WASHINGTON, D.C. -- We're here in the nation's chilly capital attending the State Fiscal Policy conference sponsored by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and reading about plans to unveil the rehabilitated Star Spangled Banner tomorrow at the American History Museum.
With all the patriotic feelings stirred by the story behind that flag that flew over Fort McHenry Sept 14, 1814, it somehow was particularly gratifying to get an email message from Wyoming announcing that the Joint Minerals Committee has dropped proposed legislation extending tax breaks worth millions of dollars to the coal industry.
The Powder River Basin Resource Council's Shannon Anderson also represented the ESPC at the meeting. She sent news from the meeting about the committee's decision to pull the bills back. (They still may show up in the Revenue Committee at some point.) We knew these measures could cost the state, but Shannon reports that an official with DKRW, the company with plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant in Carbon County, said the exemptions could reduce the company's tax bill by $125 million.
These tax cuts should be considered equivalent to a state appropriation. The state would, in effect, invest these tax revenues in the plants, socializing a substantial portion of the private risk but, unlike the private investors, with no hope for enjoying a share of the profits the factory eventually will generate.
We know this is only a temporary victory. The taxes will be back, in whole or in part, in some other form. Casper Star-Tribune reporter Dustin Bleizeffer covered the meeting for the newspaper. He reports the idea could come back as an amendment to existing state law that grants property tax exemptions to pollution control equipment installed at power plants operating in the state.
Here's Bleizeffer's report, which you also can read at the trib.com website:
Clean coal tax exemptions stall
By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
The future of several proposed tax breaks for clean coal facilities is uncertain, but the legislation will likely get booted from the Joint Minerals,Business and Economic Development Interim Committee to the Joint Revenue Committee.
One of three bills that, together, would slash virtually all state and local taxes on such facilities could reappear as an amendment to an existing 2005 law that cut sales and use taxes for pollution control equipment added to coal-fired power plants.
Despite the shuffling, it may be too late to settle a number of concerns about the so-called clean coal incentive package in time for the 2009 legislative session.
"I do really want to do anything to help [clean coal development], but our time frame is too short and would do a disservice to the legislative process," said minerals committee co-chairman Sen. Grant Larson, R-Jackson.
The minerals committee heard testimony Wednesday in Casper from DKRW Advanced Fuels chief executive Jon Doyle. His company is developing the $2.5 billion Medicine Bow Fuel coal-to-gasoline plant in Carbon County. In September, the committee asked Doyle to research and draft legislation for possible incentives
Wyoming could offer to all potential clean coal developers in order to remain competitive with other coal-producing states.
In response, DKRW hired a Wyoming tax attorney to draft three bills. One would cut sales and use taxes. Another would cut ad valorem taxes. The third would cut severance taxes. As proposed, the legislature would revisit the tax exemptions no sooner than 15 years after commencement of operations.
Several committee members said that, for fear of losing a clean coal project to another state, they were willing to rush all or part of the package through.
But committee member Rep. Jeb Steward, R-Encampment, said adopting one or all of the tax exemptions would shut off a revenue stream that local communities -- and the developer itself -- would need to provide the public services for such a project.
"I'm from Carbon County, and clearly we're in an area that's depressed economically and looking forward to this project moving forward," Steward told Doyle.
"How is it in the best interest of your company to remove the ability of these local governments and the state to generate revenues to provide the services so you would have thriving communities?"
Steward went on to question whether adopting tax exemptions would not only curtail services but create an inability to provide a work force to sustain the industry 40 or 50 years into the future.
Doyle, and Holland & Hart attorney Larry Wolfe, who authored the bills, both admitted that if the state adopted the tax exemptions it would still have to figure out how to deal with the impacts of such large industrial developments. However, they were instructed to provide incentives that would already fit within Wyoming's constitution, so they looked to tax exemptions that have already been granted to other industries.
