenges with this issue than any other state, as it is the nation’s leading producer of meat and animal products, ranking first in turkey production and second in hog production. The state’s pig population has grown from a little more than two million in 1984 to seven million in 1994 and nine million in 2002. Not only has the total number of pigs and other animals grown dramatically, but their increasingly dense concentration into CAFOs has generated significant problems stemming from traditional waste-handling methods of open-air lagoons and sprayfields.

23


1NC FUNDING MECHANISM CP

TEXT: THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD ESTABLISH PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE ABOVE PROGRAMS.

OBSERVATION ONE: COMPETITION THE COUNTERPLAN COMPETES THROUGH NET BENEFITS

OBSERVATION 2: SOLVENCY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS CAN EASILY PAY FOR RENEWABLES PROGRAMSPEW 08 (PEW Center on Global Climate Change, April 9, “Public Benefit Funds” http://www.pewclimate.org/node/5849)

Almost half the states have funds, often called “public benefit funds,” dedicated to supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The funds are collected either through a small charge on the bill of every electric customer or through specified contributions from utilities. The charge ensures that money is available to fund these projects . Publicly managed clean energy funds from twelve of these states have formed the Clean Energy States 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.

24


2NC FUNDING MECHANISM SOLVENCY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS WILL FUND THE CP Dierkers, Senior Policy Analyst for the National Governors Association, 07 (Gregory, May 7, “Recent State Actions Promoting Alternative Energy”, , www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0705ALTENERGY.PDF)

By incorporating a growing array of funding mechanisms, states are playing an increasingly critical role in energy investment and financing. Significant funding for state energy efficiency and renewable energy programs comes from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)’s State Energy Program (SEP) subject to an annual appropriation from Congress.46 In addition to direct funding for energy efficiency programs, states also rely on using loans, grants, tax credits and incentives to support the financing of new energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In some cases, governors are creating public-private partnerships –agreements that use public resources to attract private capital – as a means to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Public Benefit Funds One such tool, public benefit funds (PBF) are popular mechanisms used by states to pay for energy conservation efforts (also known as system benefit charges or SBC). Currently 26 states have PBF, which are fees added to state consumer utility bills, typically on the order of $0.03 to $0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kW). The fees are collected, pooled and re-distributed – in most cases, by state utilities or the SEO – for statewide “public benefit” programs, often low-income energy assistance and weatherization.47

PBF TRANSFERS AND DISTRIBUTES THE COST OF THE CP OVER ALL STATE-CITIZENSNadel and Kushler 2000, (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 per-kWh 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.

25


2NC FUNDING MECHANISM SOLVENCY

STATES SOLVE A VARIETY OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, ESTABLISH KEY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS, AND ARE CRUCIAL TO THE NATIONAL MARKET FOR RENEWABLES HAYNES 05 [Rusty, Policy Analyst, N.C. Solar Center, N.C. State University, “Systematic Support for Renewable Energy in the United States and Beyond: A Selection of Policy Options and Recommendations”, early 2005 based on in text citations, http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Haynes_KIER_Keynote.pdf] U.S. states have created a variety of financial incentives to support the development of renewable energy. These include personal tax credits and deductions, corporate tax credits and deductions, sales tax exemptions, property tax incentives, industry recruitment incentives, rebates, grants, production incentives and low-interest loans. Income tax credits range from 10 percent - 35 percent, with maximum incentive amounts ranging from $1,000 - $10 million. Most state tax credits must be claimed in the first year of system operation, with a carryover provision for the following five years. Tax credits are not the primary motivator of consumer purchasing decisions; they are most beneficial when used in combination with other incentives.12 Most rebate programs for renewables have been implemented by states with public benefits funds (PBFs)—also known as a clean energy funds—which typically are funded by system benefits charges (SBCs). These incentives range from $2 per watt to $6 per watt, or 20 percent - 70 percent of the installed system cost. The 15 U.S. states that have established PBFs will collect approximately $3.8 billion for renewable energy investments from 1998-2012. With aggregate funding averaging more than $200 million annually, these funds are expected to have a substantial impact on the market for renewable energy in these states, and perhaps at a national scale.

26


2NC FUNDING MECHANISMS SOLVE

PBF ARE EASILY ESTABLISHED- EXPERIENCE IN MULTIPLE STATES PROVESNadel and Kushler 2000, (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)

D. Lessons LearnedThe principal public policy lesson learned thus far is that it is indeed possible to establish a statewide or regional public benefit energy efficiency funding mechanism and achieve practical success in administering and delivering valued services. Another lesson is that there does not appear to be any single “correct approach” for the design of such a system. Some states are hav ing success with utility-administered programs (e.g., Massachusetts and California), while others are succeeding with programs administered by state agencies (e.g., New York) or an independent entity (e.g., the Northwest). Likewise, most states are coordinating at least some programs regionally, while most states are also implementing some programs on their own. This translates into what might be the primary strategic and tactical lesson: Within an overall policy of public benefit funding support for energy efficiency, each state should take advantage of its own strengths and assets in designing the specific details of its energy efficiency programs. Of course, this broad picture of success with public benefit funds does not mean that there have not been some negative 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.

27


1NC HYBRID CARS (1/2)

TEXT: THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PROVIDE TAX CREDITS TO CAR BUYERS BASED ON THE GAS EFFICIENCY OF THE CAR.


OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCYIMPLEMENTING TAX INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE GAS EFFICIENT CARS FOMENTS A SOCIETY WHICH VALUES ENERGY CONSERVATIONZachery W. Silverman, Georgetown University Law Center, “Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to Petroleum Dependence”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, lexis, 2007

Despite the fact that it seems as though Americans are entrenched in a gas-guzzling culture subsidized by the gov-ernment, there are viable solutions. Generally, it is important to move away from that culture by promoting smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. This can be done through a variety of mechanisms, but of course, there are two major ones: (1) taxation should be used to change people's habits on the demand side; and (2) regulation must be coupled with taxa-tion in order to send the message that fuel-efficiency is a virtue that all--even the wealthy, who can afford any gas-guzzler tax--should strive toward. In this context, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Reformed CAFE standards will be discussed. Generally speaking, in order for hybrids to be considered viable options for the American buyer, the gas-guzzling culture must be subdued. However, this may best be done not by pushing hybrids, but by pushing smaller cars in gen-eral. Leonhardt notes that sometimes, it is equally effective to convince someone to buy a smaller SUV rather than a Hummer: Forget about the 250 gallons of gas that a Prius saves relative to a Corolla. An S.U.V. that gets 16 miles a gallon, like the Cadillac SRX, uses almost 600 fewer gallons annually than an 11-mile-a-gallon Hummer H2, because small differences add up when gas is being burned so quickly. It's the person deciding be-tween those two vehicles who needs some extra incentives. n99 In essence, at this point, it may be more important to create a culture that embraces smaller and smaller cars rather than directly encouraging hybrids. This could serve two goals. First, creating a culture of desire for smaller cars--in other words, creating a culture in which fuel efficiency matters--will eventually [*559] encourage more people to purchase hybrids. Second, as Leonhardt points out, convincing someone who is set on purchasing a large, performance-oriented vehicle to buy a slightly less large, slightly less performance-oriented vehicle may have a more significant positive im-pact on the environment. n100 The problem which remains is how to change America's gas-guzzling culture. One of the chief methods of changing behavior is through taxation, particularly in this context, because fossil fuel use is so entrenched in the everyday lives of most Americans. n101 Indeed, many politicians have stressed the need for taxation in the vehicle emissions context. Al Gore noted that the best way to change behavior surrounding vehicle emissions is "to put a price on the en-vironmental consequences of our choices, a price that would be reflected in the marketplace." n102 Likewise, Califor-nia Senator Barbara Boxer has noted that "no solution to the energy problem is complete without addressing the need to improve the demand side of the equation." n103 Finally, it is clear that taxation in the environmental arena has been and can be effective, particularly in its effects on individual (as opposed to corporate) behavior. n104 Taxation, then, makes up one of the key solutions to our growing vehicle emissions problem. Tax deductions for clean fuel vehicles employed in the past, as well as current tax credits for clean fuel vehicles, are a step in the right direction, though imperfect. In 2002, Congress, recognizing the need to incentivize the choice to buy a fuel efficient vehicle, passed a tax deduction for those driving hybrids and other environmentally friendly vehi-cles. n105 While admirable in concept, even with the tax deduction, it made little sense for most consumers to buy a hybrid vehicle on its basis. Munoz explains: Even with the tax deduction, it will take several years of high gasoline prices to equalize the cost of [a hybrid] with a traditional, gas-powered automobile. For example, if a vehicle owner achieves thirty-five miles per gallon on a currently owned vehicle, and upgrades to [a hybrid] achieving fifty miles per gal-lon, the taxpayer will likely save roughly seven hundred dollars over the course of four years. The Clean[] Fuel Vehicle Tax Deduction could save taxpayers in the highest tax bracket US $ 772. The two figures combined do not offset the

[CONTINUED…]

28


1NC HYBRID CARS (2/2)

[CONTINUED…] increased initial purchase price of [a hybrid], which is roughly US $ 6000 for a Honda Civic Hybrid. n106 Thus, in large part, the Clean Fuel Tax Deduction of 2002 was inadequate to create what a tax provision of this nature should create: a market incentive to [*560] change behavior. In 2005, Congress passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which essentially changed the old tax deduction into a much more valuable tax credit. n107 Car buyers have a chance to save far more money--up to US $ 3400--under the new act as opposed to the old act. n108 Most importantly, this represents a true opportunity to recoup the premium price one has to pay for a hybrid vehicle. In this sense, the new tax credit is a significant improvement over the Clean Fuel Tax Deduction. However, the tax credit is not without its problems. First, although the tax credits are more significant than the ear-lier tax deductions, many tax experts still insist that the credits will not be sufficient to convince somebody to buy a hybrid who was not already considering it as an option. n109 Second, the tax credit is quite complicated. For instance, the credit comes equipped with "a complicated phase-out that may reduce its benefit for people who buy top-selling hybrids like those from Toyota or Honda." n110 Furthermore, those filing the Alternative Minimum Tax may not be able to take advantage of the credit at all. n111 However, perhaps the most glaring problem with the tax credit created in The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is the fact that, due to the rise of hybrid SUVs and hybrid performance-oriented vehicles, there is a dissonance between cars that get the highest gas mileage and those that get the highest credit. n112 The dissonance [*561] between cars that get the biggest tax credit and cars that get the best gas mileage is troubling, and it comes from a product of two provisions in the tax credit. First, the credit is not available to cars that use fossil fuel and run on an internal combustion engine. n113 Thus, many of the cars that receive the best mileage overall are not even eligible for a tax credit. Secondly, the tax credit is designed in such a way that cars in different weight classes need to meet different goals in order to receive the credit. Specifically, heavier hybrids (in other words, hybrid SUVs) need not achieve the same gas mileage as lighter and ex-tremely fuel-efficient hybrids. n114 It seems to make far more sense to link the tax credit simply with miles per gallon, rather than making it a function of: (1) whether the car is a hybrid or not; and (2) the weight of the automobile. This way, those driving cars that do the least harm to the environment stand to benefit the most from the credit. On the surface, this proposal seems to promote fuel-efficient cars in general rather than hybrids, but in reality, it does both. Since hybrids are capable of getting better gas mileage than their counterparts, those who buy hybrids that are built without performance and size in mind still will benefit the most from the credit. As the credit stands now, it is certainly a com-mendable idea, but some problems remain that need to be addressed.

29


2NC HYBRID CARS SOLVE

ONLY THE COUNTERPLAN CAN SOLVE IN THE SHORT TERM --- EXTEND 1NC SIVLERMAN EVIDENCE. ATTEMPTING TO DIRECTLY CONVERT THE CURRENT ECONOMY TO A RENEWABLE ECONOMY IS AN INEFFECTIVE AND NON-PRACTICAL APPROACH. THE COUNTERPLAN ALTERS THE DEMAND-SIDE OF THE EQUATION BY PLACING A CONTINUOUS TAX ON CARS ---THE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, THE SMALLER THE TAX. THIS TAX TRANSITIONS AMERICAN CULTURE TOWARDS HYBRIDS

HYBRID TECHNOLOGY SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCY AND GLOBAL WARMING – EVEN LITTLE CHANGES ARE ENOUGHZachery W. Silverman, Georgetown University Law Center, “Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to Petroleum Dependence”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, lexis, 2007

It is easy to look at these problems and view them as insurmountable. True, Americans are reluctant to cut their rampant fossil fuel use; n22 however, it is possible to achieve positive change and to do so may not require as much work as one would expect. For instance, Mann notes that when Atlanta implemented [*574] more restrictive traffic regulations during the 1996 Summer Olympics, hospitalizations for acute asthma attacks decreased by 40% according to Georgia Medicaid claims files. n23 In conjunction with health benefits, peak ozone rates declined 25% during the Games, and there were also noticeable declines in carbon monoxide and particulate matter. n24 These benefits were all achieved simply by "increas[ing] available public transportation, limit[ing] downtown motor vehicle use (especially in the mornings), and encourag[ing] telecommuting and alternate work hours for businesses." n25 Considering the drastic results that can be achieved even without encouraging environmentally friendly vehicles, it will become clear that success in encouraging hybrid use will go a long way toward remedying the problems associated with fossil fuel use . Fur-thermore, fulfilling some objectives associated with reduction in fossil fuel use is not unreasonable. Matthew Wald notes that if cars were using 80% of the fuel that they do today--that is, the amount of fuel they were using in 1987--"[t]hat alone would get the country nearly halfway to the goal President Bush set in his State of the Union address: to cut U.S. oil consumption enough to nearly eliminate the need to import from the Middle East." n26 In short, it is not idealistic to believe that 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.

30



HYBRIDS OFFER THE BEST SHORT –TERM SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING/AIR POLLUTIONA. THREE ENERGY SAVING TECHNOLOGIESB. AFFORDABLEC. EASILY INTEGRATED INTO SOCIETY

Zachery W. Silverman, Georgetown University Law Center, “Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to Petroleum Dependence”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, lexis, 2007

President Bush outlined a wide array of solutions to America's oil dependence [*548] in the context of the per-sonal vehicle. n28 In fact, his main focus has been on moving away from a petroleum economy altogether with the de-velopment of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles through his FreedomCAR program. n29 Ramish criticizes this pro-gram as allocating a "disproportionate amount of resources to hydrogen research over hybrid research." n30 His point has merit; this note argues that the best way to subdue oil dependence in the present is through the mass use of hybrid vehicles. This is because hybrid technology is unique amongst other technologies in that it is readily available, relatively affordable, and requires no changes in infrastructure. Hybrid vehicles contain both a typical internal combustion engine and an electric engine and run on regular gaso-line, making them the most readily available fuel-efficient vehicles. Ramish describes three ways that hybrid technology saves energy: First, it employs 'regenerative braking,' which harnesses energy normally wasted by coasting and brak-ing. Second, the electric motor can 'assist the engine in accelerating, passing or hill climbing' (when a vehicle needs extra power), allowing the use of 'a smaller, more efficient engine.' Third, rather than wast-ing energy by idling, many hybrid engines automatically shut off when stopped, and start up again with a press of the accelerator." n31 These advantages allow the hybrid to achieve vastly better gas mileage than its counterparts with internal combustion engines. Still, this is true of other new technologies. For instance, fuel cell cars operate "without harmful vehicle emis-sions," which is not true of the fuel-efficient, yet still gas-sipping, hybrid. n32 Furthermore, electric vehicles "are zero-emissions ... have low costs, are extremely quiet and provide a smooth ride." n33 Alternative fuel vehicles, another substitute to hybrids, use fuel such as methanol or ethanol, and run cleaner than regular gasoline vehicles. n34 Finally, diesel fuel, which has been used for decades, also burns cleaner than standard gasoline. n35 In other words, all of these technologies offer either increased or complete independence from petroleum. There are many reasons, however, that the Sierra Club and other environmental groups recognize the hybrid vehicle as one of the "best solutions to global warming and air pollution" n36 and Mann cites hybrids as "[t]he first practical step [*549] to cleaner vehicles." n37 These reasons are linked to problems associated with the other fuel-saving tech-nologies, none of which the hybrid vehicle possesses. The efficacy of hybrids lies not only in their ability to save gas, but also in their ability to quickly, and relatively cheaply, become integrated into our society.

HYBRIDS OFFER THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMPARATIVE SOLUTIONZachery W. Silverman, Georgetown University Law Center, “Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to Petroleum Dependence”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, lexis, 2007

Most importantly, hybrids have the potential to be far more fuel-efficient than a typical vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Two of the most popular hybrid vehicles sold in the United States, the Honda Insight and the Toy-ota Prius, get more than twice the gas mileage of virtually all internal combustion vehicles. The Insight is rated by the EPA as getting sixty miles per gallon in the city and sixty-six miles per gallon on the highway. n51 Similarly, the Toy-ota Prius is rated at sixty miles per gallon in the city and fifty-one miles per gallon on the highway. n52 The highest rated non-hybrid vehicle available in America today is the Volkswagen Golf TDI, which achieves thirty-seven miles per gallon in the city and forty-four miles per gallon on the highway. n53 While there is criticism that EPA testing over-states gas mileage--David Leonhardt notes that Consumer Reports rated the Prius as only achieving forty-four miles per gallon n54 -- this overstating is true across the board. Even when the EPA fixes their rating system in the near future, n55 hybrids like the Prius and the Insight will still be the most fuel-efficient [*551] vehicles on the market. Therefore, hybrids are the answer because they are the most workable and effective solution. Hybrids are not the answer because they are the most fuel-efficient technology. n56 They are the answer because, on top of being quite fuel-efficient, hybrids represent the most viable technology. Fifty years from now, hybrid technol-ogy may be outdated and unnecessary. However, the urgency of the problems associated with fuel dependence begs for an immediate solution.

31



ALTHOUGH THERE ARE BARRIERS – THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH, HYBRIDS SOLVES TODAY AND EFFECTIVENESS WILL ONLY INCREASEZachery W. Silverman, Georgetown University Law Center, “Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to Petroleum Dependence”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, lexis, 2007

Vehicle emissions are a significant environmental concern. They account for a large portion of the air pollution pre-sent in our environment and can lead to serious health problems. However, the United States, as noted by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address, is "addicted to oil." n162 This note proposes that the short-term an-swer to this addiction is the hybrid car. It achieves markedly better gas mileage than its counterparts, its technology is already viable and mass produced, and it requires no additional infrastructure. While fuel-cell cars are probably the so-lution of the future, hybrids are the solution of today. In order for hybrids to represent a large proportion of cars on American roads, many obstacles must be overcome. Most importantly, Americans must commit to fuel-efficient vehicles, rather than consigning themselves to a pervasive gas-guzzling culture. Recently developed tax incentives and regulations represent a step in the right direction. The hy-brid vehicle tax credit embedded in The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives hybrid buyers a greater benefit than the previ-ous Clean Fuel Tax Deduction provided. However, the tax credit still favors large, performance-based hybrid SUVs that achieve poorer gas mileage than fuel-efficient cars without hybrid-electric engines. The tax credit should reward hybrid buyers, but only to the extent that the hybrid they are buying achieves better gas mileage than non-hybrids. Likewise, the reformed CAFE regulations are an improvement over the old CAFE standards. Taking a page from the Japanese, manufacturers are not required to meet specific vehicle emissions requirements according to vehicle "footprint." How-ever, the reformed CAFE standards are passive because they allow the market to dictate what types of vehicles Ameri-cans drive. The reformed CAFE standards should be altered such that they influence market choices. Finally, the United States should consider what other countries are doing to curb fossil fuel use. To this end, the United States should place a higher emphasis on research and development and education, which is done in Japan. Fur-thermore, the federal government should consider a small, gradually increasing, fuel tax. Eventually, as in European countries, such a tax may change drivers' preferences from gas-guzzler to hybrid. While this note addresses many of the obstacles to hybrid adoption, it cannot be denied that hybrids are beginning to gain a foothold in the United States and abroad. Furthermore, the potential for hybrid technology to benefit the envi-ronment will increase dramatically as that technology improves. A comprehensive study by the Freedonia Group has predicted that, due in part to erratic fuel costs, demand for hybrid vehicles will increase to 3.9 million units in 2015 and double [*570] by 2020. n163 Demand will be greatest in the United States, Japan, Europe, and the emerging market of China. n164 Those nearly 8,000,000 hybrid vehicles will likely be far more fuel-efficient than their current day coun-terparts. Saturn is starting to experiment with a plug-in version of their Vue, and Chevrolet is in the process of develop-ing a system called E-Flex where automobiles might achieve as much as 150 miles per gallon with a range of 640 miles. n165 Thus, the future for fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles is not bleak. One can only hope that this fu-ture arrives before the environmental degradation caused by vehicle emissions becomes too dire.