Committee member Rep. Debbie Hammons, D-Worland, reiterated the committee's support of clean coal development, but said slashing all potential tax revenue from such facilities may be too much.
"What these bills appear to say to me is that any coal facility, for the next 15 years, the state wouldn't receive taxes on them. And I think that's a tremendous burden to the state," said Hammons.
Shannon Anderson of the Powder River Basin Resource Council said tax breaks do not equal an investment in clean coal development. Her written testimony to the committee suggested that the "value-added" notion of refining coal in Wyoming would be lost if those facilities are not taxed.
Anderson spoke to the committee and said if state and local taxes are a deal-breaker for a $2 billion-plus facility, then it has bigger financial problems than just taxes.
"If the company can't make it with state taxes, then there's a larger economic problem that these bills won't fix," said Anderson.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
ESPC opposes tax breaks for clean coal plants
Once again Wyoming's "struggling" coal industry seeks to escape paying taxes by convincing our legislators that it needs tax breaks as incentives to develop the new technology that will keep its product viable in a world dealing with global warming and climate change.
The ESPC believes that Big Coal, like other businesses, should not evade its social responsibilities. The state is a great partner for the coal companies, and is actively engaged in developing carbon sequestration laws that will promote the viability of fossil fuels like coal. And Wyoming has committed huge sums of money to new research at the University of Wyoming to find ways to keep fossil fuels in the nation's energy mix for the forseeable future.
That partnership should continue. But the industry should not be allowed to pick the state's pocket by taking away the tax revenues it needs.
You can see the news release we issued Monday by going here.
Here's a copy of a memo sent to the Legislature's Joint Minerals Committee offering our comments on legislation the committee will consider tomorrow, Nov. 19.
TO: Members of the Joint Interim Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Sarah Gorin and Dan Neal, Equality State Policy Center
We regret that, due to conflicts with other events, we will be unable to attend your meeting in Casper on November 19. We are sending this message to:
(a) express support for the continuation of the Clean Coal Task Force (09 LSO-0070.W7 – Clean coal task force); and
(b) encourage you to approach the three proposed tax exemption bills in a businesslike manner. These proposed bills include:
- 09LSO-0262.W3 – Clean coal facility-tax exemption;
- 09LSO-0263.W3 – Clean coal facility-coal taxation;
- and 09LSO-0264.W1 – Clean coal facility-sales and use taxes) in a businesslike
We agree that the future marketability of Wyoming coal is a critical issue, primarily because coal production currently provides substantial revenues to state and local governments. The hope is that development of clean coal will extend Wyoming coal mining jobs and coal-generated revenues long into the future.
But therein lies the logical problem with the proposed tax exemptions. If clean coal facilities are built but not taxed, and coal consumed in these facilities is produced but not taxed, Wyoming largely has lost the benefit of moving to clean coal. Since Wyoming does not have an income tax, even the creation of additional coal-based jobs will not have a significant effect on restoring the tax base.
Most of the public debate on the development of clean coal technologies has focused on the need for investment, and Wyoming has taken steps in this direction by establishing the School of Energy Resources and the Clean Coal Task Force, which help attract funds for clean coal research.
Investment is not the same as granting tax exemptions. Investment requires thoughtful evaluation of alternatives, weighing the likelihood of success of various avenues of research and development. The recipients of the investment are accountable to the investors for performance. This is why the Clean Coal Task Force is the way to go.
Tax exemptions, on the other hand, compel other taxpayers to invest in the exempt activity whether they choose to or not. A tax exemption is a governmental expenditure just as surely as an appropriation, because it “spends” revenue either by giving it up (along with the programs or services the revenue would have funded) or by shifting taxes to other taxpayers. This type of involuntary investment is yet another example of the recently prevalent practice of socializing risk while privatizing profit.