VEHICLE EFFICIENCY EMPIRICALLY SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCY – 1979 OIL CRISIS PROVESRoberta 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


AND, COUNTERPLAN CREATES THE MARKET CERTAINTY TO SPUR INNOVATION FOR FUEL EFFICIENCY – THIS SOLVES ANY SOLVENCY DEFICIT

32

https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=085ede5b1a3a8b19728cfd8730e098df&docnum=5&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAA&_md5=2c2ec2e4cc976b3787755ed8eb119e2e&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=all#n15










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.

33








1NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR CP 1NC : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IMPLEMENT LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR TO REDUCE POLLUTANTS.

OBSERVATION ONE: COMPETITION THE COUNTERPLAN COMPETES BY AVOIDING DISADS LINKED TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION.


LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO EXISTING PROGRAMSGeographe Energy 5/31/05. “Ultrasonic Condition Monitoring.” http://www.geographe-energy.com.au/Published_Articles/Pub_Art-Cond_Monitoring/pub_art-cond_monitoring.html

A significant factor in decreasing the whole life cycle costing of the plant and increasing up time to be able to realise the full design efficiency capability of the plant is the ability to control and maintain effectively, the valve population of the asset. Maintaining the valve population effectively, invariably will include some kind of inline testing as part of a fully integrated maintenance strategy, which in turn will involve the development of a cost effective Leak Detection and Repair Program (LDAR). The development and implementation of the system will ultimately determine the effectiveness and success of the LDAR program. The LDAR program is, on the face of it, a simple system, the essence of which is to find a leaking valve and repair it. The part of the process that this paper is involved with will be how the leaking valve is identified. The detection of a problem or leaking valve is essentially a condition based maintenance activity. Monitoring the valves is the first step in the program, which initiates the secondary activity, being the repair of the leak. The LDAR program is therefore easily incorporated into existing maintenance regimes.

LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR IS KEY TO PREVENT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS AND IS COST-SAVINGGalveston-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 TCEQ’s 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, EPA’s 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.

34

http://www.toxictexas.org/pdfs/Houston%20We%20Have%20a%20Problem.pdf

http://www.toxictexas.org/pdfs/Houston%20We%20Have%20a%20Problem.pdf

http://www.geographe-energy.com.au/Published_Articles/Pub_Art-Cond_Monitoring/pub_art-cond_monitoring.html

http://www.geographe-energy.com.au/Published_Articles/Pub_Art-Cond_Monitoring/pub_art-cond_monitoring.html


2NC LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR SOLVES

LDAR IS EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFULArkema Inc. June 2008. “Toxic Release Inventory Chemical Releases” http://www.arkema-inc.com/index.cfm?pag=872

Arkema Inc. through its pollution prevention programs has reduced emissions of TRI chemicals at its sites through the implementation of specific pollution prevention processes. State of the art air pollution control devices that treat process vent streams such as thermal oxidizers have been installed at our Carrollton and Louisville plants in Kentucky. Many of our facilities have implemented programs to monitor volatile organic compound emission leaks from process components and repair promptly any components found to be leaking. These leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs have resulted in reductions of overall fugitive emissions at many Arkema facilities, most notably those in at Mobile, Alabama.

LDAR IS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN WITH BENZENE EMISSIONSCCPA 2006 “Toxic Substances”http://www.ccpa.ca/files/Library/Reports/NERM14_2005/4_Toxics-RE14.pdf

The elimination of sources and the continued improvements to the leak detection and repair program has resulted in benzene reductions of approximately 36% from 2003 levels. There will be further reductions of fugitive benzene emissions from maintenance activities scheduled for the fall 2006 turnaround and the improvements made to Shell Chemicals Scotford LDAR program (500 ppm leak definition versus 10,000 ppm, where practical). It is fully anticipated that the target reduction of 47% will be met and through continuous improvement, will be exceeded.

35

http://www.ccpa.ca/files/Library/Reports/NERM14_2005/4_Toxics-RE14.pdf

http://www.arkema-inc.com/index.cfm?pag=872


LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR KEY GOOD—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND PREVENTION DEPEND ON LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIREnvironmental Protection Agency, Enforcement Alert, Volume 2, Number 9. October 1999. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/emissions.pdf

By not fully identifying all leaking components, refineries are likely causing the unnecessary release of excess hydrocarbons. The impacts of these additional hydrocarbon releases may result in: Additional VOC emissions that could worsen local or transboundry smog problems; Under reporting of fugitive emissions on the annual Toxic Reporting Inventory; Under reporting of various TRI chemicals on annual Form R sub-missions; and Delayed or denied permits for expansion.

TURNS CASE: VOCS CAUSE AIR TOXICS LEADING TO DISEASE, WARMING, AND CROP DAMAGEDraft 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.

36

http://ozoneaware.org/documents/APCDOZISSUEPAPEROGleakdetection_000.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/emissions.pdf


1NC: NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLAN

1NC : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OFFER A TAX CREDIT OF $200 PER KWE OF THE CONTRACT COST FOR THE FIRST TEN COMPANIES TO COMPLETE AND OPERATE A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THAT REPRESENT A SAFETY-ENHANCING DESIGN.



A PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT IS KEY TO REVITALIZING THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY Deutch and Moniz 2003 (John Deutch and Ernest Moniz both Professors at MIT, July 29th “THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY” Pg 81. MIT press http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ )

We believe the government should step in and increase the likelihood of practical demonstration of nuclear power by providing financial incentive to first movers.4 We propose a production tax credit of up to $200 per kWe of the construction cost of up to ten “first mover” plants. This ben- Chapter 10 — Recommended Measure s to R e s o l ve Uncertainties about the Economics of Nuclear Power 81 -efit might be paid out at 1.7 cents per kWe-hr, over a year and a half of full-power plant operation, since the annual value of this production credit for a 1000 MWe plant operating at 90% capacity factor is $134 million. The $200 per kWe government subsidy would provide $200 million for a 1000 MWe nuclear plant, about 10% of the historically-based total construction cost estimate; accordingly the total outlay for the program could be up to $2 billion paid out over several years. We prefer the production tax credit mechanism because it offers the greatest incentives for projects to be completed and because it can be extended to other carbon free electricity technologies, for example renewables (such as wind which currently enjoys a 1.7 cents per kWe-hr tax credit for ten years) and coal with carbon capture and sequestration. The credit of 1.7 cents per kWe-hr is equivalent to a credit of $70 per avoided metric ton of carbon if the electricity were to come from coal plants, (or $160 from natural gas plants). Of course the carbon emission reduction would continue after the public assistance ended for the plant life (perhaps 60 years for nuclear). Even with this “first mover” incentive, private industry may not choose to proceed with new nuclear plant investment until some carbon free benefit is firmly established. If no new nuclear plant is built, the government will not pay any subsidy and the production tax credit will remain available as an incentive to future investment decisions. These actions address regulatory and startupcost issues identified by the nuclear industry as barriers to moving forward with a new generation of commercial nuclear plants. The actions will be effective in stimulating additional investments in nuclear generating capacity only if the industry can live up to its own expectations of being able to reduce considerably overnight capital costs for new plants far below historical experience. With these barriers removed, it is then up to the industry to demonstrate through its own investments in new nuclear power plants, that its cost projections can in fact be realized in practice, and that nuclear power can be competitive with fossil-fuel and renewable energy alternatives.

37

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/


2NC: Tax Credits Revitalize Nuclear Power

1. OUR CP REVITALIZES NUCLEAR POWER -- EXTEND DEUTCH AND MONIZ SAY THAT ONLY BY GIVING A TAX CREDIT OF 200 $ PER KWE OF TAX CREDIT CAN THE USFG JUMPSTART THE INDUSTRY AND PROVIDE THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO BUILD NEW PLANTS AND STOP HARMFUL EMISSIONS.

THIS EVIDENCE IS THE MOST QUALIFIED IN THE ROUND. IT IS BASED OFF AN INTENSIVE MIT STUDY AND SHOULD BE PREFERRED ABOVE ALL AFF CARDS

2. PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS OFFER THE GREATEST INCENTIVE TO BOOST NUCLEAR POWERDeutch and Moniz 2003 (John Deutch and Ernest Moniz both Professors at MIT, July 29th “THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY” Pg 81. MIT press http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ )

The government should provide a modest subsidy for a small set of “first mover” commercial nuclear plants to demonstrate cost and regulatory feasibility in the form of a production tax credit. We propose a production tax credit of up to $200 per kWe of the construction cost of up to 10 “first mover” plants. This benefit might be paid out at about 1.7 cents per kWe-hr, over a year and a half of full-power plant operation. We prefer the production tax credit mechanism because it offers the greatest incentive for projects to be completed and because it can be extended to other carbon free electricity technologies, for example renewables (wind currently enjoys a 1.7 cents per kWe-hr tax credit for ten years) and coal with carbon capture and sequestration. The credit of 1.7 cents per kWe-hr is equivalent to a credit of $70 per avoided metric ton of carbon if the electricity were to have come from coal plants (or $160 from natural gas plants). Of course, the carbon emission reduction would then continue without public assistance for the plant like (perhaps 60 years for nuclear). If no new nuclear plant is built, the government will not pay the subsidy. These actions will be effective in stimulating additional investment in nuclear generating capacity if, and only if, the indstry can live up to is own expectations of being able to reduce considerably capital costs for new plants.

3. TAX CREDITS PROVIDE THE STABILITY NEEDED FOR A PRODUCTIVE NUCLEAR POWER MARKETJack Spencer (Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.) The heritage foundation “Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact” June 2nd 2008 http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm

Limit government support to that provided by EPACT 2005. EPACT 2005 provides loan guarantees, production tax credits, and risk insurance to the first few nuclear reactors built. Given that the greatest risk to the nuclear industry is government itself, the burden of proof remains with the federal government to demonstrate that it will allow the nuclear industry to mature. Its support through EPACT 2005 should be adequate to achieve this goal so long as it is combined with commitments by Congress and future Administrations to assure political and regulatory stability for the nuclear industry.

38

http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/


2NC: Tax Credits Revitalize Nuclear Power

4. TAX CREDITS FOR NUCLEAR POWER ARE KEY TO JUMP START THE FAILING INDUSTRYNeikirk, William (Chief Editor, Chicago Tribune). "GOP energy bill would be boon to Midwest." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service (Nov 15, 2003): K2934. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Nov 15th 2003

WASHINGTON _ A Republican energy bill released Saturday is a potential boon for the Midwest, proposing incentives to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago and double the production of ethanol, the corn-based gasoline additive. It also would grant new production tax credits to encourage construction of three to six nuclear power plants, a main source of electrical energy in the Midwest. No such plants have been built in the United States since 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. The GOP energy measure would provide authority and financial help worth about $20 billion to build a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska's North Slope. And, according to wire reports, refiners would have to use at least 3.1 billion gallons a year of ethanol in gasoline by 2005 and 5 billion gallons _ about twice as much as today _ by 2012. The bill's fate is up in the air. Although some Democrats have threatened a filibuster, the generous ethanol incentives and other provisions to help regions are designed to attract enough votes to win passage in the Senate, where opposition is the strongest. A House-Senate conference committee is to take up the bill Monday, with a House vote scheduled later in the week. The draft measure made public Saturday would address future electricity blackouts by requiring faster utility-company responses to power disruptions, and it would force new power-line construction along designated "national-interest transmission corridors" if states took longer than a year in building them. To expand the national transmission grid, chief culprit in the Aug. 14 blackout that struck parts of the Northeast, Midwest and Canada, the bill would permit companies building new power lines to charge higher rates to customers in areas demanding more electricity. This was a key concession to customers in areas, such as the South and Northwest, with regulated utilities and a surplus of generating capacity and cheaper power. They had feared they would have to share in the cost of upgrading the grid. The legislation stops short of requiring a national transmission grid system, with utilities forced to join regional transmission organizations that would direct the flow of power and expand the grid. Instead, it orders a three-year delay in allowing the government to set up such a national system. Scores of tax and other incentives in the bill add up to more than $20 billion, GOP staff members said. Most of these provisions would be designed to boost energy production, chiefly oil, natural gas, nuclear and electrical. The measure incorporates many of the recommendations that President Bush's energy task force made in 2001, and Bush is expected to sign if it passes. Critics of the bill called it too tilted toward fossil fuels and woefully short in promoting efficiency and conservation. At the same time, energy economists said that, while well-intentioned, the measure would fall short of helping the U.S. reduce its reliance on foreign sources of energy. "I don't think any of this helps much for achieving energy independence," said Jay Saunders, energy economist at Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown. Although the measure would not require automobile companies to meet more stringent fuel-economy standards, it would set aside more than $200 million for an "advanced vehicle program," including further development of cars with hydrogen fuel cells. Republicans said they dropped many controversial items in the bill to achieve a "balance" that would lure more supporters. For example, the bill no longer calls for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and opening up more coastal regions to drilling. Several sweeteners were added, the biggest being the ethanol-production incentives. GOP officials said Saturday the ethanol provisions were the most difficult and hard-fought in secret negotiations between Republican conferees of both houses. Another sweetener was creation of a $1 billion fund, bolstered by oil royalties, to help restore coastal erosion over the next 10 years _ benefiting the Gulf of Mexico states, California and Alaska. Despite such incentives, the Teamsters Union criticized the bill as a "jobless energy package." The union had been a strong supporter of opening the Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling, a key provision in President Bush's original plan. The natural gas pipeline is one of the key provisions designed to increase production, although Republican sources said Saturday that it may never be built if the main companies involved, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corp., and British Petroleum, cannot get together in making the investment. According to the sources, ConcoPhillips has lobbied hard for a price floor on natural gas to help make the pipeline more economically viable. But GOP conferees rejected that proposal. Instead, the bill calls for loan guarantees and tax incentives to help get the project built. It will be up to the companies to work out the economics of whether to build the pipeline, but if they cannot make a decision on construction within 18 months, the bill would allow the government to seek alternative investors. On nuclear energy, the bill would encourage the building of advanced nuclear power plants totaling 6,000 megawatts, through a production tax credit. GOP officials said that would mean three to six new facilities. The "nuclear option" is a highly controversial one, but the Bush administration has put its support behind reviving the industry. The bill also would tighten security at nuclear plants and extend the so-called Price-Anderson Act that would limit the industry's financial exposure in case of a nuclear accident.

39


2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUEL USE

NUKE POWER CAN REPLACE CONVENTIONAL ENERGYDr K.R. Vijayakumar Aug 21st 2007 “Nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels” http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEX20070821004119&Page=X&Title=Kochi&Topic=0&

Nuclear power plants can replace the existing power plants run using coal and other fossil fuels. Electricity generated from nuclear plants can be used for various purposes. Nuclear plants can also be used for commercial mass production of hydrogen. Hydrogen will replace petrol and diesel in running automobiles. Even in aircraft, hydrogen - or hydro carbon synthesised using hydrogen - can become the main fuel. If petrol and diesel are the portable energy of today, hydrogen will be the portable energy of tomorrow. Hydrogen can be produced commercially by electrolysis of water. Scientists are doing research on high efficiency electrolysis of water without much loss of energy. As per some of the claims, success has been achieved. Large scale of use of electricity from nuclear power plants for running electric trains can substantially reduce road traffic. Movement of goods through roads can also be reduced by increasing railway goods traffic. Bullet trains can reduce air traffic. The day is not far away when nuclear energy is going to be included in the list of sources of non-conventional energy. Thus, in the near future, trade of nuclear fuel will replace trade of petroleum fuel. This trade will assume great economic importance. Countries with big stock of nuclear fuels and with good know-how of nuclear and hydrogen technologies will become wealthy. Technology to use thorium for nuclear power generation is on the doorsteps. Australia, India and Norway have big deposits of thorium. Estimated deposit of thorium in Australia is 3 lakh tonnes and that of India is 2.9 lakh tonnes. Norway has 1.7 lakh tonnes. These three countries account for more than 60 percent of the total world deposit of thorium. In India, it’s located in the sea coasts of Kerala state. Once thorium technology evolves, the above countries will become big economic powers through nuclear fuel trade. For this strong and independent nuclear policies and research programmes are essential.

WITH NEW SAFTEY PROCEDURES THE SECOND HIGHEST AMERICAN OFFICIAL BELIVES WE NEED NUKE POWERTsubata, Kate. "Nuclear Power's New Promise and Peril." World and I 17.5 (May 2002): NA. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. NYC CSD #72-Bronx High Sch of Science. 27 June 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS>. A86396689

Against this backdrop, world energy experts are rethinking the practicality of nuclear power. Discussing national energy development at the twelfth annual Energy Efficiency Forum, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said, "If you're really concerned about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions, then we need to aggressively pursue the use of nuclear power, which we can do safely and sanely, but which for twenty-some years has been a big no-no politically." Noting that the much-touted Kyoto Protocol of 1997 is meant to limit emissions of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which some scientists say may be speeding up the phenomenon known as "global warming," he points out the blind spots in the logic of the proposal: "As the president has said many times, it leaves out a significant part of the world. The No. 2 emitter, China, is not covered. India, the No. 5 emitter, is not covered. That's over half the world's population right there." In addition, he noted, nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide at all, "but the same people who yell the loudest about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions are the first ones to scream when somebody says, 'Gee, we ought to use nuclear power.' " POWER STRUGGLE Although the United States has the largest number of nuclear power plants worldwide (104), they generate only 20 percent of the country's energy usage. The next largest nuclear energy producer, France, runs 59 plants, which produce more than 70 percent of its energy needs. In fact, 18 other countries surpass the United States in terms of nuclear energy generation as a percentage of total energy usage. Except for Japan and South Korea, all are in Europe. Only recently are such nations as India, Pakistan, Brazil, and China entering the nuclear power community. Because of this, the debate over nuclear energy until now has largely been among the democratic, highly educated, technologically advanced nations with a comparatively free flow of information. Although all environmental issues engender heated discussion, none is quite as explosive as that of nuclear power. In a 1993 abstract from the Uranium Industry Symposium, authors Colin Duncan and Sylvie Modigliani cited several reasons for the highly emotional public reaction to nuclear power issues. According to the authors, the public perceives nuclear energy matters as cloaked in secrecy, perhaps due to the initial military applications of nuclear materials. It also fears that plant technology waste and disposal are unsafe. Public misgivings fuel political procrastination on developing the infrastructure for safe transportation, processing, usage, and storage of nuclear fuels.

40

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEX20070821004119&Page=X&Title=Kochi&Topic=0&


2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: FOSSIL FUELS

NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS A LARGE POTENTIAL IN THE WORLD Luis E. Echávarri, (Director-General OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Speech to the meetng of G8 Energy Ministers, Detroit, 3 May 2002) “Nuclear Energy for Tomorrow”

In a world that will need increasing quantities of energy and will want to preserve its environment, nuclear energy has large potential. It can supply a significant share of the energy products that people will need, such as heat, electricity, hydrogen and potable water, at affordable costs and without jeopardising natural resources and the environment. Realising the potential of nuclear energy, however, will require sustained R&D efforts covering a wide range of disciplines and technologies. Ongoing R&D programmes on nuclear energy systems for the future are focusing on responding to society's needs and concerns. Accordingly, efficient use of natural resources, reduction of volumes and toxicity of radioactive waste, and safety systems minimising the risk of off-site impacts of accidents are key goals of innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles.

41


2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS NUCLEAR POWER REDUCES GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND STOPS GLOBAL WARMINGNMC “Nuclear energy and the enviorment” July (Nuclear management company) 2000 http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/environment/energy.htm Because nuclear power plants do not burn fuel, they do not emit combustion by-products . By substituting for other fuels in electricity production, nuclear energy has significantly reduced U.S. and global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief greenhouse gas. Between 1973 and 1999, U.S. nuclear power plants reduced cumulative emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide—pollutants controlled under the Clean Air Act—by 31.6 million tons and 61.7 million tons, respectively. Over this same period, the nation's nuclear plants reduced the cumulative amount of carbon emissions by 2.61 billion tons of carbon. In 1999 alone, U.S. nuclear plants prevented the discharge of 168 million metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Worldwide, about 430 nuclear power plants reduced the world's emissions of CO2 by about 500 million metric tons of carbon during 1997, the latest year for which data is available. In many countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, nuclear energy helped reduce—that is, mitigate the increase of—carbon emissions per capita. Environmental responsibility is an important part of nuclear power plant management. Plants are designed, built and regulated to prevent radioactive emissions. And nuclear power plants voluntarily work to protect nearby wildlife and their habitats. Nuclear power plants produce relatively small amounts of used fuel and low-level waste. The management, packaging, transportation and disposal of this waste is strictly regulated and carefully controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Transportation.

NUCLEAR POWER HAS NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE ENVIORMENT. Energy Information Administration (official energy statistics from the US Government) 2007 (April 11, “Nuclear power and the enviorment” http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html 4/11/2007

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 reactor’s 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 plant’s 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.

42

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html%204/11/2007


2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: COMPETITIVENESS/ECONOMY NUCLEAR POWER MARKET WILL REPLACE PETROLEUM—LEAD KEY TO US ECONOMYDr K.R. Vijayakumar Aug 21st 2007 “Nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels” http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEX20070821004119&Page=X&Title=Kochi&Topic=0&

Nuclear power plants can replace the existing power plants run using coal and other fossil fuels. Electricity generated from nuclear plants can be used for various purposes. Nuclear plants can also be used for commercial mass production of hydrogen. Hydrogen will replace petrol and diesel in running automobiles. Even in aircraft, hydrogen - or hydro carbon synthesised using hydrogen - can become the main fuel. If petrol and diesel are the portable energy of today, hydrogen will be the portable energy of tomorrow. Hydrogen can be produced commercially by electrolysis of water. Scientists are doing research on high efficiency electrolysis of water without much loss of energy. As per some of the claims, success has been achieved. Large scale of use of electricity from nuclear power plants for running electric trains can substantially reduce road traffic. Movement of goods through roads can also be reduced by increasing railway goods traffic. Bullet trains can reduce air traffic. The day is not far away when nuclear energy is going to be included in the list of sources of non-conventional energy. Thus, in the near future, trade of nuclear fuel will replace trade of petroleum fuel. This trade will assume great economic importance. Countries with big stock of nuclear fuels and with good know-how of nuclear and hydrogen technologies will become wealthy. Technology to use thorium for nuclear power generation is on the doorsteps. Australia, India and Norway have big deposits of thorium. Estimated deposit of thorium in Australia is 3 lakh tonnes and that of India is 2.9 lakh tonnes. Norway has 1.7 lakh tonnes. These three countries account for more than 60 percent of the total world deposit of thorium. In India, it’s located in the sea coasts of Kerala state. Once thorium technology evolves, the above countries will become big economic powers through nuclear fuel trade. For this strong and independent nuclear policies and research programmes are essential.

A REVIVAL OF NUCLEAR ENERGY COULD CREATE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN JOBSPlatts (Platts is a provider of energy information around the world that has been in business in various forms for more than a century) “US nuclear revival would create tens of thousand of jobs: study” June 17 2008 http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/6904940.xml

A nuclear revival in the US could create "tens of thousands" of high-paying jobs if the 30 reactors currently in the planning stages are built, according to a paper released Tuesday by the pro-nuclear Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy. The paper said that as many as 4,000 workers might be needed during the height of each project, and that between 400 and 700 permanent positions would be created to support the operations of each new reactor. The figure for the peak period of construction is much higher than the 2,400-worker estimate previously cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute. But neither CASEnergy nor NEI specified whether the 4,000 or 2,400 jobs were needed to build one or two units. NEI has said that building a plant would create about an average of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs. CASEnergy, which was established in 2006, comprises various companies, business and labor groups and elected officials who support nuclear power. Funding for much of the coalition's early activities was provided by NEI. The coalition is headed by Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. The CASEnergy paper said that between 12,000 and 21,000 new jobs could be added to the market if the 30-plus reactors are built. It said the average salaries for plant workers are often "substantially more" than the pay for other jobs near the plant. The paper cited the median salary for a senior reactor operator as $85,426 and said a reactor operator would receive $77,782. Electrical technicians can earn about $67,517 and mechanical technicians are paid about $66,581, the paper said. The jobs range from engineers to radiation protection specialists to maintenance and skilled craft workers and plant operators. Support staff would be needed in areas such as recordkeeping, general maintenance and janitorial services, the paper said. Another concern for the nuclear industry is replacing retiring workers. The paper said about 35% of the industry's workforce may be eligible to retire within five years, providing an opportunity for hiring about 19,600 workers. CASEnergy noted, for example, that 36% of plant operators are 48 years old or older, and 27% will be eligible to retire in the next five years. An additional 12% might leave for other reasons and 21% could be promoted.

43

http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/6904940.xml

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEX20070821004119&Page=X&Title=Kochi&Topic=0&


2NC SOLVENCY MODULE: COMPETITIVENESS/ECONOMY

NUCLEAR POWER STIMULATES THE ECONOMY AND INVITES JOBSChattanooga Times (Chattanooga free press, staff writer Dave Flesner) “Chattanooga: Nuclear may power local jobs” June 11th 2008 http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/11/chattanooga-nuclear-may-power-local-jobs/

Chattanooga is going back to the future to reclaim part of its manufacturing base. Economic recruiters hope the Tennessee Valley can capitalize on the predicted revival of nuclear power to regain some of the engineering, construction and manufacturing jobs the region shed after utilities quit ordering new plants more than three decades ago. With up to $50 billion of nuclear plant construction and maintenance proposed over the next 30 years, Chattanooga again is trying to stake its nuclear claim. “There’s a lot riding on this area in terms of nuclear power in the future,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a former Chattanooga mayor who favors more nuclear power. “TVA has the ability to lead the way and, if they can show leadership in the partnership they’ve 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.

44

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/11/chattanooga-nuclear-may-power-local-jobs/


THEY SAY: NUCLEAR POWER UNSAFE

SAFTEY MEASURES PREVENT NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS – CHINA PROVESBeijing Review. Beijing: Jun 10, 2004 . Vol. 47, Iss. 23 Proquest http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=1203964281&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214591192&clientId=8188

"Nuclear power plants in China are completely safe," said Wang Naiyan, Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Wang pointed out that all nuclear power plants worldwide adopt four-barrier-safety protection. Even if nuclear leakages occur, radioactive materials would be covered within the barriers, ensuring no harm to the environment. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants have strict measures to ensure safety, thanks to all the workers who strictly abide by operation procedures. The key to ensure nuclear safety is their management and operation. Permanent safety can be maintained as long as nuclear power plant staff keeps safety awareness foremost in their minds. Xu Yuming, Deputy Director of China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA), stated that China has gradually improved its legal system regarding nuclear safety. CAEA makes nuclear safety management, atomic material management and radioactive waste management and control the most important part in administrating the sector. The China National Nuclear Safety Administration independently exercises the power of nuclear safety supervision and supervises all the nuclear activities for civil use in accordance with laws, including nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, governments conduct thorough checkups for nuclear activities through a nuclear safety license system. China has established a state nuclear accident emergency system, involving the Central Government, local governments and nuclear power plant owners for unified coordination and with independent responsibilities. Emergency plans of various levels are worked out and test drills are carried out to continuously improve the ability to prepare and respond to nuclear emergencies. "China's nuclear industry retains a fine record in terms of operation safety and environmental protection with no serious accident to date," said Xu.

45

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=1203964281&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214591192&clientId=8188



http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=9255&pcid=13125531&SrchMode=3

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=9255&TS=1214591203&clientId=8188&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD


RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNTERPLAN 1NC

1NC : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OR OFFER TAX CREDITS TO COMPANIES WHO PARTICIPATE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY CONTRACTS SIMILAR

TO THAT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY.


OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCYTHE SCE’S 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 nation’s leading purchaser of renewable energy, has signed six new renewable energy contracts that could provide the utility’s 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, SCE’s director of renewable and alternative power. “The clean power generated as a result of these contracts will contribute significantly to California’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals. ” The new contracts result from SCE’s 2006 competitive renewable energy solicitation. SCE plans to seek approval of the agreements from the CPUC in the near future. For more about SCE’s 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 California’s 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 SCE’s new bio-energy initiative, California biomass projects with generating capacities between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt had limited opportunities to sell their energy. SCE’s 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. - SCE’s 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.

46

http://www.aceee.org/

http://www.edison.com/investors/ir_news.asp?id=6792


2NC INCENTIVES SOLVE—LEAD TO CONTRACTS

CALIFORNIAN INCENTIVES MOTIVATED THE SCE TO PURCHASE RENEWABLE CONTRACTSDSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency) 2007 California Incentives for Renewable Energy http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA144F&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0

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 INVESTMENTElizabeth 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 state’s residents, businesses, and other organizations to find . By itself, the state’s action increases the visibility of the technology or practice and validates it with the state’s 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.

47


http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA144F&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA144F&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0


2NC INCENTIVES SOLVE—LEAD TO CONTRACTS

STATE ACTION IS THE ONLY WAY TO CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF EACH STATE. THESE PROGRAMS CAN BE MODELED BY OTHER STATES VERY EASILY.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)

Energy efficiency tax credits enacted in other states can serve as starting points for new legislation , but a common theme we observed is the importance of considering the specific needs of the state in designing legislation. Tax credit programs should be tailored to individual state economic, energy and environmental objectives . The most common energy efficiency tax credits are green buildings tax credits and efficient appliances credits. These programs offer large opportunities to encourage energy efficiency while minimizing lost revenue. Further, because other states have already used these approaches and programs are already in place, adapting the programs used in those states is generally easier and more effective than developing new approaches.

CLIMATE AND RESOURCE VARIATION ACROSS THE COUNTRY MAKE STATE-BASED INCENTIVESNECESSARYElizabeth 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)

Although the federal government provides research, development, and implementation assistance for energy efficiency objectives of general national interest, the states play a fundamental role in addressing energy use and the deployment of energy efficiency measures. Since local climate and resources strongly influence energy use and technology choices, states are well suited to provide incentives that foster technology options matched to the needs of their residents. With the recent rise in national attention to energy policy driven by volatile energy prices, electricity reliability concerns, and the release of the Bush Administration energy plan (National Energy Policy Development Group 2001), state policymakers and state-level advocates are increasingly looking for legislative actions they can take to help address reliability and price stability challenges through energy efficiency. State actions could include the following: • Establishing a public benefit fund (a fund dedicated to providing support for energy efficiency, low-income programs, and other objectives, generally funded by a very small tax on electricity transmission services);. • Direct state expenditures: these could include direct state investments (e.g., to upgrade performance of government facilities) or a state loan program. • Establishing state tax credits, reductions, or deductions for efficient products, techniques, and services.

48




2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES WIND POWER

THE SCE CONTRACTS ARE THE LARGEST WIND ENERGY CONTRACTS IN UNITED STATES HISTORY

Huliq News December 22, 2006Largest Wind Energy Contract in U.S. Renewable Industry History http://www.huliq.com/2804/largest-wind-energy-contract-in-u-s-renewable-industry-history

Southern California Edison (SCE), the nation's leading purchaser of renewable energy, today signed a ground-breaking wind energy contract that will provide the utility's customers with a major new source of emission-free power. The agreement with Alta Windpower Development LLC, a subsidiary of Allco Financial Group Inc. of Australia, a global financial-services business, is the largest wind energy contract ever signed by a U.S. utility . It secures for SCE customers 1,500 megawatts* (MW) or more of power generated by new projects to be built in the Tehachapi area of California. The contract, which more than doubles SCE's wind energy portfolio, envisions more than 50 square miles of wind parks in the Tehachapi region - triple the size of any existing U.S. wind farm . Oak Creek Energy Systems Inc. of Mojave, Calif., is a partner with Allco in the development, construction, and operations of the projects. Coupled with other renewable energy contracts signed today, and seven signed on Nov. 17, 2006, these agreements bring to 1,889 MW the amount of environmentally sensitive power resulting from SCE's 2005 competitive renewable energy solicitation - the equivalent of two major, traditional power plants and enough generation to serve one million average homes. SCE also signed a new contract with Chateau Energy to purchase 15 MW of power from a biomass facility in the Mesquite Lake area of Imperial County and signed an amendment to an existing contract with Edom Hill that will allow Edom's wind project to increase its capacity to 20 MW by "repowering," upgrading technology to more efficiently capture additional wind energy . "In order to finance new, environmentally friendly power projects, developers need long-term contracts with creditworthy buyers," said Pedro Pizarro, SCE's senior vice president of power procurement. "We are pleased to play this critical role in the partnerships required to help the renewable energy industry achieve its full potential." "It is fitting that we are launching the largest wind project in the U.S. in a state that is a renewable energy leader and with the leading utility in renewable development," said Steen Stavnsbo, head of Allco Wind Energy . "We are grateful for the positive working relationship with SCE that has made this exciting venture possible." "We are pleased our long-term commitment to the Tehachapi area is helping to produce such a ground-breaking project," said Hal Romanowitz, president of Oak Creek Energy Systems. "This project combines the strengths of industry leaders in a way that will have great value for the people of California." "I applaud Southern California Edison for this historic wind energy contract," said Michael R. Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). "This contract will help California move closer to its goal of generati ng 20% or more of our electricity with clean, renewable energy. Edison's achievement further highlights the importance of the work state policymakers and utilities are doing to expand the state's transmission grid so projects such as these can become a reality." SCE will submit the procurement contracts to the CPUC, which will decide whether they are reasonable commitments to make on behalf of SCE's customers. "Our 2005 renewable energy solicitation produced excellent results," said Stuart Hemphill, SCE's director of renewable and alternative power. "We have already initiated our 2006 solicitation. The response has been robust, and we are now in discussions regarding many potential future projects." The success of the large wind project announced today depends on SCE receiving authorization from the CPUC and other regulatory agencies to construct a series of new and upgraded high-voltage transmission lines that would deliver electricity from potential new wind farms in the Tehachapi area. Several such wind projects are in varying stages of planning and development. When completed, this renewable transmission project would be capable of delivering 4,500 MW of electricity, enough energy to supply almost three million homes.

49

http://www.huliq.com/2804/largest-wind-energy-contract-in-u-s-renewable-industry-history




2NC COUNTERPLAN SOVLES SOLAR POWER

SCE RECENTLY PURCHASED A SOLAR POWER TOWER AND IS THE LEADING PURCHASER OF SOLAR POWERBUSINESS WIRE, JUNE 3RD 2008Southern California Edison Contracts with eSolar for Solar Power Tower http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080603/20080603006271.html?.v=1

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 nation’s 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 nation’s leading purchaser of solar energy, buying more than 90 percent of U.S. production . “Solar is the great untapped energy resource for California — it’s 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. eSolar’s 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 SCE’s 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.

50

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080603/20080603006271.html?.v=1


2NC COUNTERPLAN SOLVES BIOMASS/BIOFUELS

SCE HAS BEGUN USING RENEWABLE BIOMASS ENERGYBusiness Wire, May 14th 2007Southern California Edison Offers New Type of Renewable Energy Contract to Expand Biomass Generation http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_14/ai_n19096463

ROSEMEAD, Calif. -- Southern California Edison (SCE), the nation's leading purchaser of renewable energy, today issued a new power contracting option called a "Biomass Standard Contract," designed to help smaller biomass generators contribute to reaching California's aggressive renewable energy and environmental goals. "Governor Schwarzenegger asked our industry to find ways to step up the use of the state's renewable biomass resources to generate electricity," said Pedro Pizarro, SCE's senior vice president of power procurement. " We believe this innovative approach will do just that, prompting many small biomass generators to join California's growing renewable energy industry." Prior to SCE's new initiative, California biomass projects with generating capacities between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt (MW1) had limited opportunities to sell their energy. SCE's new Biomass Standard Contract opens the door for these projects, and provides a faster, simpler way for biomass projects under 20 MW to sell their power to utility customers . SCE is offering three new biomass contract options for projects with less than 1 MW of generating capacity, 1 MW to 5 MW, and greater than 5 MW to 20 MW. Contract terms of 10, 15, or 20 years will be accepted. The utility plans to accept up to 250 MW of new biomass capacity through the new program. Final agreements are subject to review and approval by the California Public Utilities Commission. "Meeting California's aggressive renewable energy and environmental goals will require bold, innovative ideas," said Stuart Hemphill, SCE director of renewable and alternative power. "Long before there was a California renewable portfolio standard or state legislation reducing greenhouse gas emissions, SCE committed itself to pursuing such innovations, beginning with the company's pledge in 1980, 'to devote our resources to the accelerated development of renewable power sources.'" Additional information is available at www.sce.com/energyprocurement where biomass project developers can complete an online application by clicking on "SCE's Biomass Program." The application will be reviewed by the utility and, if qualified, finalized. SCE's new contracts will be available until Dec. 31, 2007, and may be withdrawn after a total of 250 MW are enrolled.

51

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_14/ai_n19096463


REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE COUNTERPLAN 1NC

TEXT : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CREATE A UNIFORM CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH THE REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE.


OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCYRGGI ALLOWS THE STATES TO COORDINATE A NATIONAL PERMITS SYSTEMKapla, 2006 (Seth Kaplan, Director of The Clean Energy and Climate Change Program, “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative”, http://www.clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=341)

In December 2005, governors from seven Northeast states agreed to a precedent-setting, bipartisan plan to reduce global warming pollution from power plants. The plan will also create new investment in cleaner, more efficient energy technology. The regional plan will establish a market-based program that rewards smart companies for outperforming the new pollution limits and lowers overall compliance costs. Known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the accord takes effect in 2009, and is designed to reduce carbon dioxide pollution to a level 10 percent below current emissions by 2019 . The policy is expected to lower utility bills by helping consumers and business use energy more efficiently. A recent study concluded that the regional climate accord would save the typical residential customer approximately $50 per year at current levels of state energy efficiency investment and would actually save the typical residential customer over $108 per year if money paid by polluters under the program was used to foster even greater energy efficiency.This effort to reduce heat-trapping gases that lead to global warming will serve as a model for the rest of the United States. Under careful development for more than two years, the accord includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and five Canadian provinces have been close observers in the process, and states including California, Oregon and New Mexico have all announced plans to pursue a similar approach. Leading companies in the Northeast, such as Bank of America, Staples, Keyspan, National Grid, Pfizer and the association of large energy users in Massachusetts known as The Energy Consortium, have all backed the plan .