Moreover, the recipient of the tax exemption has no accountability to the other taxpayer/investors. What if equipment is purchased, not taxed, and left to sit? What if a plant is partially built and then put on hold or abandoned? Bad experiences in other states have led to the creation of so-called “clawbacks” and other attempts to recover lost tax revenues when the recipient of a tax break fails to deliver.
The proposed tax exemptions also beg the question of who will bear the costs of impact litigation if clean coal plants are built, since the legislation clearly anticipates that these will be large industrial facilities.
If no sales and use taxes are paid, how will local governments fund the services needed to serve the expanded population?
If no property taxes are paid, what will fund the schools? (Remember that fifteen years is
longer than one class’s journey through its entire K-12 education.)
If no severance taxes are paid on the coal consumed, what replaces the revenues to the earmarked accounts, most of which provide essential services?
One answer could be that the Industrial Siting Council will order the applicant to supply funding to meet these needs; historically, taxes paid (or to be paid) by the applicant have been taken into consideration when calculating impact mitigation payments. In the absence of tax payments, presumably impact mitigation payments would be proportionately higher, in which case one is left wondering why the tax structure was not left in place to begin with.
Alternatively, there is the unpleasant and irresponsible possibility of simply leaving local governments and school districts high and dry.
A businesslike approach to income and expenditures would entail a careful evaluation of expected benefits (and the likelihood of achieving those benefits) before foregoing income. In this particular case, taxes on nonrenewable resources are Wyoming’s bridge to the future, a future with coal we still can use along with a more diversified energy portfolio.
We urge you to hesitate before burning that bridge. We are unaware of any independent assessments suggesting that clean coal development will be affected -- much less driven -- by state tax policies. We therefore suggest that before taking action on these potentially substantial tax exemptions, the committee secure the services of a qualified, financially unrelated third party to assess developments in the clean coal industry, investigate and evaluate the impact of Wyoming state taxes on development decisions, estimate the revenue losses if tax exemptions are granted, and propose alternative sources of revenue.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
(Note: Formatting of this memo was adjusted to make it easier to read on this blog.)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A quick look at the constitutional amendments on the General Election ballot
Voters will face two amendments on the General Election ballot this year.
The ESPC supports passage of Amendment A, which simplifies the oath of office sworn by public officials.
But we have a different take on Amendment B, which changes the requirements of citizens attempting to circumvent the Legislature to propose new law through an initiative petition. These petitions subject the proposed legislation to a direct vote by Wyoming citizens.
They are very difficult to get on the ballot. Historically, few have been successful, even when popular. Former state Rep. Ann Robinson failed in her widely supported effort to get the sales tax off food. The time limits on petitions and signature requirements mean that only efforts that have the funds needed to pay signature gatherers have made it to the ballot in the past 10 or 12 years.
Of the states with initiative petition, Wyoming already requires the highest number of voter signatures (15%) needed to put a proposal directly on the ballot. In 1997, lawmakers decided to make it even harder by proposing a constitutional amendment requiring that the signatures be gathered from at least 2/3rds of Wyoming’s counties.
Lawmakers were warned this violates the principle of “one person, one vote” because county populations are wildly unequal. They went ahead and voters passed the amendment. Now, legislators want to insulate the requirement from a legal challenge on constitutional grounds, but they don’t want to make the initiative process more accessible.
This is a Band-aid meant to make the Legislature comfortable. We urge voters to leave their ballot blank on Amendment B.
Leaving the ballot blank is equivalent to casting a no vote.
The ESPC supports passage of Amendment A, which simplifies the oath of office sworn by public officials.
But we have a different take on Amendment B, which changes the requirements of citizens attempting to circumvent the Legislature to propose new law through an initiative petition. These petitions subject the proposed legislation to a direct vote by Wyoming citizens.
They are very difficult to get on the ballot. Historically, few have been successful, even when popular. Former state Rep. Ann Robinson failed in her widely supported effort to get the sales tax off food. The time limits on petitions and signature requirements mean that only efforts that have the funds needed to pay signature gatherers have made it to the ballot in the past 10 or 12 years.