CAP-AND-TRADE’S FREE MARKET APPROACH SOLVES BEST – PROMOTES INNOVATION AND EFFICIENCY WHILE GUARANTEEING STABILIZATION OF THE CLIMATEChameides, Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense, “Cap-and-trade: more effective than a carbon tax”, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/102851/837, 2007

History has shown that the marketplace does a better job of developing new technologies, and a tax takes money out of the marketplace. The solution is cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade strategy provides the incentive for all segments of the economy to compete to discover the best ways to cut emissions.In a cap-and-trade system, the government plays a small role, and leaves the main decisions to the private sector. The government establishes an overall emissions cap and assigns specific emissions allocations to the different sources of CO2. It does not tell industries and companies what to do or how to meet their allocations. Each company is free to make those choices. It can reduce its own emissions or pay someone else to lower them. Businesses can profit by coming in below their cap and selling their extra carbon credits to others. Even farmers can profit by enhancing carbon storage in soils and trees and selling the extra carbon credits.The advantages of cap-and-trade are significant. Unlike a tax, it encourages innovation by creating incentives and rewarding those who lower emissions at the least cost. And most importantly, a cap -- unlike a tax -- guarantees the necessary cuts to stabilize the climate. All a tax does is discourage emissions; it doesn't specify an emissions target that must be met. Those who argue that cap-and-trade won't work are ignoring history.We used a cap-and-trade to lower the sulfur oxide emissions that lead to acid rain, and we were able to do it quickly and cheaply. Embraced by leaders on climate change from both parties and some our nation's most influential CEOs (read USCAP's "Call for Action" [PDF]), cap-and-trade is the proven approach and the right approach.

52


2NC RGGI SOLVES WARMING STATE-BASED RGGI SOLVES– NITROGEN OXIDE MARKETS PROVES Pershing Et al 05 (Director, Climate, Energy and Pollution Program, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in U.S. States: Observations and Lessons from the OTC NOx Budget Program, http://www.wri.org/publication/greenhouse-gas-emissions-trading-us-lessons-from-otc-nox)

A number of U.S. states are considering market-based policies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The experience gained from emissions trading for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) offers a useful body of information and data to draw on to design a GHG emissions trading system. This report examines NOx trading under the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) NOx Budget Program, which resulted principally from the leadership, decisions, and actions by a group of states, ultimately becoming the first multilateral cap-and-trade system for emissions of air pollutants. The OTC NOx Budget Program proved to be effective on economic, environmental, and administrative grounds. From 1999 to 2002, annual emissions were significantly reduced, and the program had no discernable effect on the region’s economic vitality. Beginning in 2003, the OTC NOx Budget Program was incorporated into a larger federal system with similar features. That is, the successful state-based program facilitated the adoption of broader emissions control. Critical to this development was the leadership and innovation by the states, which provided valuable information, data, and a set of committed stakeholders. For GHG emissions, various aspects of the problem make it well suited to a market-based approach that can spur innovation among a wide variety of sources and sectors. Though there is presently little federal prompting for GHG emissions reductions, the experience with NOx trading should provide confidence for states to take the initiative.States can start with GHG emissions controls, gain experience, and lead the near-term innovation in emissions control technologies and strategies. Over time, this may facilitate broader control at a national scale commensurate with the reductions required in global emissions.

RGGI WAS ESTABLISHED TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING. IT’S THE SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING CLIMATE POLICY.Durrant, JUNE 11, 2008 (Colin Durrant, Director of Communications for The Conservation Law Foundation, “NH Joins Regional Global Warming Pact”, June 11 2008, http://www.clf.org/general/internal.asp?id=1102)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 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.

53

http://www.wri.org/publication/greenhouse-gas-emissions-trading-us-lessons-from-otc-nox

http://www.wri.org/publication/greenhouse-gas-emissions-trading-us-lessons-from-otc-nox


2NC RGGI SOLVES WARMING

RGGI JUMPSTARTS INNOVATION.Melissa A. Hoffer, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation, To Martha Fuller Clark of the New Hampshire Senate, April 23 2008

Once RGGI is in place, the need for carbon emission reductions will drive innovation to develop the most effective carbon emissions-reducing technologies. Over time, that innovation will drive down the cost of carbon emission controls, and make possible large scale deployment of such controls, as well as technologies to reduce energy demand.

IT’S A RACE TO THE TOP. RGGI WILL INDUCE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE. Union of Concerned Scientists , 2006 (“RGGI Innovation Fact Sheet”, page 1, June 8 2006)

Along with further implementation of energy efficiency improvements, a carefully designed policy will reduce costs to consumers by planning for an increase in technological innovation. Technological changes in the energy sector (including innovation in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and low carbon technologies, as well as other yet unknown innovations) are very likely to be critical in meeting future energy needs and addressing climate change. Historically, technological changes have enabled significant pollution reductions within the energy sector with considerably less than anticipated costs. Policies induce technological change. In absence of carbon reducing policies, the inherent progress of technological change will continue to occur. However, this is not the major driver for improved energy efficiency and reduced energy intensity in the electricity sector. Climate policies, such as RGGI, can lead to induced technological change, which refers to the additional technological change stimulated by policy. Empirical evidence and sensitive modeling show that technological change induced by climate policies lowers the overall costs of achieving the targeted CO2 emissions reductions. Traditional modeling doesn’t capture savings. Traditional policy-evaluation models neglect induced technological change and instead treat it as an autonomous factor. This results in seriously overestimated policy costs and an underestimate of the rate of carbon-saving innovation. Similar assumptions were incorporated into RGGI modeling. RGGI modeling predicts costs that don’t factor in technological innovation or substantial increases in energy efficiency. Thus, we can expect that the projected cost of RGGI is an overestimate of the actual cost.

54


2NC RGGI SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE

CAP AND TRADE REDUCES DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL BY ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVE FUELS.Chris Van Hollen, Maryland’s 8th district, June 17 2008, http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Newsroom/Press+Release+by+Date/2008/06-17-08+Climate+MATTERS+Cap-and-Trade+Legislation+Introduced.htm

“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. Let’s encourage those high-wage green-collar 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 generation’s 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.”

55

http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Newsroom/Press+Release+by+Date/2008/06-17-08+Climate+MATTERS+Cap-and-Trade+Legislation+Introduced.htm

http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Newsroom/Press+Release+by+Date/2008/06-17-08+Climate+MATTERS+Cap-and-Trade+Legislation+Introduced.htm


2NC RGGI SOLVES BIODIVERSITY

CARBON TRADING IS CONTAGIOUS. CAP AND TRADE PROGRAMS WILL EXPLODE INTO EVERY SECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENT. SOLVES BIODIVERSITY.David Wolman, Author of “A Left-Hand Turn Around the World”, “Eco-Capitalists Save Mother Nature for Charging for her Services”, August 21 2007, http://www.wired.com/science/plan etearth/magazine/15-09/st_essay

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.

56

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-09/st_essay


2NC RGGI SOLVES POLLUTION RGGI RAISES FUNDS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVESTMENTS. SOLVES POLLUTION.Melissa A. Hoffer, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation, To Martha Fuller Clark of the New Hampshire Senate, April 23 2008

A; RGGl's Middle Name is Energy Efficiency. Through the auction of carbon dioxide allowances, RGGI will raise urgently needed funds for investments in energy efficiency. This aspect of the RGGI program is its core feature, and it sets RGGI proceeds to fund energy efficiency, and puts the RGGI states firmly on the path to a more secure, affordable energy f·uture. Energy efficiency is the least expensive resource to help meet our power needs. The 2007 New Hampshire Core Programs summary shows that the average cost of energy efficiency is 1.85 cents perkWh,2 as compared to 14 cents per kWh for electricity, as reported by the New Hampshire Office ofEnergy and Planning as of April 14,2008, on its website. That means that today,energy efficiency is 86% cheaper than electricity from power plants. A 2005 report by Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. ("NEEP") 3 similarly found that implementing the economically achievable energy efficiency potential in New England beginning in 2005 would have resulted in energy savings of 17,103 gigawatt-hours and peak demand savings of 4,317 megawatts by 2008.4 NEEP also estimated that in just five years from now, the electricity needs of all households in New Hampshire, as well as Connecticut, could be met by the amount of energy savings and demand reduction that could be achieved.sEnergy efficiency is good for the economy, too-NEEP anticipated that large scale energy efficiency investments could provide a net benefit of 13 to 23.7 billion dollars to New England's economy.6 In February, the Public Utilities Commission began the formal process of assessing available cost¬effective energy efficiency potential in New Hampshire. With that specific information, and the RGGI auction proceeds, New Hampshire consumers will, as UNH found, begin to reap the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency. HB 1434 strikes a balance between (1) the need to protect ratepayers from rising energy costs and adverse effects of carbon pollution by investing in energy efficiency upgrades that will greatly reduce electricity bills over time, and (2) the need to address ratepayer concerns about potential electricity rate increases that may occur in the short term as a result of RGGI implementation. The bill does 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.

57


2NC RGGI SOLVES THE ECONOMY

RGGI WILL CREATE 800 JOBS AND ADD $63 MILLION TO THE ECONOMY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ALONE.Tom Burack, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Commisioner, May 13 2008, http://www.des.state.nh.us/press/archive/2008/press05132008rggi.htm

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 Hampshire’s economic development.An independent analysis by UNH has concluded that adoption of the RGGI legislation is in the state’s 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.

58


2NC RGGI SOLVES EU RELATIONS THE EU STRONGLY SUPPORTS RGGI BECAUSE THEY SEE IT AS THE LAST BEST HOPE FOR GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.Amanda Griscom Little, Writer for Salon.com, January 28 2006, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/28/muckraker/

State Rep. Jim Marzilli, a Democrat and longtime supporter of RGGI, is confident that Massachusetts will renew its commitment to the climate agreement through a combination of legislative action and new gubernatorial leadership. "Many in the Massachusetts Legislature see Romney's abandonment of RGGI as a total embarrassment, not only to our state but to the country," he said. "I was in Montreal at the Kyoto [Protocol] conference just when Romney was indicating he would pull the plug. It came as a total shock to the international leaders attending. The European Union sees RGGI as the last best hope for a binding commitment to reducing greenhouse gases in the U.S."Romney had until last month been an advocate and architect of RGGI, which includes a market-based trading system that will let big fossil-fuel power plants buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide. As recently as November, he was publicly talking up the agreement: "I'm convinced it is good business," he told a clean-energy conference in Boston. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.

59


1NC: BUILDING TAX CREDIT CP

1NC : THE 50 UNITED STATES STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RELEVANT U.S. TERRITORIES SHOULD:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.


OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCYTHE GREEN BUILDING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM IS EFFECTIVE IN INCREASING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY USE IN NEW YORKDSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency) 2007Green Building Tax Credit Program (Corporate) http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY05F&state=NY&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0

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.

60

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY05F&state=NY&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY05F&state=NY&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0


2NC: BUILDING TAX CREDIT SOLVES

1. 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 PRACTICESACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) 2008Opportunities 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, t ax credits validate green building practices through the state’s 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) 2002New 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.

61

http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/nnytax.asp

http://www.aceee.org/energy/buildfs.pdf



4. BUILDING TAX CREDITS WILL RESULT IN QUANTIFIABLE REDUCTIONS IN GHGDierkers, Senior Policy Analyst for the National Governors Association, 07 (Gregory, May 7, “Recent State Actions Promoting Alternative Energy”, , www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0705ALTENERGY.PDF)

The Potential for Alternative Energy One way states can address energy price and market variances while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is through energy efficiency and conservation. A synthesis of 11 national studies, including five conducted by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, demonstrates significant potential for offsetting projected growth in U.S. energy consumption through expanded energy efficiency and conservation. The estimated economic potential energy savings for electricity represent a potential reduction of 1.2 percent per year, which, if achieved, would offset much of projected growth in U.S. electricity demand during the next two decades, eliminating the annual need for over 100 million barrels of oil per year and reduce nearly 30 million metric tons of GHG emissions.4 In Texas, for example, a March 2007 analysis found that expanded energy efficiency policies could mitigate 17.5 percent of forecasted electricity consumption by 2023 and offset nearly one-third of peak summer electricity demand. Renewable energy, in the form of electricity and fuels, can also play an important role in meeting U.S. energy demand. According to the EIA, total generated energy from renewable energy sources will increase from 6.5 quadrillion Btu in 2005 to 10.2 quadrillion Btu in 2030, because of improved technology, higher fossil fuel prices, and extended tax credits.5,6 Of this, 1.2 quadrillion Btu will be renewable fuels, primarily ethanol for gasoline blending. There may be greater potential for renewable energy to offset conventional energy resources. A recent study concluded that the U.S. can meet 20 percent of its electricity needs in 2020 from wind, biomass, geothermal and solar.7 If achieved, this would represent a 5 percent reduction in oil consumption, saving the equivalent of 400 million barrels of oil per year. For example, a new report concluded that Florida’s indigenous renewable energy sources could reduce the state’s projected electricity demand by almost 35 percent over a 15-year period.8 Florida Governor Charlie Crist, in fact, proposed $68.25 million in his 2008 budget to support the use of renewable energy and fuels, including transportation biofuels and residential solar power. By diversifying energy resources, states hope to reduce long-term demand for oil while supporting environmentally sustainable economic growth. For example, fostering research on photovoltaic energy systems or the manufacture of advanced wind turbines as well as the use of new energy-efficient building materials, biomass and advanced coal, can create new jobs, revitalize markets, and lead to quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions.

5. TAX INCENTIVES REMOVES THE COST BARRIER TO ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS 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 .

62




6. GBTC INCREASES EMPLOYMENT, REDUCED HEALTH COSTS, AND REDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL COSTSACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) 2008 Opportunities for State Action: Green Buildings Tax Credit www.aceee.org/energy/buildfs.pdf

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.

63

http://www.gbreb.com/greenbuildings/main.htm

http://www.aceee.org/energy/buildfs.pdf


THEY SAY: STATES LACK UNIFORMITY

UNIFORM POLICIES ARE ALREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED. POLLUTION CREDITS CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD ACROSS STATE BORDERS.Ronald S. Borod, Attorney and Analyst at Brown Rudnick’s Law Firm, “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: April 2007 Update”, www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown_Rudnick_RGGI_Update_4-07.pdf

Renewable energy projects such as wind turbines do not create carbon offsets, because they do not directly result in a reduction of carbon that would be emitted into the atmosphere. Obviously, a wind turbine can offset electricity that would otherwise be generated from a carbon-emitting power plant. The effect, if it were to be undertaken by the owner of a coal-fired plant that needs to acquire carbon allowances, would simply be to reduce the hours the coal plant is operating and reduce the number of carbon allowances that this plant would have to acquire, but the wind turbine does not create new allowances that can be traded. The goal of the offset program is to create allowances that can be freely traded regardless of the source - each state's allowances should be tradable in any other state, and allowances created through the offset program will be freely tradable across states that are signatories to RGGI and interchangeable with other carbon allowances. Offset allowances can also be created from projects in non-RGGI states that have agreed to enforce certain requirements. The general terms of RGGI are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the various state governors. Model regulations were adopted in the summer of 2006. Each state is now in the process of adopting these uniform rules. Obviously, it is critical that there be sufficient uniformity between the states such that allowances, and especially offsets that will be certified and created in each individual state, will be freely tradable.

UNIFORMITY IS ONE OF RGGI’S FOUNDING PRINCIPLESRGGI.org, 2007(RGGI.org, “About RGGI”, http://www.rggi.org/about.htm)The action plan sets out the following goal for RGGI: Develop a multi-state cap-and-trade program covering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program will initially be aimed at developing a program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the participating states, while maintaining energy affordability and reliability and accommodating, to the extent feasible, the diversity in policies and programs in individual states. After the cap-and-trade program for power plants is implemented, the states may consider expanding the program to other kinds of sources. The action plan also establishes guiding principles for the program design, including: emphasizing uniformity across the participating states; building on existing successful cap-and-trade programs; ensuring that the program is expandable and flexible, allowing other states or jurisdictions to join in the initiative; starting the program simply by focusing on a core cap-and-trade program for power plants; and focusing on reliable offset protocols (i.e., credits for reductions outside of the power sector) in a subsequent design phase.

64


THEY SAY: NON- COMPLIANCE

FREE MARKET SYSTEM ENSURES SUCCESS – COMPANIES WON’T RISK NON-COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IT’S ECONOMICALLY IRRATIONALAlberta Law Review, “Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers”, lexis, 42 Alberta L. Rev. 167, 2k4

Emitters that successfully reduce their emissions below their allocated level may sell their unused allowances to other emitters whose emissions are exceeding their allocated allowance. Participants that emit substances beyond their allocated allowance and in excess of any additional allowances purchased from others would be severely penalized. Penalties can include requiring the plant owner to purchase the necessary allowances to bring the plant into compliance for that year at a significant multiple of the market value for those allowances, or reducing the plant's allocation of allowances for the upcoming year . The advantage of a cap and trade system is that because the penalties for non-compliance are so punitive, non-compliance is simply not an option at the practical business level. In other words, an emitter facing a potential non-compliance situation for one of its plants will not allow that plant to [*179] fall into non-compliance because, often for the same or less money than it would pay in penalties, it could make the necessary changes to bring the plant into compliance. This increases the likelihood that total emissions from all sources will not exceed the cap, as businesses will respond rationally to economic incentives.

65


THEY SAY: ELECTRICITY RATES RISE ELECTRICITY PRICES WILL INCREASE REGARDLESS OF RGGI.Hoffer, dd08 (Melissa A. Hoffer, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation, To Martha Fuller Clark of the New Hampshire Senate, April 23 2008)Second, New Hampshire electric rates will increase as a result ofRGGI even if New Hampshire does not participate in RGGI. That means that New Hampshire ratepayers will pay more and be deprived ofRGGI's benefits-long term reduction in bills as a result of increased investment in energy efficiency. University of New Hampshire researchers concluded unequivocally that "[i]f New Hampshire were not to join RGGI, it would not receive the economic value from the allowances allocated to it under RGGI, but would still experience the increased cost of RGGI in regional wholesale power prices."

66


AT: STATE SPENDING

NON-UNIQUEA. ALL NEGATIVE LINK EVIDENCE CLAIMING THAT THE CP WILL BE EXPENSIVE IS DESCRIPTIVE OF CURRENT POLICIES WHICH STATES ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR

B. STATES ARE SPENDING ON RENEWABLES NOWThomas D. Peterson, Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., & John C. Dernbach 07 – Dr. Peterson founded the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) to assist state and regional governments with climate change policy development and implementation. Dr McKinstry is a partner in the Litigation Department, the Environmental Group, which he co-founded, the Energy and Project Finance Group and the Climate Change Group. John C. Dernbach is Professor of Law at Widener's Harrisburg campus, teaching environmental law, property, international environmental law, and climate change. He has also taught international law, administrative law, and sustainability and the law. “DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES THAT FULLY INTEGRATES LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC SECTORS”http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020740 The magnitude of existing state actions that reduce GHGs is underappreciated. In combination, 36 Some of these actions arose because of related policy objectives, while others were designed expressly for GHG abatement. In addition, a majority of states now have comprehensive inventories and forecasts of emissions and reporting systems to support implementation of policies and plans. Regional areas now aggregate and expand upon individual state actions, particularly in sectors where markets transcend state boundaries, such as electricity generation and sales. A majority of states currently have state GHG plans or state GHG plans in progress.37

NO LINK – STATES WILL PAY FOR THE COUNTERPLAN BY INCREASING A PUBLIC BENEFIT TAX. THIS IS NORMAL MEANS AND WILL NOT CAUSE DEFICIT SPENDINGNadel 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 per-kWh 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.

67

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020740


AT: CALIFORNIA SPENDING

DEFICITS WILL NOT TRANSLATE INTO A RECESSIONMatthew YI, Writer for the Chronicle Sacramento Bureau, 08 (2-21, “State budget deficit grows $1.5 billion”, San Fransico Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/21/BAT1V5PL2.DTL&type=politics )California's budget gap is expected to grow by $1.5 billion more than was projected a month ago, the nonpartisan legislative analyst said Wednesday, as deteriorating revenues worsen the state's fiscal crisis.The deepening deficit is a result of lower-than-expected tax receipts in the state's three major revenue areas - personal income tax, sales tax and taxable corporate profits, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill said.While Hill does not expect the state to falter into a recession, her report said the economy will continue to sag in the coming months largely because of the meltdown of the housing market.In an exhaustive report nearly 2 inches thick, Hill also criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $140 billion-plus budget that includes across-the-board 10 percent cuts in the new fiscal year that begins July 1.

CP BOOSTS CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY – ADDS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, GAINS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AND SOLIFIES ITS ROLE AS AN ECONOMIC LEADEROwen 08 (Dave, Associate Professor, University of Maine School of Law “Climate Change and Environmental Assessment Law”, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 33 Colum. J. Envtl. L.57,Lexis.)Though opposition to climate change regulation largely derives from fears of economic cost and disruption, California's economy actually may benefit substantially from responding to those problems. California's Environmental Protection Agency concludes that implementing climate change prevention strategies could add billions of dollars in additional income to the state economy . n80 Independent studies support those predictions. According to a recent California Climate Change Center report: Globally, increasing GHG emissions are assumed to be essential to a growing economy. This is not true in California. The state can take an historic step by demonstrating that reducing emissions of GHG can accelerate economic growth and bring new jobs... . California can gain a competitive advantage by acting early in the new technologies and industries that will come into existence worldwide around the common goal of reducing GHG emissions. n81 That message has resonated with state lawmakers. According to the California Legislature, "by exercising its global leadership role, California will also position its economy, technology centers, financial institutions, and businesses to benefit from national and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases." n82 [*72] Governor Schwarzenegger has made similar statements. n83

STATE ACTION IS KEY FOR THEIR ECONOMIESThomas D. Peterson, Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., & John C. Dernbach 07 – Dr. Peterson founded the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) to assist state and regional governments with climate change policy development and implementation. Dr McKinstry is a partner in the Litigation Department, the Environmental Group, which he co-founded, the Energy and Project Finance Group and the Climate Change Group. John C. Dernbach is Professor of Law at Widener's Harrisburg campus, teaching environmental law, property, international environmental law, and climate change. He has also taught international law, administrative law, and sustainability and the law. “DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES THAT FULLY INTEGRATES LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC SECTORS”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.

68

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020740

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.379620.8250676496&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1214933610258&returnToKey=20_T4073904457&parent=docview#n83




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/21/BAT1V5PL2.DTL&type=politics


AT: CALIFORNIA SPENDING

SCENARIO EMPIRICALLY DENIED—CALIFORNIA IS ALWAYS FACING DEFICITSWalters, 08 (Dan, June 30, “Dan Walters: California's fiscal year starts with no state budget -- what else is new?”, The Modesto Bee, http://www.modbee.com/opinion/state/dan_walters/story/345593.html)

So the new fiscal year begins without a state budget in place. So what's new? So the state has a whopping deficit and the governor and lawmakers don't really have a clue as to how it will be closed, or even if it will be. So what's new? So Republicans are talking about 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. ‘

69

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/state/dan_walters/story/345593.html


NON-UNIQUE: CALIFORNIA DEFICIT HIGH

CALIFORNIA IS IN A FISCAL EMERGENCYBloomberg, 08 (Bloomberg News , June 30, “California Under Schwarzenegger Underperforms Davis (Update2)” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afzm9oISTASQ&refer=home)

Budget Deficits At the same time inflation is quickening, the Treasury and local governments are stepping up borrowing amid expanding budget deficits. The U.S. government's shortfall for May totaled $165.9 billion, more than in all of fiscal 2007. California, as the biggest borrower in the $2.66 trillion municipal market, bears the brunt of investor discord. The state sold $1.5 billion of bonds last week, paying 5.3 percent on the portion due in 30 years, up from 4.78 percent on similar securities issued a year ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Investors demand 23 basis points more in yield to own 30-year California general obligation bonds instead of top- rated debt than they did a year ago, Municipal Market Advisors says. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. ``There are some concerns on their budget, like a lot of municipalities right now,'' said Eric Boeckmann, a money manager at Chicago-based Northern Trust Co. Different Market While long-term debt costs are on the rise under Schwarzenegger, they're still less than they were under Davis, when investors demanded an average 44 basis points more yield than top-rated municipal debt to buy the state's 30-year bonds, according to Bloomberg and Municipal Market Advisors. That's cold comfort to Schwarzenegger as he faces higher costs to access money short term. ``There's no question that we're working in a totally different capital market,'' said H.D. Palmer, Schwarzenegger's finance spokesman. California's planned sale of $10 billion in revenue anticipation notes, used by governments to cover expenses until tax receipts arrive later in the year, would be the state's largest short-term loan since its borrowing in 2003. Yields on top-rated one-year municipal notes have climbed 85 basis points to 1.69 percent since June 2003, according to a Bond Buyer index. Under Davis Back then, Davis was removed from office following an unprecedented recall campaign. The state in 2002 had suffered its worst one-year decline in tax revenue since World War II as the economy slowed and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 23 percent. It didn't help Davis that voters were still blaming him for the state's 2000 and 2001 energy crisis, in which Enron Corp. and other energy traders were accused of gaming the state's partially deregulated grid by withholding power to create artificial shortages. That led to seven days of rolling blackouts and left taxpayers with $43 billion of long-term contracts to buy electricity at above-market prices. Under Schwarzenegger, a 60-year-old Republican, California began 2007 without a budget deficit for the first time in six years. By the end of the year, he was forced to declare a fiscal emergency . The state borrowed $7 billion through short-term notes last October . Three months later Schwarzenegger ordered mid-year budget cuts and $3.2 billion of further borrowing to plug a gap that swelled to $14 billion in one year. California may need letters of credit or other backing for its short-term loans from banks just as lenders are raising their fees and pulling back on their lending.

CALIFORNIA’S DEFICIT IS WIDENING Bloomberg, 08 (Bloomberg News , June 30, “California Under Schwarzenegger Underperforms Davis (Update2)” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afzm9oISTASQ&refer=home)

It costs California taxpayers more to borrow now than under former Governor Gray Davis, the man Arnold Schwarzenegger helped oust and succeeded in an unprecedented recall fueled by the state's sagging finances. As the most populous U.S. state, with a gross domestic product that's No. 8 in the world, California is so strapped for cash that it must consider a short-term, $10 billion loan to cover its bills. The widening deficit means the financing may be about 0.85 percentage point more expensive than five years ago , when Davis lost his job over a budget gap twice as large as the $17 billion deficit the state now faces. That's an added $8.5 million on every $1 billion borrowed. While banks also are charging as much as four times more for lines 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.''

70

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bill+Lockyer&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BBWK1YRN%3AIND

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Arnold+Schwarzenegger&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Gray+Davis&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SPX%3AIND

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=H.D.+Palmer&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AAAGOB30%3AIND

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Eric+Boeckmann&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FDDSSD%3AIND


NON-UNIQUE: CALIFORNIA DEFICIT HIGH

CALIFORNIA FACING HUGE DEFICITSGetty, senior staff member for a San Francisco tax attorney, 08 (Ron, June 30, “Fees, privatization would solve crisis” The Reporter, http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_9743105)California faces a $20 billion budget deficit, the result of politicians' erroneous financial assumptions, a housing market downturn with reduced property taxes, and a possible recession brought on by the federal government's inflationary monetary policy. California's government itself is a part of the deficit problem. It's a huge behemoth with 500 agencies, departments and divisions in eight broad categories. There are 345,000 state 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 CRISISGuardian, 08 (June 5, “International: Around the world” Lexis)

California crisisThe 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 Democrat-controlled 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 - CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY IS DOOMEDMike 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 California’s economy is considerably more gloomy, as the project’s analysts expect a “protracted recession.” That’s 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 nation’s 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 nation’s) 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 California’s 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 California’s negative economic indicators, “the elephant in the room” is the state’s $15 billion budget deficit, forecasters said. “Overall, California’s 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 budge t, and policymakers have no idea how to create one. We see little reason to be optimistic about California’s economy.” While the nation’s job market has grown, California’s has shrunk, and the project’s analysts said the state’s job growth is rapidly approaching zero. They noted retail sales have declined for eight consecutive quarters, “and there is no sign of a turnaround.” M edian 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 industryBut 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.

71


AT: X BILL SOLVES THE DEFICIT

SCHWARZENEGGER TALKS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY BUT CONTINUES TO SPENDNew, assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, 05 (Michael, June 15, “Spending Problem, Still”, Cato, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3938)

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.

72

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-454es.html


AT: TAX CUTS RESOLVE THE DEFICIT

TAX CUTS WON’T FIX THE DEFICIT – THEY FAIL TO ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.Anthony Adams 6 – 29 – 08. Anthony Adams is a writer for the San Bernardino Sun. “Raising taxes not way to fix deficit” The Sun, http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_9738781

Recently, Assembly Democrats unveiled their proposal to tackle the state's multi-billion dollar budget deficit, and it's bad news for California taxpayers. Rather than taking steps to cut wasteful spending and help the state to live within its means, their plan punishes taxpayers with a $6.4 billion tax increase. Their plan also includes more borrowing and billions in higher spending we can't afford. Even as we are facing a budget crisis, they would grow government by nearly 3 percent and spend nearly $3 billion over last year. Democrats talk about wanting to close "loopholes and tax breaks," but they fail to specify whose taxes they would raise and by how much. Earlier this year, some suggested taking away the senior citizen tax credit (a $255 million tax increase) and reducing the child dependent tax credit (a $2.4 billion tax increase). Democrats have also proposed eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, which many homeowners take advantage of every year. That would be a $5.3 billion tax hike on California homeowners. This is in addition to the more than $30 billion in higher taxes Democrats have already proposed this year, such as raising the car tax, imposing new taxes for grocery store bags and increasing the sales tax. The budget proposal put forward by Democrats fails to address the root of our problems - overspending. With the state continually spending more money than it takes in, it is clear that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. In fact, over the last four years revenues have grown by 40 percent, but spending has risen by 44 percent over that same time period. With the prices of food and gas going up, most families are struggling to pay the bills and are worried about their jobs and the economy. Raising taxes will merely add to that burden by delaying our economic recovery and killing jobs. Californians pay more than enough in taxes and deserve a break. It's time for real leadership that offers responsible solutions to our budget problems. That's why in the past few months, my Assembly Republican colleagues and I have introduced ideas that will jump start our economy and reform the way government operates. We have introduced education reforms that will give local schools more flexibility to spend their existing funds and government reforms that make the most out of every taxpayer dollar. Unfortunately, our Democrat colleagues have rejected our common-sense ideas. Despite that, we will continue to push for these reforms as we work to balance the budget and eliminate our multi-billion dollar deficit once and for all. The answer to our state's budget crisis is not tax increases. The time is now to control the growth of government and get spending under control. Our state government spends way too much and wastes way too much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make the tough, but necessary choices needed to resolve our budget crisis without raising taxes on hard-working Californians.

73

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_9738781


STATES COST EFFECTIVE

**Read a federal spending da and use this comparative evidence to win a link differential. So you can make the debate not only a question of if state or federal deficits are more damaging to the economy by adding the link dimension**

STATES MORE COST EFFECTIVE 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) There is empirical evidence that, at least in some areas, state regulation may do a better job of addressing local environmental concerns in a cost-effective manner. Several states clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites at lower cost and more rapidly than the federal Superfund program. n148 Similarly, federal regulations may hinder the adoption of more effective pollution control or resource conservation strategies, and state policy-makers may be more sensitive to such concerns. The federal CAA requires many states to adopt suboptimal pollution control strategies when equally stringent--but differently targeted--measures would produce better results. n149 In the wetlands context, states took the lead in evaluating wetland functions and incorporating the ecological value of particular wetlands into the regulatory process when there was no evidence that similar considerations entered the federal permitting process. n150 In other words, [*108] at a given level of stringency, some states were beginning to incorporate ecological considerations so as to maximize the environmental value of regulations on wetland development when the federal government was doing no such thing.

COMPARATIVE LINK DIFFERENTIAL – STATE REGULATIONS COST SUBSTANTIALLY LESS 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) There are several factors that may cause state-level environmental regulations to be more cost-effective, or otherwise qualitatively superior, than federal regulations of equivalent cost or scope. n144 First, and perhaps most important, state policy-makers and regulators may have access to [*107] knowledge of local problems and conditions. n145 Consideration of such knowledge in the development and implementation of state regulatory programs may increase the protectiveness of existing programs without increasing their cost or scope. Second, state policy-makers, because they are closer both to the environmental problems they seek to address and the regulated community, may be more responsive to local needs and concerns. Third, insofar as environmental problems vary from place to place, state policy-makers may be able to focus state resources on environmental problems that exist in a given state. Federal standards, on the other hand, tend to impose broad one-size-fits-all requirements that, in actuality, often fit no state particularly well. n146 A regulatory requirement that makes perfect sense in one state may not provide much environmental protection in another. Fourth, the existence of a federal standard may inhibit the ability of (or incentive for) state policy-makers to innovate or experiment with different approaches to meeting a given environmental goal. n147

74

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.511255.98477628967&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1214593074266&returnToKey=20_T4054175409&parent=docview#n147








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

FEDERAL REGULATIONS CROWD OUT STATE POLICY—PLAN NET COUNTER PRODUCTIVE 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 action may indirectly encourage greater state regulatory activity, federal action may discourage state regulatory action. This can occur in at least two ways. First, the adoption of a federal regulatory standard may "signal" that more stringent state regulations are unnecessary. In effect, the federal standard may be seen as evidence that a given level of regulatory protection is sufficient to safeguard relevant public interests, and more stringent measures are unnecessary. As a result, the adoption of a federal regulation may induce state policy-makers to adopt comparable state protections. In addition, the adoption of a federal regulation may crowd out state regulatory measures by reducing the net benefits of additional state measures. As a result, the existence of federal regulation may discourage the adoption of additional state-level regulatory protections in the future. The potential for federal regulatory measures to reduce the level of state regulatory activity is significant because it challenges the prevailing assumption that the adoption of a federal regulatory standard raises, or at least maintains, the aggregate level of protection nationwide. n116 Many environmental analysts, for example, suggest that the federal government should adopt a regulatory floor, but allow states to implement federal standards and adopt more stringent measures of their own. n117 The general belief is that this will maximize the extent of environmental protection. Yet if the adoption of federal regulatory standards can induce states to adopt less protective environmental measures than they would otherwise have adopted, the net benefits of a federal floor will be less than traditionally assumed, and in some states it will actually result in a net reduction in the aggregate level of environmental protection. Indeed, it is possible that the net result of a federal regulatory floor, over time, could be the maintenance of lower levels of environmental protection than would otherwise have been adopted. Even if such effects are unlikely, federal policy-makers should consider these possibilities when assessing the likely costs and benefits of federal action.

75






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 STATES—REDUCES 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 state-level 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…]

76











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]

77

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/attachRetrieve.do?csi=143843&A=0.7786773699283792&risb=21_T4054173140&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&smi=15125&componentseq=1&key=93260415102b&alt=&type=image



AT: CONGRESSIONAL CIRCUMVENTION

FIAT ENSURES NO ROLLBACK FROM ANY BRANCH. ITS JUSTIFIED –A) RECIPROCAL – LEGISLATION CAN BE OVER TURNED BY CONGRESS, THE COURT, OR NOT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT – OUR FIAT IS NO DIFFERENT AND IS KEY TO FAIR GROUND.B) GROUND – DURABLE FIAT ENSURES THE AFF DOESN’T LOSE SOLVENCY ON BACKLASH AND ENSURES NEGATIVE DISAD GROUND.C) EDUCATION – IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO DEBATE ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN INSTEAD OF WHAT HAPPENS NOWTHIS HURTS THE AFF – IF THE PLAN IS INHERENT, IT’D GET ROLLED BACK TOO AND YOU SHOULD VOTE NEGATIVE ON PRESUMPTION

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 states—including 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).

MASS V EPA PREVENTS FEDERAL CIRCUMVENTION 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) The federal government’s failure to take significant action has not been due to any desire to allow states to pursue independent action without federal interference. But the states have responded to climate change because they believe their shorelines, water resources, key industries, and people are at risk. Much of what the states have done, moreover, falls squarely within their traditional police power roles, including public health and safety protection and regulation of land use. Massachusetts and other states challenged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, precisely because they saw themselves and their citizens as threatened by rising sea levels from global warming. In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007), the Supreme Court decided that EPA’s decision not to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act was arbitrary and capricious. The Court also held that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As a consequence, the Clean Air, which provides a significant role for states, is now a likely vehicle (in its current or in amended form) for greenhouse gas regulation. The Act provides federal floors in the form of national technology -based standards under section 202 and 111, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411 & 7521, and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under section 109, 42 U.S.C. § 7409. But it preserves a significant role for state involvement by requiring states to develop state implementation plans that provide “for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the NAAQS under section 110, 42 U.S.C. § 7410.

78


AT: CONGRESSIONAL CIRCUMVENTION

CONGRESS WON’T ROLLBACK STATE ACTION --- EVEN WHEN CONTROVERSIALGoldsmith ’97 (Jack, Associate Prof – U Chicago, Virginia Law Review, November, Lexis)The rise in subnational foreign relations activity tells us little, of course, about the activity's normative desirability. But we should also avoid the automatic assumption that this development is normatively undesirable. This is especially true because the federal political branches have made clear that, in contrast to traditional foreign relations activities which largely have been federalized through statute and treaty, they do not always, or even usually, prefer federal regulation of these new foreign relations issues. The recent increase in state and local involvement in such issues "has occasioned little reaction from Congress or the Executive." 232 And when the political branches do react, they often choose to protect state interests over foreign relations interests when the two appear to clash. A good example is the United States' recent ratification of a variety of international human rights treaties. 233 These treaties create numerous potential [*1675] conflicts with state law. 234 In the face of international pressure, the President and Senate have consistently attached reservations, understandings, and declarations to these treaties to ensure that they do not preempt or affect inconsistent state law. 235 Similarly, California's worldwide unitary tax on multinational corporations has provoked enormous diplomatic controversy with our closest trading partners since the 1980s. 236 The President negotiated a treaty that would have preempted this law, but the Senate withheld its consent. 237 And in the face of substantial pressure from foreign governments, Congress consistently failed to enact legislation preempting the unitary tax. 238

EVEN IF THERE’S PREEMPTION, IT DOESN’T TAKE OUT SOLVENCYGoldsmith ‘97 (Jack, Associate Prof – U Chicago, Virginia Law Review, November, Lexis)

Even when the political branches enact preemptive federal foreign relations law, they often do so in a manner that reflects the interests of the states and minimizes intrusion on their prerogatives. When Congress codified the international law standards for determinations of foreign sovereign immunity, it ensured that otherwise-applicable state law would continue to govern the merits of such suits. 239 Similarly, in federal implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT"), "political sensitiv- [*1676] ity to state sensibilities were [sic] reflected in several ways." 240 Most significantly, the legislation "precluded the agreements from having any direct effect, and indeed required an action by the United States Government for the purpose of striking down a state law." 241 In addition, the federal government has actively cooperated with and supported the unilateral state economic activities described above. 242 The overtly political international activities of states, such as nuclear-free ordinances and state divestment movements, are more controversial. For example, Congress by statute overruled several governors' resistance to allowing the participation of national guard troops in Central American military activities in the mid-1980s. 243 But Congress declined to preempt the most notorious recent state foreign relations activity - state sanctions against South Africa - when it enacted the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, 244 and Massachusetts's recent sanctions against Myanmar 245 soon led to similar sanctions by the federal government. 246

79

http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=30e57da0c4e98dad4748fc94bcd482ae&csvc=bl&cform=bool&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAW&_md5=4c3bbc49db3765e390d1f2e67acc99c4#n246
















AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN - DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE

FIAT ENSURES NO ROLLBACK FROM ANY BRANCH. ITS JUSTIFIED –A) RECIPROCAL – LEGISLATION CAN BE OVER TURNED BY CONGRESS, THE COURT, OR NOT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT – OUR FIAT IS NO DIFFERENT AND IS KEY TO FAIR GROUND.B) GROUND – DURABLE FIAT ENSURES THE AFF DOESN’T LOSE SOLVENCY ON BACKLASH AND ENSURES NEGATIVE DISAD GROUND.C) EDUCATION – IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO DEBATE ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN INSTEAD OF WHAT HAPPENS NOWTHIS HURTS THE AFF – IF THE PLAN IS INHERENT, IT’D GET ROLLED BACK TOO AND YOU SHOULD VOTE NEGATIVE ON PRESUMPTION.