Of the states with initiative petition, Wyoming already requires the highest number of voter signatures (15%) needed to put a proposal directly on the ballot. In 1997, lawmakers decided to make it even harder by proposing a constitutional amendment requiring that the signatures be gathered from at least 2/3rds of Wyoming’s counties.
Lawmakers were warned this violates the principle of “one person, one vote” because county populations are wildly unequal. They went ahead and voters passed the amendment. Now, legislators want to insulate the requirement from a legal challenge on constitutional grounds, but they don’t want to make the initiative process more accessible.
This is a Band-aid meant to make the Legislature comfortable. We urge voters to leave their ballot blank on Amendment B.
Leaving the ballot blank is equivalent to casting a no vote.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Taking Workers Comp forum to Gillette
We'll take our Workers' Compensation forum to the Campbell County Public Library in Gillette on Sept 10.
Staged with the great help of Marcia Shanor of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association, a group of WTLA members and Kim Floyd of the AFL-CIO, these forums have proven to be an effective way to quickly outline the Workers Comp controversy.
Once again, speakers will explain the genesis of the program, the trade-off workers made in return for assurances that their health would be efficiently restored and any disabilities properly compensated. They'll talk about how the program works — or does not work. Kim Floyd will lay out how the program bureaucracy has become very difficult to navigate for some injured workers. We also expect to hear from several injured workers who will detail their experiences with the system.
Wyoming Public Radio reporter Addy Goss has put together two reports on the program and controversy surrounding it. You can go online to listen to the latest report aired Aug. 12.
The Gillette forum will precede by a few days the Joint Labor Health and Social Services Committee's meeting Sept. 15 and 16 in Casper. (The agenda has not been posted yet but will be available eventually on this link.) The committee will consider draft legislation. We expect proposals to raise the death benefit, add cost of living adjustment to permanent disability settlements, and other positive changes. We hope the committee will direct the agency to make addressing injured workers needs their top priority - rather than the cost containment philosophy that has driven it in the past.
We also expect legislative proposals to limit co-employee liability, a development we'll oppose. It's an example of how opening state statutes does not always lead to positive reform.
Staged with the great help of Marcia Shanor of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association, a group of WTLA members and Kim Floyd of the AFL-CIO, these forums have proven to be an effective way to quickly outline the Workers Comp controversy.
"... these forums have proven to be an effective way to quickly outline the Workers Comp controversy."
Once again, speakers will explain the genesis of the program, the trade-off workers made in return for assurances that their health would be efficiently restored and any disabilities properly compensated. They'll talk about how the program works — or does not work. Kim Floyd will lay out how the program bureaucracy has become very difficult to navigate for some injured workers. We also expect to hear from several injured workers who will detail their experiences with the system.
Wyoming Public Radio reporter Addy Goss has put together two reports on the program and controversy surrounding it. You can go online to listen to the latest report aired Aug. 12.
The Gillette forum will precede by a few days the Joint Labor Health and Social Services Committee's meeting Sept. 15 and 16 in Casper. (The agenda has not been posted yet but will be available eventually on this link.) The committee will consider draft legislation. We expect proposals to raise the death benefit, add cost of living adjustment to permanent disability settlements, and other positive changes. We hope the committee will direct the agency to make addressing injured workers needs their top priority - rather than the cost containment philosophy that has driven it in the past.
We also expect legislative proposals to limit co-employee liability, a development we'll oppose. It's an example of how opening state statutes does not always lead to positive reform.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Big Coal seeks special tax deal
This is ESPC researcher Sarah Gorin's report from the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee meeting Aug. 7 and 8. The committee met in Gillette, the heart of Wyoming's coal country.
The Joint Revenue Committee met last week to study one of its interim (between legislative sessions) topics, coal valuation.