UNIFORM FIAT TAKES OUT THE LINK —NO GEOGRAPHIC DISCRIMINATION Ferrey, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School, 06 (Steven, “Renewable Orphans: Adopting Legal Renewable Standards at the State Level”, The Electricity Journal, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSS-4J624J6-2&_user=99318&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000007678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=99318&md5=01efaa0ccfafa276d7c2267f3f3bfa92) IV. Techniques Legally Delegated or Reserved to the States There are a variety of techniques that states can employ to encourage use of renewable resources. What states may do becomes critical now that the only major energy legislation to pass at the federal level does not contain provisions on RPS, renewable trust funds, or net metering. The application of those techniques by a state must be accomplished by means that do not conflict with the federal constitutional or statutory limits. Three principles apply: First, any such techniques must not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, regulation that limits the location of certain electricity-producing facilities, as several state schemes now do de jure or in application, violate the Commerce Clause by raising funds by wholesale surcharges or taxes and then discriminating against interstate commerce by funding only in-state projects. Second, state techniques that impose above-market pricing for wholesale power transactions cross the boundary of permissible state authority. In a deregulated environment, most supplies of renewable energy will pass through a wholesale transaction initially. Where the state attempts to regulate that wholesale transaction either directly or indirectly, without a specific delegation of federal authority to the state as occurs under PURPA,43 or with net metering,44 its actions are illegal. States cannot reach back ‘‘upstream’’ to control the wholesale transaction in any way when they regulate, except under federal authority delegated to the states under PURPA or the Federal Power Act.45 Given these principles, what techniques to promote renewable energy remain within state authority in a deregulated market? Several, if executed pursuant to otherwise proper state authority, should be legally permissible: _ Non-discriminatory system benefit charges and renewable trust funds; _ Voluntary ‘‘green power’’ marketing; _ Renewable portfolio standards for retailers of power that do not arbitrarily restrict by geography the loci of renewable power (although requirements that the power actually be delivered in the state or RTO should be permissible); _ Segmentation of the market into renewable and nonrenewable retail supply requirements; _ Distribution service pricing to reflect renewable distribution savings or the distributed utility concept; _ Generator dispatch or transmission requirements that reflect renewable resources attributes; _ A non-profit, quasi-public renewable energy corporation (so-called ‘‘cleancos’’) employing an independent funding source unrelated to retail rates; _ Expedited state regulatory approval or removal of financial, siting, interconnection, or other market barriers for renewable projects; _ Voluntary state partnering with federal programs to leverage funds or opportunity; _ The promulgation and application of efficiency standards for appliances or buildings; and _ State tax incentives for renewable power generation provided from general state revenues. To keep making progress on renewable energy deployment, state incentives must be structured to comply with constitutional requirements. While states can experiment, and indeed have taken the lead on renewable policy initiatives, the programs must be carefully sculpted within the legal parameters of the dormant Commerce Clause. As long as renewable energy portfolio requirements are not discriminatory based on point of origin of the power, they could be legitimate conditions on licensure of participants in the local retail market.

80

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSS-4J624J6-2&_user=99318&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000007678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=99318&md5=01efaa0ccfafa276d7c2267f3f3bfa92




AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN - DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE

NO LINK—DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ONLY TRIGGERED BY GEOGRAPHIC DISCRIMINATIONFerrey, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School, 06 (Steven, “Renewable Orphans: Adopting Legal Renewable Standards at the State Level”, The Electricity Journal, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSS-4J624J6-2&_user=99318&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000007678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=99318&md5=01efaa0ccfafa276d7c2267f3f3bfa92)

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.

81





AT: Court Strike Down- Compact Clause


COUNTERPLAN WILL NOT BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE- DOES NOT THREATEN THE SUPREMACY OF THE USHuffman 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 ClauseThe 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.

82

http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/


AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- SUPREMACY CLAUSE


UNLESS THE AFF WANTS TO CONCEDE INHERENCY THE COUNTERPLAN WILL NOT BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSEORTHE COURT WILL ONLY STRIKE DOWN STATE LAWS IF THERE ARE SIMILAR FEDERAL PROGRAMS ON THE BOOKSHuffman 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 & FeldLLP, 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/)

Supremacy ClauseThe Supremacy Clause, Article VI, cl. 2, defines the Constitution and laws made “in Pursuance thereof” as “the supreme Law of the Land[.]”59 This provision allows federal law to preempt state law in certain circumstances. “Even without an express provision for preemption, we have found that state law must yield to a congressional Act in at least two circumstances,” the Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Locke.60 “When Congress intends federal law to ‘occupy the field,’ state law in that area is preempted. And even if Congress has not occupied the field, state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.”61 A presumption of non-preemption arises in disputes involving the traditional police powers of the states; despite the presumption, even the police powers will yield when Congress clearly intends to supersede state law.62 In addition, when there is a history of significant federal presence in the area of regulation, there is no presumption of state law validity.63 With a cap-and-trade system, the question is whether any federal law creates a conflict or if the federal government otherwise occupies the field. At this point, Congress has not passed any legislation that would present a direct conflict with a multistate cap-and-trade system. Indeed, the federal government has been remarkably absent from the field of greenhouse gas regulation in general. In the wake of Massachusetts v. EPA,64 the federal government’s inaction becomes even more stark. The Court noted that “EPA has not identified any Congressional action that conflicts in any way with the regulation of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles.”65 Although issued in the context of federal regulations rather than state statutes, the point is the same: the federal government has not taken efforts to regulate GHG emissions. Massachusetts v. EPA held that EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions from automobiles because they fit within the statutory definition of “air pollutant” under § 202(a) (1).66 The case was remanded to the EPA for the agency to either make a finding of endangerment and regulate auto emissions or provide a reasoned judgment as to why GHGs do not contribute to global warming and can thus escape regulation.67 Even if the EPA decides to regulate GHG emissions from autos, that would not necessarily provide a conflict for a capand- trade program. Most proposals for cap-and-trade programs only regulate tailpipe emissions indirectly. If they capture the transportation sector, it is done upstream through regulating the fuel industry, rather than limiting actual vehicle emissions. As a result, it is unlikely that any forthcoming rule stemming from Massachusetts v. EPA would preempt state cap-and-trade initiatives. The best case for federal preemption would arise if the federal government instituted a similar cap-and-trade system or other form of comprehensive carbon emissions regulation. Any program that created a 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.

83


AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- FOREIGN INTERVENTION


NO LINK- LACK OF CURRENT FEDERAL POLICY MEANS COURT WILL NOT FIND FOREIGN INVENTIONHuffman 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/)

Interference with Foreign AffairsThe power to conduct foreign affairs is vested exclusively in the federal government. Aspects of the power are constitutionally divided between the President in Article II (e.g., power to make treaties) and the Congress in Article I (e.g., power to raise an army, declare war). States do not play a role in foreign affairs, as it is important for the federal government to be able to speak with one voice on behalf of the national interest for matters involving foreign affairs. Generally, the only cases where courts have struck down laws as interfering with foreign affairs power are “state or local laws purporting to set up their own authorities as mini-state departments, with power to oversee and either approve or disapprove foreign regimes or the negotiation efforts of the U.S. Executive Branch[.]”78 In Zschernig v. Miller,79 the Supreme Court invalidated an Oregon law that prevented a nonresident alien from inheriting property unless certain conditions were met—primarily, a reciprocal right for Americans in the alien’s country and the assurance that any property received in Oregon would not be confiscated at home. Noting that states are the typical forum for probate matters, the Court still found the law problematic. “The several States, of course, have traditionally regulated the descent and distribution of estates. But those regulations must give way if they impair the effective exercise of the Nation’s foreign policy.” 80 Zschernig involved a citizen of East Germany, a country with which the United States had no treaties regarding inheritance. Regardless, “even in absence of a treaty, a State’s policy may disturb foreign relations.” 81 Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council 82 is the first in a line of recent foreign affairs cases that focus on state attempts to limit contact with foreign countries. The Crosby court heard a challenge to a Massachusetts law that prohibited state entities from buying goods or services from companies doing business with Burma.83 At the time the law was passed, there was no similar federal prohibition, although a federal law providing for sanctions on Burma was enacted a few months later. Although the Court spoke specifically of the Supremacy Clause, the decision’s rationale focused heavily on how the Massachusetts law tied the President’s hands and thus reduced his leverage against Burma. We need not get into any general consideration of limits of state action affecting foreign affairs to realize that the President’s maximum power to persuade rests on his capacity to bargain for the benefits of access to the entire national economy without exception for enclaves fenced off willy-nilly by inconsistent political tactics.84 The Crosby reasoning was followed recently in an Illinois case.85 The district court there looked at an Illinois law that regulated contact with and investment in Sudan and determined that the state law was unconstitutional, based primarily on Supremacy Clause grounds. There was, however, extensive discussion of the foreign affairs powers in the decision. Understanding that the federal government has a unique and exclusive role in carrying out the country’s foreign policy, the court noted that “the degree of impact a state law has or might have on the national government’s conduct of foreign affairs is the relevant inquiry.”86 In National Foreign Trade Council v. Giannoulias, requiring pension funds to divest from Sudan, while potentially raising difficulties for the fund managers, did not interfere with the federal government’s authority to conduct foreign affairs.87 The Giannoulias ruling also contains dicta that is supportive of state efforts to reach non-discriminatory agreements with foreign entities: the court indicates that “it does not appear that state and local governments are prohibited from entering into ‘sister state’ agreements or other bilateral agreements with subnational foreign governments or foreign trade associations.”88

[Continued…]

84


AT: COURT STRIKE DOWN- FOREIGN INTERVENTION

[Continued…]

Finally, in American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi,89 the Supreme Court extended the ruling in Crosby to areas where there was no explicit federal statute, but merely executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign states. Garamendi involved a California law requiring any insurer in the state to disclose information about all policies sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945. This was seen as a way of ensuring that claims belonging to Holocaust victims were paid to any survivors and their heirs living in California. President Clinton, however, had made executive agreements with Germany, Austria, and France so that all claims against German insurance companies relating to the Holocaust would be heard by an international commission established for that purpose.90 The Court noted that the President has considerable authority in the area of foreign relations and can act independently of Congress. “While Congress holds express authority to regulate public and private dealings with other nations in its war and foreign commerce powers, in foreign affairs the President has a degree of independent authority to act.” 91 Thus, congressional silence does not undermine the executive agreements, which can, even without an explicit conflict, preempt state laws. Garamendi was a 5-4 decision, with Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor in the majority. Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, which was joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas, focused on whether there was an explicit conflict between the executive agreement and the state law. Without such a conflict the dissenting Justices would not allow an executive agreement to preempt a state law. Justice Ginsburg also noted that “the notion of ‘dormant foreign affairs preemption’ with which Zschernig is associated resonates most audibly when a state action ‘reflects a state policy critical of foreign governments and involves ‘sitting in judgment’ on them.’”92 Applying the case law above to a scenario in which states attempted to link to a foreign trading system, the lack of a coherent federal policy on GHG regulation at this point strongly points to the constitutionality of such a linkage. The biggest potential problem would occur if there is federal legislation that makes mention of international linkages, or if the President makes clear statements concerning national priorities for GHG regulation that conflict with linking domestic trading systems with their international counterparts. Perhaps just as important, any attempt to link to foreign emissions trading systems will be viewed very differently from the Crosby and Giannoulias cases. States attempting linkages will not be disparaging or otherwise passing negative judgment on foreign parties, as occurred in those cases involving state laws prohibiting or restricting commerce with rogue nations. Without that factor, it is difficult to imagine how courts could find any sort of interference with America’s foreign policy prerogatives. Thus, cap-and-trade system linkages are likely permissible overtures to international partners, particularly if the federal government still has not undertaken a comprehensive scheme of carbon regulation.

85


AT: STATES RACIST

DOUBLE-BIND --- EITHER THERE’S NO LINK BECAUSE THE ONLY ACTION THE CP TAKES IS THE PLAN AND THAT ISN’T RACIST OR THIS LINKS TO THE AFF TOO BECAUSE THEY ENACT THE SAME PLAN ---- THERE’S NO WAY THE STATES COULD SPIN IT IN A RACIST MANNER

NON-UNIQUE ---- THEIR EVIDENCE IS JUST DESCRIPTIVE OF THE STATUS QUO ---- STATE POLICIES OCCUR EXTREMELY FREQUENTLY, SO RACISM IS ALREADY ENTRENCHED NOW

CLAIMS OF STATE RACISM ARE A MYTH ---- COURTS WILL BLOCKTimothy Zizk, William and Mary Law Review, Oct 2004 v46 i1 p213(131) Statehood as the new personhood: the discovery of fundamental "states' rights".

Perhaps it was not institutional incompetence or necessity that led the Garcia Court to purport to leave the federalism area, and that has led the Court more generally to avoid, at least until recently, an expansive rights regime for states. Perhaps, as Baker and Young contend, individual rights like abortion and sexual privacy are simply "normatively more attractive than states' rights." After all, the phrase "states' rights," for many, conjures a host of negative associations, including, for some, virulent racism. It is possible, therefore, that the Court, and many scholars as well, have been "read[ing] particular values out of the Constitution simply because popular opinion at a given point in history finds them normatively unattractive." This proposition cannot, of course, be tested empirically. There may indeed have been some residual judicial ill will toward "states' rights" due to its association with bad actors, both public and private, in our nation's past. It seems unlikely, however, that in 1985, when Garcia was decided, the Court rested its decision to curtail fundamental "states' rights" federalism on these sorts of negative associations. It probably gives too little credit to the Court, and to scholars, to suggest that modes of judicial enforcement or scholarly support are based primarily upon "changing normative preferences" or mere popularity. Even if one is not willing to give judges and scholars such credit, it is surely a stretch to paint the "states' rights" of National League of Cities with the same brush as the old "states' rights" of segregationists. The "states' rights" of what might be considered the modern era--freedom from federal wages and hours regulations, for example--are hardly the sort that invoke segregationist ghosts.

86


AT: RACE TO THE BOTTOM

ENVIORMENTAL REGULATIONS ALMONG STATES RAISE THE BAR ON TECHNOLOGYBarry Rabe (Professor of Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy; Professor of Environmental Policy, School of Natural Resources and Environment; and Faculty Associate, Program in the Environment. University of Michigan, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top) 2006

First, states over time have increasingly tended to elevate the bar for the amount of electricity required + by an RPS (see Table 1). While all maintain some phase-in policy over a specified period of time, the end target date tends to feature increasingly high levels of renewables. Many of the earlier programs set relatively low targets for renewables; the 1991 Iowa law set a standard that would reach approximately two percent by the end of that decade and Wisconsin’s 1999 law established a 2.2 percent standard by 2011. More recent RPS enactment has tended toward more ambitious levels, consistently in double-digits and as high as 33 percent by 2020 in California and 25 percent by 2013 in New York. In many respects, this resembles a multistate “race-to-the-top,” whereby many states are committing to future renewable energy levels that seemed inconceivable a half-decade ago. Second, state RPS programs are increasingly complemented by other state-launched initiatives to promote renewable energy as well as energy efficiency. Virtually every state has made some commitment to fostering renewable energy and, in some instances, these programs may create incentives for potential generators that will ease compliance with RPS standards. New Jersey, for example, has an RPS that reaches 6.5 percent renewable generation by 2008, and 20 percent by 2020. The state supplements its RPS with a “renewable energy fund” that is designed to encourage investment in renewables and is further supported by other incentive and regulatory programs that mandate expanded use of renewables in government buildings (Rabe 2004). However,some states, such as Connecticut, have reallocated these funds away from their intended purposes toward other state policy goals amid state fiscal pressures. Such reallocations leave some question as to their long-term availability for renewable energy promotion.

FOR THE LAST 5 DECADES NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN EVERY MARKET IN AMERICA HAS BEEN A RACE TO THE TOPEdward 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=3286Investment 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.

87

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=3286

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Want-American-Liberalism-Economy/dp/1933368624/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195658211&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Want-American-Liberalism-Economy/dp/1933368624/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195658211&sr=8-2

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top



“RACE TO THE BOTTOM” ARGUMENTS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR HAVE NO THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONDavid Schoenbrod, professor of law at New York Law School and former-senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cato Institute, “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards.” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html, 2001.

Professor Wiebe’s description of the national class is not the same as how the national class defines itself, for such aristocratic pretensions are hardly compatible with its self-image of reasoned tolerance. So each one of its institutional innovations for blunting popular control of policy issues comes with a set of less-aristocraticsounding rationales. In the case of the national takeover of environmental policy, the rationale was that states would not make good decisions on intrastate pollution because, in competing to lure employers, each state would set ever lower environmental standards, so all states would end up with the poorest possible environmental standards—a "race-to-the-bottom" argument. It is true that a state is likely to set lower environmental standards than it otherwise might in order to attract industry from other states. But sellers of goods set prices lower than they otherwise might to attract customers. The question is, why isn’t such competition between states, as with sellers, a good thing? In the early days of the New Deal, many policymakers believed that competition among sellers was inherently disastrous because sellers would engage in a race-to-the-bottom price that would lead most of them to bankruptcy. This thinking resulted in the New Dealers’ attempts to control all prices. Soon, however, economists showed that price competition does not lead to a race to the bottom, except in rare circumstances. The proponents of a national takeover of environmental regulation never thought much about what conditions would be necessary to produce a race to the bottom among states regulating pollution. They knew that there was a race to the bottom because they wanted more stringent regulations, and they knew themselves to be reasonable. Professor Richard Revesz of the New York University School of Law concluded that "race-to-the-bottom arguments in the environmental area have been made for the last two decades with essentially no theoretical foundation." Revesz has not proven that there never could be a race to the bottom, but he has shown that it was not the real reason for the national takeover. The clincher is that the national government has taken control of many environmental issues for which a race to the bottom is impossible because the facility in question is not portable—for example, abandoned waste sites.