Coal “valuation” means determining the value of coal for tax purposes. Coal producers pay a 7% severance tax for the privilege of taking the coal from the ground, along with a property tax of approximately 6%. Both the severance and property taxes take into account the reality that once the coal is mined, it is gone forever.
Wyoming’s coal industry paid about $425 million in combined severance and property taxes on 2006 coal production of nearly 445 million tons. They also paid federal mineral royalties and coal lease bonuses that the federal government shares with Wyoming.
Because Wyoming’s severance and property taxes are levied as a percent of value, the valuation of a mineral is important – greater or smaller valuations result in more or less tax revenue. All the revenue is earmarked and supports current needs such as education, as well as future needs through the Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust Fund.
Before going into the current coal valuation study, it’s useful to review the recent history of coal taxes and revenues.
Coal valuation is arrived at by a formula that has been in place since 1990. The problem with the formula now, according to the coal industry, is that each coal producer pays slightly different taxes per ton of coal mined, depending on that producer’s costs. What the coal industry wants legislators to do is to pin the cost component of the valuation formula to a specific number set in state law, rather than allowing it to vary by producer. Pinning this component will effectively keep the cost component of the formula from increasing, thereby holding down coal valuations and tax revenues from coal.
The examples presented by the industry to show the effects of the present system are as follows:
Example A: Due to increased coal haulage distance and increased cost of diesel fuel and tires, producer has installed an overland conveyor system to transport extracted coal to the processing loadout facility. Implementation of the overland conveyor results in a $5 million annual savings in out-of-pit transportation costs.
Difference in taxes: Four cents per ton increase in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example B: Due to increased production and an aging overland conveyor, crusher, and loadout, producer approves a $100 million upgrade of these facilities resulting in an annual depreciation expense increase of $5 million.
Difference in taxes: Four cents per ton decrease in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example C: Due to a variety of reasons, the producer falls 5 million cubic yards behind in overburden removal compared to the actual coal shipped resulting in less coal than desired being uncovered in relationship to the actual coal shipments. $1 per cubic yard estimated cost to remove overburden.
Difference in taxes: Two cents per ton decrease in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example D: After falling behind in overburden removal, the producer catches up the 5 million cubic yards to restore the desired relationship of uncovered coal to actual coal shipments. $1 per cubic yard estimated cost to remove overburden.
Difference in taxes: On this one, we have to go to three decimal places to get it: .0059 cent per ton increase in severance tax and one cent per ton in property tax, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
These “inequities” in coal valuation simply reflect mine investment or management decisions made by the different producers – decisions made, by the way, to result in net increased revenues to their companies.
All of you business and home owners, are you with me here? If you complained about stuff like this, the state wouldn’t give you the time of day. The coal industry shouldn’t get the time either.
The Joint Revenue Committee met last week to study one of its interim (between legislative sessions) topics, coal valuation.
Coal “valuation” means determining the value of coal for tax purposes. Coal producers pay a 7% severance tax for the privilege of taking the coal from the ground, along with a property tax of approximately 6%. Both the severance and property taxes take into account the reality that once the coal is mined, it is gone forever.
"Because Wyoming’s severance and property taxes are levied as a percent of value, the valuation of a mineral is important – greater or smaller valuations result in more or less tax revenue. "
Wyoming’s coal industry paid about $425 million in combined severance and property taxes on 2006 coal production of nearly 445 million tons. They also paid federal mineral royalties and coal lease bonuses that the federal government shares with Wyoming.
Because Wyoming’s severance and property taxes are levied as a percent of value, the valuation of a mineral is important – greater or smaller valuations result in more or less tax revenue. All the revenue is earmarked and supports current needs such as education, as well as future needs through the Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust Fund.
Before going into the current coal valuation study, it’s useful to review the recent history of coal taxes and revenues.
- when the current coal valuation formula was adopted in 1990, the Legislative Service Office projected a loss of approximately $22 million for the fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993, based on previous collections
- expiration of the 2% coal impact tax in 1987
- expiration of the 1.5% capital facilities tax in 1993
- limitation of taxes on “high-cost” coal from 1987 forward
- when coal lease costs were reclassified in 2002 as a result of a coal industry lawsuit, revenue losses were estimated at $4 million/year in combined severance and property taxes; this figure has risen to over $10 million/year due to the huge amounts coal companies are bidding for federal leases (evidence of their confidence in future coal markets).
Coal valuation is arrived at by a formula that has been in place since 1990. The problem with the formula now, according to the coal industry, is that each coal producer pays slightly different taxes per ton of coal mined, depending on that producer’s costs. What the coal industry wants legislators to do is to pin the cost component of the valuation formula to a specific number set in state law, rather than allowing it to vary by producer. Pinning this component will effectively keep the cost component of the formula from increasing, thereby holding down coal valuations and tax revenues from coal.
The examples presented by the industry to show the effects of the present system are as follows:
Example A: Due to increased coal haulage distance and increased cost of diesel fuel and tires, producer has installed an overland conveyor system to transport extracted coal to the processing loadout facility. Implementation of the overland conveyor results in a $5 million annual savings in out-of-pit transportation costs.
Difference in taxes: Four cents per ton increase in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example B: Due to increased production and an aging overland conveyor, crusher, and loadout, producer approves a $100 million upgrade of these facilities resulting in an annual depreciation expense increase of $5 million.
Difference in taxes: Four cents per ton decrease in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example C: Due to a variety of reasons, the producer falls 5 million cubic yards behind in overburden removal compared to the actual coal shipped resulting in less coal than desired being uncovered in relationship to the actual coal shipments. $1 per cubic yard estimated cost to remove overburden.
Difference in taxes: Two cents per ton decrease in combined severance and property taxes, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
Example D: After falling behind in overburden removal, the producer catches up the 5 million cubic yards to restore the desired relationship of uncovered coal to actual coal shipments. $1 per cubic yard estimated cost to remove overburden.
Difference in taxes: On this one, we have to go to three decimal places to get it: .0059 cent per ton increase in severance tax and one cent per ton in property tax, assuming a coal price of $10/ton.
These “inequities” in coal valuation simply reflect mine investment or management decisions made by the different producers – decisions made, by the way, to result in net increased revenues to their companies.
All of you business and home owners, are you with me here? If you complained about stuff like this, the state wouldn’t give you the time of day. The coal industry shouldn’t get the time either.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Getting kids issues on the table
We joined Deanna Frey of the Wyoming Children's Action Alliance and others concerned about the prospects for all of the state's kids in an effort to get children's issues on the table for the political campaign.
Our first public effort along these lines is a letter to the editor in today's Casper Star-Tribune (July 10, 2008) asking participants in the congressional candidates' forum at Casper College tonight to address several key questions. I'll append the letter below.
The forum, sponsored by the Casper Area Chamber of Commerce, starts tonight at 6 p.m. at Durham Hall. It's the second of a series of such forums. The next one is Aug. 14 in Rock Springs at Western Wyoming College, just before the Aug. 19 primary. Republicans Mark Gordon, Michael Holland, Cynthia Lummis, and Bill Winney are expected to join Democratic candidate Gary Trauner and Libertarian David Herbert.
Those with questions for the candidates can email them to committees@casperwyoming.org. Questions will also be gathered at the forum.
The primary will winnow the Republican candidates to a single nominee. Two other forums are scheduled so far after the primary. The first is Sept, 15 in Cheyenne at the Depot Plaza. In October, a final forum will be staged at the Gillette College Campus on Oct. 23.
Here's the letter we sent to the CST:
Our first public effort along these lines is a letter to the editor in today's Casper Star-Tribune (July 10, 2008) asking participants in the congressional candidates' forum at Casper College tonight to address several key questions. I'll append the letter below.