STATES WOULD “RACE TO THE TOP”David Schoenbrod, professor of law at New York Law School and former-senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cato Institute, “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards.” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html, 2001.

The race-to-the-bottom argument does not justify the continued national control of intrastate pollution. The argument focuses upon just one determinant of state environmental policy—the competition to attract employers—ignoring other determinants such as the competition to avoid pollution, which goes by the name NIMBY—that is, "not in my back yard." NIMBY is a race to the top. The national class deplores both race to the bottom and NIMBY. In one thing it is constant: people like themselves should shoulder the experts’ burden of supplanting the decisions of the communities affected. Moreover, the logic of the race-to-the-bottom argument suggests that all aspects of state and local government that would tend to affect industrial location should be taken over by a government with broader jurisdiction and, in an increasingly global economy, that government should be international in scope. This is an argument for the nascent "international class." Even if enough scholars could torture economic models long enough to produce some set of assumptions under which there would be a tendency towards a race to the bottom, it is implausible that its impact would be sufficient to offset the benefits of getting rid of the federal chain of command.

88

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html



STATES TRY AND OUT DO EACHOTHER ON ENVIORMENTAL LEGESTLATION TO CREATE MORE JOBS AND ELECTRICITY Barry Rabe (Professor of Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy; Professor of Environmental Policy, School of Natural Resources and Environment; and Faculty Associate, Program in the Environment. University of Michigan) 2006 http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top

The continued proliferation of state RPSs and the decision in many states to establish second-generation policies illustrate that these policies tend to draw a fairly broad base of political support that often crosses partisan lines. States are compelled to enact or expand RPSs for multiple reasons, and greenhouse gas emissions may or may not be central factors in prompting adoption. Instead, states consistently anticipate significant economic development benefits from promoting renewables, particularly given the promise of developing home-grown energy sources that could lead to instate job creation. In turn, states are also attracted + to RPSs by the prospect of greater reliability of electricity supply in coming decades and the prospect of reducing conventional air pollutants through a shift toward expanded use of renewables. Virtually all state RPSs make some use of flexible compliance mechanisms, including tradable renewable energy credits, although there is some inter-state variation in defining what constitutes a renewable energy source.

89

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top


2NC: 50 STATE FIAT

OFFENSEA) INCREASES AFF GROUND --- THEY CAN READ MULTIPLE DISADS TO STATE ACTIONB) INCREASES EDUCATION --- ALLOWS DEBATE ABOUT MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL POLITICSC) STATES CP IS A KEY TEST IN THE CONTEXT OF ENERGY POLICY -- KEY FOR POLICYMAKING AND EDUCATIONDavid Brakke, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics at James Madison University, “Federalism,” Association of Women in Science Magazine, Vol 30, No 1, 2001 (http://csm.jmu.edu/brakke/Asset/Publications/AWIS_columns/Federalism_/federalism_.html)As we approach the 250th anniversary of the birth of James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution, it is fitting to discuss federalism in relation to science, policy, and resource management in the 21st Century. Madison was a brilliant man of ideas and ideals, and federalism is sound in principle. However, it can be a messy construct in practice, and particularly difficult to balance with state's rights. This is especially apparent in applications to energy policy and sustainable resource management. Issues of federalism and state's rights are central to the ability of science to inform environmental decisions at the regional and national level. D) KEY TO TEST THE PHRASE “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” IN THE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS A CENTRAL ISSUEColumbia Encyclopedia ’01 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f/federalg.asp)FEDERAL GOVERNMENT [federal government] or federation, government of a union of states in which sovereignty is divided between a central authority and component state authorities. A federation differs from a confederation in that the central power acts directly upon individuals as well as upon states, thus creating the problem of dual allegiance. Substantial power over matters affecting the people as a whole, such as external affairs, commerce, coinage, and the maintenance of military forces, are usually granted to the central government. Nevertheless, retention of jurisdiction over local affairs by states is compatible with the federal system and makes allowance for local feelings. The chief political problem of a federal system of government is likely to be the allocation of sovereignty, because the need for unity among the federating states may conflict with their desire for autonomy.E) CHECKS TOPIC EXPLOSION --- THE STATES COUNTERPLAN FORCES “FEDERAL KEY WARRANTS” TO EXIST BEFORE MANY AFFS BECOME POPULAR, ACTING AS A TOPICALITY-LIKE LIMIT ON RESEARCH

DEFENSE A) LITERATURE CHECKS. 1NC EVIDENCE PROVES STATES CAN DO THE PLAN, PROVING ITS BOTH A NECESSARY TEST OF THE AFF AND PREDICTABLEB) RECIPROCAL ---

1) THE AFF USES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS THOUSANDS OF ACTORS2) THEY FIAT STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT --- AND IF NOT, THE PLAN WOULD BE ROLLED BACK

C) NO ABUSE --- THE COUNTERPLAN FIATS ALL STATE IN UNISON, WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY 1 ACTORD) FEDERAL KEY WARRANTS CHECK --- THEY’RE EASY TO FIND AND BEAT THE COUNTERPLAN REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY ACTORS IT FIATS

E) ITS REAL WORLD – THE NCCUSL PROVESPryor ’01 (C. Scott, Associate Prof – Regent U. School of Law, American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, Spring) NCCUSL is a national organization of practicing lawyers, judges, law professors, and others appointed by the governors of each of the states. NCCUSL drafts uniform laws in various fields and then proposes them to the various state legislatures for adoption. See Edward J. Janger, Predicting When the Uniform Law Process Will Fail: Article 9, Capture, and the Race to the Bottom, 83 IOWA L. REV. 569, 586 (1998) (describing problem of "capture" in drafting process); Alan Schwartz & Robert E. Scott, The Political Economy of Private Legislatures, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 595, 651 (1995) (stating that problems stemming from reliance on "ill-informed generalists" and influence of interest groups may be unavoidable for any official organization whose goal is to foster uniformity of state laws).

REJECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM2AC: CALIFORNIA BUDGET DA (GOP IN/L)

CP GENERATES MASSIVE GOP BACKLASH PREVENTING PASSAGE OF THE CALIFORNIAN BUDGETLa Times, 08 (June 16, “State budget crisis boosts GOP clout; Republicans want to reverse environment and workplace rules as Democrats seek their votes to fix the crunch.” Lexis)

90

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=ac2dac45d495ec7cbf7fbf59a67dee2c&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B9%20Am.%20Bankr.%20Inst.%20L.%20Rev.%20229%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=348&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B143%20U.%20Pa.%20L.%20Rev.%20595%2Cat%20651%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=33&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAW&_md5=5c9e91cdef8e27e492ff10431016c269

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=ac2dac45d495ec7cbf7fbf59a67dee2c&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B9%20Am.%20Bankr.%20Inst.%20L.%20Rev.%20229%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=347&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B83%20Iowa%20L.%20Rev.%20569%2Cat%20586%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=33&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAW&_md5=ffae86c2bab38023e1ae756e5f1f7188

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=ac2dac45d495ec7cbf7fbf59a67dee2c&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B9%20Am.%20Bankr.%20Inst.%20L.%20Rev.%20229%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=347&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B83%20Iowa%20L.%20Rev.%20569%2Cat%20586%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=33&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAW&_md5=ffae86c2bab38023e1ae756e5f1f7188


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 (R-Lancaster). "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."

2AC: CALIFORNIA BUDGET DA (GOP IN/L)

THAT COLLAPSES CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMYABC , 08 (ABC7, July 1, “Late budget could have consequences” http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6238680

A new budget year in California began at midnight - the only problem: we don't actually have a new budget. It's the same old problem but this year it could have new and dire consequences for the state's finances. Because the economy is so bad for everyone that the financial crutches the state normally uses to get by without a budget are shaky this year at best. California's budget is $15.2 billion in

91


the red. Democrats want to fix that 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 SPENDING—CP PUSHES THE STATE INTO A FISCAL CRISISKarasmeighan, 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.

CALIFORNIAN RECESSION DEVASTATES THE US ECONOMY James Saft, Reuters, May 15th, 2008Californians leading the way to consumer bust, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/business/rtrcol16.php

LONDON: As it did when the housing bubble began to burst, California is leading the way in the next leg: a consumer bust. Squeezed by rising unemployment, inflation in food and energy costs and plunging home values, Californians are cutting back on spending. Besides causing woes for state and local government, the cutback is giving California's economy another knock and makes further job losses, home repossessions and banking problems more likely. The figures are pretty bad . The median home price has fallen by 29 percent in the year to March, according to the California Association of Realtors, and repossessions are increasing. Unemployment hit 6.2 percent in March, up 1.2 percentage points from the same month last year. But most important, in the 10 months to the end of April, sales tax receipts in California are actually down in absolute terms. Gasoline tax receipts are essentially flat. When you factor in that there would have been considerable

Continued…

92

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/business/rtrcol16.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/business/rtrcol16.php


2AC: CALIFORNIA BUDGET DA (GOP IN/L)

Continued…inflation during the period, and that some essentials like gasoline would have risen sharply in cost, the picture is clear: Californians are tightening their belts. And California matters. It accounts for 13 percent of the U.S. economy . It was also where more than a third of the non-mainstream home loans, like subprime and Alt-A, were made in 2006 and 2007, making it very important to the health of the banking system. "California is big enough that it is going to drag a lot of the nation down with it," said Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics, a consultancy in Los Angeles . "You can't have collapsing consumer demand in California and not expect it to have an influence." Thornberg sees a recession in California being closer to the recession of the early 1990s in severity rather than the briefer recession after the Internet boom ended. But while California is not suffering from an industrial bust, as it did when aerospace was hit after the Berlin Wall came down, its consumers are poorly set to weather a recession. "People have racked up a phenomenal amount of debt, savings rates have been at zero and the piper has to be paid," Thornberg said. Vallejo, a city in Northern California, said last week that it would file for bankruptcy, prompted by rising costs and falling tax receipts due to the housing slump. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to unveil plans for $15 billion in bonds backed by lottery revenues to help plug a state budget hole. A lottery jackpot is just about what the state needs right now, though the odds seem equally remote. The downturn is clear, too, from company results. Nordstrom, the department store chain, reported last week that same-store sales fell 6.5 percent in the first quarter, dragged down in part by lower numbers of shoppers visiting its stores in California, a state that accounts for about a third of its turnover. Starbucks blamed some of its recent disappointing performance on a new unwillingness among coffee drinkers in California and South Florida to pay top dollar for stimulants. At the lower end of the scale, Jack in the Box, the fast-food chain, said Wednesday that it had seen softer sales at restaurants in California. One particular area of concern is the way in which California's faltering economy and rising unemployment interact with falling home values to prompt greater rates of mortgage defaults. This could hit banks with exposure to California in their mortgage loan portfolios, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "There is a very strong relationship between delinquencies and the coupling of job losses with falling home prices," Ajay Rajadhyaksha and Derek Chen of Barclays Capital in New York wrote in a note to clients. For example, in the areas of Modesto, Stockton and Merced, the unemployment rates are above 10 percent while more than 60 percent of loans are close to being underwater, or larger than the value of the house. Serious delinquencies in those areas are above 18 percent, while the national average is 3.6 percent, according to Barclays. But beyond the implications for banks, California can really be seen as the testing ground for what the U.S. consumer looks like in coming years, and how he or she manages. If, somehow, the move from spending to savings can be done gradually, the downturn in the United States may be gentle. If it happens quickly, watch out..

U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE = NUCLEAR WARMead 92 (Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28)

Hundreds of millions - billions - of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

93


Uniqueness: California Deficit Decreasing

THE UNIQUENESS DEBATE IS NOT A QUESTION OF DEFICITS OR NO DEFICITS. ALL THE MATTERS IS WHETHER CALIFORNIA CAN MANAGE ITS DEFICITS. EXTEND OUR 2AC KARASMEIGHAN EVIDENCE. CALIFORNIA IS CONTROLLING IS DEFICITS AND ITS ECONOMY WILL NOT COLLAPSE IN THE STATUS QUO.

ADDITIONALLY – THE NEG’S NON-UNIQUE ARGS TAKE OUT COUNTERPLAN SOLVENCY. IF CALIFORNIA IS ESSENTIALLY BANKRUPT IN THE STATUS QUO, THE STATE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE COUNTERPLAN CREATING A MASSIVE SOLVENCY DEFICIT.

CALIFORNIA PUSHING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY MEASURESPaul, senior scholar at the New America Foundation, 08 (Mark, June 29, “Why the state budget never adds up”, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-paul29-2008jun29,0,5201639.story)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wants more than a balanced budget this year. He wants budget reform too. For a state that has already laced itself into straitjackets of spending mandates and formulas, Schwarzenegger proposes new constitutional chains: a combined rainy-day fund and spending limit, to be added on top of the rainy-day fund and spending limit that voters have already approved separately. His implicit message: The Legislature and I have chosen badly, so please restrict our ability to choose again.

THE SCHEDULED TAX CUTS WILL SOLVE THE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIAEdwin Garcia 6 – 12 – 08. Edwin Garcia is a writer for the Mercury news at the Sacramento Bureau. The Mercury News, “Tax increase proposed to fix state budget gap“ http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9560820Senate Democratic leaders Wednesday proposed an $11.5 billion tax increase to solve the state's budget gap - more than double the tax increase proposed by their counterparts in the Assembly. The larger tax proposal stems from the decision by Senate officials to resist counting on an expanded lottery, which would have to be approved by the Legislature this summer and go before voters in November, to increase revenue for the fiscal year that starts July 1.Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, and his chief budget negotiator, Denise Moreno Ducheny, D-Chula Vista, rejected plans to count on an expanded lottery, proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, before voters approve the concept."How do you do something in November that's supposed to help you on July 1 of this year?" Perata asked at a news conference where he repeatedly criticized Schwarzenegger's plan to close the $15.2 billion deficit. "What's wrong with his budget is, it doesn't fund next year. His proposal on the lottery simply is prospective."Schwarzenegger's spokesman defended the proposal and said the governor is glad Senate Democrats "finally put some ideas on the table," but rejected the call for taxes. "We believe that Californians are sending enough of their money to Sacramento," said Press Secretary Aaron McLear, "and weought to live within our means. Perata said the budget he envisions would maintain a level of core services without reducing the quality of life for Californians."We're going to do our job, and how are we going to do it? We're proposing to raise taxes," he said. Perata and Ducheny wouldn't specify which taxes to raise but mentioned several possibilities: the sales tax, a tax on services, income taxes, corporate taxes, the vehicle license fee and the excise tax on alcohol.

94


Uniqueness: State Deficits Decreasing

DEFICITS ARE UNDER CONTROL - STATES ARE CUTTING SPENDING IN RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC SLOWDOWNWashington Times, 08 (June 30, “Budget: States look for new 'sacrifices'”, http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/30/budget-squeezes-force-states-to-look-for-new-sacri//)

After a four-year spending splurge, many state governments are facing big budget gaps because of plunging home prices, declining manufacturing output and rising unemployment. A report by the National Governors Association (NGA) says the pressure to cap spending probably will intensify in the years ahead. These deteriorating economic trends could contribute to huge budget shortfalls in fiscal 2009, requiring states to all but freeze spending growth, according to the association's report. States are pursuing many strategies to cope with the impending shortfalls. In 2009, tuition at state universities in Virginia, California and Alabama will increase by about 10 percent. Florida and California will be reducing state aid to school districts. To achieve long-term savings, Tennessee "used one-time money from a reserve fund to finance voluntary buyouts for 2,000 state employees," said Lola Potter of the Department of Finance and Administration. "Ohio has been challenged by the downturn in the national economy," said Keith Dailey, press secretary for Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat. The $733 million in cuts that the governor instructed state agencies to implement required "real sacrifices, including job reductions and the closing of two mental health facilities," Mr. Dailey said. Ohio has kept its $1.1 billion rainy-day fund in reserve in case the slowdown turns into a recession, he said. Budget-reduction measures under consideration include early-release programs for nonviolent state prisoners in California, Kentucky and Mississippi. Rhode Island has addressed a nearly $450 million shortfall by reducing personnel costs, cutting payments to cities and towns and ending an energy-assistance program for the poor. "The state will spend less in 2009 than was enacted in 2008," said Jeff Neal, press secretary for Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican. "It's the first time in recent history that's happened." To make major dents in California's projected deficit of more than $20 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has proposed borrowing $15 billion against future profits from an expanded state lottery and deeply cutting the state's Medi-Cal health insurance program for the poor. Altogether, 18 states reported that they intended to spend less in 2009 than in 2008. Still, the situation is "not as bad for states as it was post-9/11," Mr. Pattison said, but he is "very concerned about the future."

STATES PRACTICING FISCAL RESTRAINTSammon Senior Associate Editor Kiplinger Business Forecasts, 08 (Richard, June 16, “State Finances: Budget Pressures Will Crimp Spending”, Kiplinger Business Forecasts, Lexis)

Many states are about to go into belt-tightening mode, cutting spending and searching for new revenue to deal with a bleak budget outlook that's likely to last two to three years. Half the states are grappling with shortfalls, and most of the remaining states have little room to maneuver financially. The combined shortfall is $16 billion this year, with a projected $32 billion in the next fiscal year, which for states starts July 1. State budgets are being hurt by the soft economy, which brings down individual and corporate income tax receipts, consumer confidence and purchasing. They're also grappling with rising energy and health care costs, the subprime mortgage fallout, declining home sales and home construction and larger social welfare spending.

95


Link: CP -> State Deficit Spending

CP FORCES DEFICIT SPENDING – STATES DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO EXPAND THEIR CLIMATE POLICIES**Rabe, holds a joint appointment with the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 02 (Barry G., November,“Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Pew Center on Climate Change Report, downloaded from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/)

There are, of course, likely limitations facing decentralized approaches to climate change policy. A number of states have shown little if any interest in this area and some have taken formal steps to minimize the possibility of innovations. States also face constitutional limits to active engagement in international relations, reflected in the dominant role of national governments in crafting international climate change strategies. In addition, a major impediment to any further development of these state strategies is the very limited base of funding available to assure their implementation. Ironically, many state programs are moving into early stages of implementation at the very moment that dozens of states find themselves in an enormous fiscal crunch and the federal government is again running sizable deficits. The National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officials reported in May 2002 that state budgets are in worse condition than at any time in the last 20 years. Few of these state programs have reliable sources of support and have to compete with established programs and units. In turn, federal grant programs have proven helpful but have been largely confined to analysis and action plan development. Consequently, perhaps the greatest near-term threat to the continued vitality of state-level innovation in climate change may involve funding scarcity rather than political opposition. Resource scarcity has not, however, deterred many states from accelerating and diversifying their efforts, particularly in the last few years.

CP BANKRUPTS THE STATES – THEY STATES DON’T HAVE MONEY TO FUND RENEWABLE PROGRAMSRabe, holds a joint appointment with the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 02 (Barry G., November,“Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Pew Center on Climate Change Report, downloaded from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/greenhouse_and_statehouse_/)

There are, however, significant limitations facing any long-term strategy that relies primarily on the initiative of states. Many cases of state policy innovation in climate change are matched by other states that have proven indifferent or hostile to the issue. In turn, limited fiscal resources deter innovation, particularly given the current fiscal distress facing many states. Moreover, the very notion of a purely decentralized approach raises basic questions of efficiency. A potential tapestry of standards and programs that varied markedly from state to state could serve to heighten compliance costs for regulated parties as opposed to a more uniform approach. Nevertheless, the recent evolution of state policy poses a fundamental challenge to conventional thinking about the design of and political prospects for climate change policy in the United States and, in the process, offers a variety of policy options for possible adoption at the national level.

STATE POLICIES WOULD COST 10,000 DOLLARS PER HOUSEHOLD AND BE INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE OF BUSINESS MIGRATION AND SMALL INTRA-STATE MARKETSJames M. Taylor, Attorney and Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11788, “Global Warming: Thinking Globally and Acting Locally Doesn’t Work”, Heartland Perspectives, 2k3

Several states have already explicitly capped emissions by electric utilities. In their 2002 legislative sessions, 25 state legislatures considered 71 bills explicitly seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bills ranged from voluntary and mandatory emissions reporting and carbon sequestration programs to requirements that utilities buy expensive electricity from renewable energy sources and probably illegal transportation initiatives. The most credible studies of the Kyoto Protocol found a national program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to the Kyoto Protocol’s requirement of 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 would increase gasoline prices at least 65 cents a gallon and double the price of electricity for consumers and businesses, destroy at least 2.4 million jobs, cause average household income to fall $3,372, and cost state

Continued…

96


Link: CP -> State Deficit Spending

Continued…governments $116 billion a year in revenue. One reason the Kyoto Protocol would be so expensive is because developing countries are not required to reduce or even cap their emissions. Their exclusion from the agreement means global emissions will rise no matter what developed countries do: in other words, “all pain and no gain.” Kyoto also places off-limits many of the lowest-cost emission reduction opportunities, which typically exist in developing countries. State versions of the Kyoto Protocol would cost even more. More low-cost opportunities to reduce emissions will lie outside the state’s borders, forcing businesses and consumers to act on higher-cost options first. States are forced to use command-and-control regulations, such as renewable energy mandates and emission caps, because intra-state markets are too small to support market-based solutions such as carbon taxes and emission permit trading. Moreover, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in one state are partially or entirely offset by increases in the emissions of other states and countries as businesses and economic activity migrate to places with lower energy costs and fewer regulations. The Heartland study estimates a typical state-based greenhouse gas program would cost 10 times as much, per ton of carbon avoided, as the Kyoto Protocol. The financial burden in most states would simply be unbearable: $10,200 per household in Illinois, $7,200 per household in California, $7,600 per household in New York, and so on. The average annual cost per household for the 37 states we examined came to $10,000.

97


Link: California CALIFORNIA IS ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY. NO MONEY FOR EXCESS PROJECTSRick 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&parentprofileDemocrats 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…

98

http://www.theunion.com/article/20080620/OPINION/850746/1024&parentprofile


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.

99


Link: New York

NEW YORK IS EVEN WORSE THAN CALIFORNIA. THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO SPEND ANOTHER PENNY.Fitzpatrick in 08 (Joshua Fitzpatrick, “Assembly Minority Announces State Revenue Forecast”, February 25 2008, http://assembly.state.ny.us/Minority/20080225/)

"It's been said that New York State has a spending problem - and it does. But now, due to an economic slowdown that has especially impacted Wall Street, we can add a revenue problem to that equation, as we have projected that the state's budget deficit will be $5.1 billion. This is a troubling development that should concern every single New Yorker worried about our state's fiscal future,"Tedisco said. "Our Conference's revenue forecast is decidedly less optimistic than the Governor's. While reasons for the differences between the Governor's forecast and ours are numerous and complex, the conclusion is relatively straightforward and simple: now, more than ever, state government needs to practice fiscal restraint and focus on the needs of the people and not the wants of elected officials. This means reducing spending, which is only possible when there is shared sacrifice and bi-partisan cooperation, never an easy thing during an election year, but New Yorkers deserve nothing less than our succeeding on this critical task," Tedisco stated. This forecasted deficit of $5.1 billion, combined with nearly $54 billion in outstanding debt, represents a serious threat to New York's long-term fiscal stability.

100


Link: Alternative Energy Expensive RENEWABLE ENERGY COSTS A FORTUNE. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLES HAVE DISAPPEARED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.Bradley 03 (Robert L. Bradley Jr., Chairman of the Institute for Energy Research, “Why Renewable Energy is not Cheap and not Green”, April 16 2003, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2.html)

A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous renewable capacity built with liberal government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices, future renewable capacity will be challenged by the rapidly falling costs and prices of traditional sources. Improved new-generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more costly than this average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are not as uneconomic. The cost of wind power comes close to the average, although certain prime 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.

Link: Alternative Energy Expensive

RENEWABLE ENERGY LEADS TO AN INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY PRICES 101


WNA (world nuclear association) Renewable Energy and Electricity” May 2008 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html

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.

102

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html


Delayed Budget Kills California’s Economy

BUDGET DELAY KILLS CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMYLA Times, 08 (July 1, “California will pay for yet another late budget”, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-budget1-2008jul01,0,6652688.story)

California starts the new budget year today -- and once again no budget is in place. Legislators are making little progress closing a $15.2-billion shortfall. Democrats demand new taxes. Republicans say that is out of the question. Meanwhile, their inability to strike a deal threatens millions of Californians who rely on the government for healthcare and other services. Budget delays are not unusual. But the consequences will be particularly harsh this year. Many of the healthcare clinics and other service providers that have used private loans to get by during past budget stalemates are unlikely to have easy access to such cash this year, as a result of the ongoing credit crunch brought on by the mortgage crisis. Independent service providers aren't the only ones that could soon be scraping to find money. Short-term bonds that finance officials rely upon to replenish state coffers cannot be sold without a budget in place, and getting them to market takes at least a month. The state may have to turn to a syndicate of investment banks for short-term financing, on terms that could prove costly, said H.D. Palmer, deputy director of the state Department of Finance. The financing could cost $140 million more than bond borrowing would have, he said. "In this budget environment," he said," I can think of a lot better uses for that money." Despite the grim state of affairs at the Capitol, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers Monday played down their failure to get a budget together and the dim prospects of reaching a deal soon. "I don't know at what stage they are in," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference. "I know one thing, they are all working. . . . Everyone knows we are short on time. I think everyone knows it is a complicated, difficult budget." Schwarzenegger, who has been playing only a minor role in budget deliberations of late, turned the microphone over to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. "We have been working," she said. "We spent four hours yesterday working." Democrats in both houses have released budget plans that call for as much as $11 billion in new taxes. But so far they have not identified which taxes they would like to raise. Bass demurred again Monday. "We will see what happens as the process moves forward this week," she said. The governor later joked about his optimism that the state will not run out of cash by pulling out a personal money clip full of bills. "I still have some left," he said. Not all Republicans were in such good spirits. "Until we get to a spot where Democrats realize that taxes are not going to work, it will be tough to move the budget forward," said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis. Credit agencies will be watching closely: California has the second-lowest credit rating among states in the country, and some economists say a downgrade could be coming . The last time the state's creditworthiness was downgraded was during the budget crisis of 2003, when its bond ratings fell to nearly junk status . The shortfall lawmakers faced then was roughly the size it is now.

CALIFORNIA WILL SOON RUN OUT OF CASHSan Francisco Chronicle, 08 (01, “Matthew Yi: New fiscal year, same old story -- no budget” Matthew Yi is a political reporter who covers the California state Assembly. He began his career a decade ago with the Associated Press, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=27746)

Not having a budget on time has become almost routine for California. In the past 20 years, the Legislature and the governor were able to have a budget in place only four times before ringing in the new fiscal year only (1993, 1999, 2000 and 2006). Those years were usually good economic times for the state, which always creates a ''happy problem'' of having too much money. But not this year. The housing market meltdown that continues to drag the state's economy has resulted in a $17.2 billion budget gap. The tardiness of this year's budget will have some immediate impacts, such as Medi-Cal reimbursement rates being slashed by 10 percent starting today. The state also faces prospects of running out of cash later this summer if a spending plan isn't in place by then. That means the state would need to take out expensive loans with high interest rates to ease the immediate cash crunch.

103

http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-p.pdf


Deficits Kill California’s Economy

SPENDING IS THE ROOT OF CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMIC TROUBLEKrol, professor of economics at California State University Northridge and author of a forthcoming Cato Journal paper on state budget institutions, 08 (Robert, Jan 7, “California Needs a Spending Limit” Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8878)

California's budget is once again in the red. The governor signed a balanced budget in August of last year, but before the ink was dry, a slowing economy, the real estate bust and a spate of unplanned spending resulted in a significant budget crunch. The Legislative Analyst's Office now projects a deficit of about $10 billion over the next 18 months, and Gov. Schwarzenegger says the shortfall may be as high as $14 billion. To be sure, the slowing economy has reduced revenues, but excessive spending remains the root cause of California's persistent financial troubles.

FISCAL RESTRAINT KEY TO CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMYKrol, professor of economics at California State University Northridge and author of a forthcoming Cato Journal paper on state budget institutions, 08 (Robert, Jan 7, “California Needs a Spending Limit” Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8878)

During economic booms, if revenues increase more than inflation plus population growth, the surplus should be refunded to taxpayers or used to shore up California's rainy-day fund. If state leaders wanted to spend some of the additional revenues, they should put their proposals up for a vote. California has little choice but to get its spending under control. Higher taxes are not an economically viable option. The Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., ranks California 46th in its 2007 State Business Climate Rankings. Our neighboring states – Arizona, Nevada and Oregon – rank considerably better. Despite healthy revenue growth over the last few years, the California budget has been mismanaged. Schwarzenegger has been unable to make good on his pledge to reform Sacramento and get state lawmakers off of what he called "autopilot" spending. In the 2003 recall election, he ran as a budget reformer, promising he would "tear up the credit cards" and rein in runaway spending. He has failed to live up to his promises. A spending limit would give California some much-needed budget stability, and allow the governor to salvage his legacy. With a new fiscal mess brewing, it's time for him to try again.

CONTROLLING SPENDING IS KEY TO THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMYSteve Stanek 7 – 1 – 08 “Budget Expert, Tax Watchdog Sound Caution Over Lottery Plan” HEARTLAND INSTITUTE http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23465 "Politically, it's brilliant and avoids immediate tax increases," McQuillan said. "But after three years, if the economy is not booming, there is no nest egg there. If state spending continues at the pace it's been going and revenues don't turn out to be strong, we're back where we started from. It would be just another $15 billion papering over of problems." State spending has climbed more than 40 percent, from $99.4 billion to $142 billion, since the 2000-01 budget year, and is projected to top $144 billion in the new fiscal year.Four years ago the state borrowed $15 billion to improve the fiscal situation but failed to achieve the promised results." That's why it's important to pair this borrowing plan with actual substantive budget reform," McQuillan said. "That would be the thing that matters to fiscal conservatives. [Schwarzenegger] wants to pair it with budget reform, but I don't know if the legislature would go for that.

104

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23465


Deficits Kill California’s Economy

CAPITAL TURMOIL MAKES DEFICITS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY Bloomberg June 30, 2008, “California Under Schwarzenegger Underperforms Davis (Update2) “ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afzm9oISTASQ&refer=home

It costs California taxpayers more to borrow now than under former Governor Gray Davis, the man Arnold Schwarzenegger helped oust and succeeded in an unprecedented recall fueled by the state's sagging finances. As the most populous U.S. state, with a gross domestic product that's No. 8 in the world, California is so strapped for cash that it must consider a short-term, $10 billion loan to cover its bills. The widening deficit means the financing may be about 0.85 percentage point more expensive than five years ago, when Davis lost his job over a budget gap twice as large as the $17 billion deficit the state now faces. That's an added $8.5 million on every $1 billion borrowed. While banks also are charging as much as four times more for lines 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.''

105

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bill+Lockyer&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BBWK1YRN%3AIND

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Arnold+Schwarzenegger&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Gray+Davis&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1


California Key to National Econ

CALIFORNIA WILL BRING DOWN THE REST OF THE NATIONUS News & World Report, 03 (Matthew Benjamin, 10/12, “The National Barometer For better or worse, California's economy can set the country's pace” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031020/20econ.htm)

Everybody is interested in California, billionaire financier Warren Buffett said in August when asked why he agreed to advise then gubernatorial hopeful Arnold Schwarzenegger. But Buffett meant more than a morbid fascination with car chases and Hollywood glitterati. "You can't have trouble out there without it affecting the rest of the country." As usual, the Oracle of Omaha was dead on. California's economy accounts for an eighth of the U.S. economy and is larger than the economies of all but four nations, ranking between Britain and France. Its technology, agriculture, and entertainment industries lead the nation. So when the Golden State sneezes, the national economy can easily catch a cold. And the state is ailing now. Unemployment stands at 6.4 percent, higher than the national average, and growth has slowed to a crawl since the 2001 recession. Much of the economic carnage can be found in Silicon Valley. Desperate for skilled workers during the height of the tech boom, the industry lured them with lucrative stock options and bonuses. But then came the tech meltdown and the loss of 19 percent of its jobs, most tech-related. "What was good in the boom is bad in the bust," says Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, in Palo Alto. The state also faces an $8 billion budget shortfall, thanks largely to taxes lost on those vanished options and bonuses. That number could grow to $20 billion if the state is unable to borrow and Schwarzenegger makes good on his promise to eliminate an unpopular car tax. The gap will have to be bridged through tax hikes, spending cuts, or borrowing, with negative impact on the economy. The governor-elect plans to cut taxes and roll back regulations, while maintaining education funding and expanding children's healthcare. "The math of his promises is very difficult," says state Treasurer Phil Angelides. And with 20 percent of the workforce in the public sector, employment will suffer. Any way you slice it, says Levy, "we have to pay the piper." Many businesses consider California a tough place to operate, too. The state is ranked fifth worst in a recent cost-of-doing-business survey. "I'm not sure I'll miss California," says Aki Korhonen, who is moving his software firm from the Bay Area to Reno, Nev., because he finds the state too pricey. "I won't miss paying $2 a gallon for gasoline." Yet there are hopeful signs. Though unemployment is high, it's trending down from December's peak of 6.9 percent. Despite the brutal bloodletting in the Bay Area, venture capitalists still think highly of California: 42 percent of U.S. venture capital funds so far this year have been invested there. And like the rest of the nation, California may be on the cusp of a strong recovery, says Union Bank of California senior economist Keitaro Matsuda. He predicts real growth of 2 percent this year, expanding to a 4 percent clip in 2004. The latest Congressional Budget Office forecast predicts U.S. growth of 2.2 percent this year and 3.8 percent in 2004. Bright side. "I'm optimistic," says Bob Damon, West Coast managing director of the executive search firm Spencer Stuart, where revenue from California operations was up 12 percent last quarter. Demand for new hires was particularly strong at consumer goods and life sciences firms. And though tech is still patchy, the outlook for the wireless and semiconductor sectors is upbeat, says Damon, "even telecom, which is finally showing signs of life after being dead for three years." Most observers believe the state's indomitable spirit will eventually get it back on track. That vitality may stem from what a recent Wells Fargo study calls California's "triple endowment": an entrepreneurial culture, access to capital, and a pool of talent not easily replicated. The potent combination will allow the state to create new jobs in burgeoning areas like biotechnology and nanotechnology. "Nobody else has been able to duplicate Silicon Valley, where people are skilled and risk taking," says Tom Lieser, of the University of California-Los Angeles Anderson Forecast. "The start-up culture is in our DNA," says Chip Adams, managing director of San Francisco-based venture capital firm Rosewood Capital. "And that hasn't really changed despite the downturn." A MIGHTY FORCE If California were a 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 SPILLOVERProperty Wire, Friday, 18 January 2008California and Florida close to recessionhttp://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.

106

http://www.propertywire.com/news/north-america/california-and-florida-close-to-recession-20080118153.html



THE NATION ECONOMY RELIES ON CALIFORNIAFortune, “Daily Briefing: California (bad) dreaming” June 30, 2008http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/06/30/california-bad-dreaming/

California is so strapped for cash that it’s considering a $10 billion loan to pay the bills; and the interest payment on such a loan would only get heavier as the state economy gets shakier.This is sobering news for governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose predecessor Gray Davis was ousted because California’s voter confidence had crumbled along with the state’s finances. (When Davis was in office, the budget gap was twice as large as the current $17 billion deficit.) California’s current conundrum is bad news for the rest of the country as well, given that the state’s gross domestic product is No. 8 in the world and it is a major driver in the U.S. economic engine. Bloomberg reports that it will likely cost the state 0.85 percentage point more than five years ago to take out a loan, or an additional $8.5 million for every billion borrowed.California Treasurer Bill Lockyer tells Bloomberg that the market challenges today include more volatility than in 2003, and that “the new ingredient is turmoil in capital and credit markets.” He tells the news service, “Every additional dollar [in interest] 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.” Along with Florida, California is one of the regions hardest hit by the current housing crisis. So along with rising prices on everything from food to fuel, the state also faces a sharp decline in economic growth and falling revenues. Let’s hope that as California goes, the nation does not follow.

107

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ascMK9stYqCQ&refer=news

http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/06/30/california-bad-dreaming/



CALIFORNIA IS KEY TO THE US ECONOMY --- IF IT FALLS, SO DOES THE REST OF THE COUNTRYNewsweek, “State of Siege: Total Recall: As goes California, so goes the nation. If true, we're all in trouble. An economy on the ropes, and a political culture on the verge of collapse.”, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23888657_ITM, 2k3

Beyond the numbers is something more profound: a sense that California has lost the ability to govern itself and is in need of cataclysmic political renovation. The state's sulfurous civic life makes the last days of Rome look serene. Voter participation is at record lows, disdain for elected leaders at record highs. Californians haven't been this angry, experts say, since the early 20th century, when corrupt and imperious railroad magnates ruled the state from their enormous mansions on Nob Hill in San Francisco. Their excesses produced sweeping reforms. Gov. Hiram Johnson, a legendary progressive, sought to banish "special interests" from politics, and championed the very recall procedures Costa now embraces. Is another such era in the offing? Or is the recall Costa launched just a cruel historical joke, the final proof that California is democracy run riot? "It's an epic story," says California-based pollster Pat Caddell. "Everything here is an epic, but this is the real thing." And epics in California matter to the rest of America. The Golden State is the biggest by far, with an economy larger than all but four nations. If it goes belly up, so do we all. (The enormous state deficit is mirrored by the growing federal version, now expected to be $450 billion this fiscal year.) But more than bookkeeping is involved. California is our own El Dorado--America's America--home of start-ups and starting over, of new social trends and of trends from elsewhere writ large.

108


State Economies Key to National Econ

STATE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN BRINGS DOWN THE NATIONAL ECONOMYSammon Senior Associate Editor Kiplinger Business Forecasts, 08 (Richard, June 16, “State Finances: Budget Pressures Will Crimp Spending”, Kiplinger Business Forecasts, Lexis)

The state problem will make the national economy worse because states are big spenders. Their outlays total about $1.8 trillion a year, or about 13% of gross domestic product. Over the past few years, they have kept spending high and fueled regional growth, drawing on rainy-day funds and other slight changes in targeted revenue raising policies to comply with laws requiring balanced budgets.

STATE ECONOMIES DETERMINE THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMYFeiock and Dubnick 93 (Richard Feiock, Professor of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University , Melvin Dubnick, professor of Political Science and director of the MPA program at the University of New Hampshire, Jerry Mitchell, Spring, “State Economic Development Policies and National Economic Growth,” Public Administration Quarterly, 55-67. http://mjdubnick.dubnick.net/pubs/steco1993.htm)These question and doubts are directly confronted in this article by the thesis that state-level economic policy-making bas been central to the strength of the national economy of the United States over the past decade. Put briefly, during the 1980s if not longer, state governments filled the vacuum left by a national government that intentionally avoided an explicit industrial policy such as those used in other nations and as advocated by several well-known analysts. By stimulating economic activity within their respective jurisdictions, states and their subdivisions

109

http://unh.edu/

http://www.unh.edu/political-science/graduate-mpa.html

http://www.unh.edu/political-science/


provided (and continue to provide) the stimulus that carried the United States through a major national economic downturn and years of sustained growth.

110