The forum, sponsored by the Casper Area Chamber of Commerce, starts tonight at 6 p.m. at Durham Hall. It's the second of a series of such forums. The next one is Aug. 14 in Rock Springs at Western Wyoming College, just before the Aug. 19 primary. Republicans Mark Gordon, Michael Holland, Cynthia Lummis, and Bill Winney are expected to join Democratic candidate Gary Trauner and Libertarian David Herbert.
Those with questions for the candidates can email them to committees@casperwyoming.org. Questions will also be gathered at the forum.
The primary will winnow the Republican candidates to a single nominee. Two other forums are scheduled so far after the primary. The first is Sept, 15 in Cheyenne at the Depot Plaza. In October, a final forum will be staged at the Gillette College Campus on Oct. 23.
Here's the letter we sent to the CST:
Congressional candidates
should Step Up for Kids
July 10, 2008
Dear Editor:
Step Up for Kids, an ad hoc group of advocates for Wyoming children and families, congratulates the candidates for our lone congressional seat for participating in forums across the state. We’re pleased to see them come to Casper College for tonight’s event.
The candidates face many pressing issues, but we believe taking care of Wyoming and America’s children should be the nation’s top priority. While most children live in secure environments and reach young adulthood healthy both emotionally and physically, we know that the opportunity to become productive members of society eludes thousands of
First, 8.6 million children in the country and about 10,000
Second, Wyoming has the second highest juvenile incarceration rate among the 50 states for children ages 10-15, according to the 2008 Kids Count report. And it ranks 50th for overall juvenile incarceration rates, according to Every Child Matters. Imprisonment has become a substitute for addressing substance abuse, poverty, mental illness and educational failure. What opportunities exist to keep
And third, what will the candidates do to advance early childhood development? The Child Care Development Block Grant has not been reauthorized since 1996. This program provides subsidies to low income working families (many of whom are working more than one job).
We urge the reporters and editors of the Star-Tribune and other state media to ask candidates for all levels of government office to address questions about making smart investments to improve the prospects for all our children.
Sincerely,
Deanna Frey Dan Neal
Wyoming Children’s Action Alliance Equality State Policy Center
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Step Up for Kids conference call
Children's advocates around Wyoming talked today to discuss plans for Step Up for Kids Day Sept. 16. Events that day around the state will raise public awareness of the issues challenging Wyoming's children.
Here's the agenda for the conference call joined by the advocates:
Here's the agenda for the conference call joined by the advocates:
June 18, 2008 1 p.m.
I. Welcome
II. Purpose of the Sept. 16 event – Making America’s and Wyoming’s children a political priority
a. ECM’s role and plans of assistance
1. Website: http://ecm.soapbxxdev.com/Wyoming/About/Wyoming-Home.html
2. Signs and other materials)
b. Organizing community-by-community
1. Community captains
a. Obtain a permit to gather at the county courthouse
b. Contact local advocates to speak at the event and bring children and families
c. Invite candidates for local, state & national office to attend
d. Coordinate communication with local media about the event
2. Community stories
a. Most pressing children’s need or needs in each community
b. Photos
c. Releases
III. Messaging
a. Talking points – group review
1. First goal is to get Wyoming’s communities to talk about children’s issues
2. Second goal is to convince candidates and media to discuss these issues in this year’s political campaigns
b. Maintaining consistency – keep the message on target
IV. Financing
a. Small committee to assist Frey/Neal - voluneers
b. Identify potential sources
V. What’s next
a. Other ideas
b. Determine communication method for group
c. Set date of next meeting/call
VI. Adjourn
I
Friday, June 13, 2008
Campaign school draws crowd of candidates
The Equality State Policy Center conducted its eighth Grassroots Campaign School last weekend at the IBEW Hall in Casper. Twenty candidates for the legislature, county commissions, and city and town councils attended the nonpartisan school.
They heard political consultants Tom Novick and Liz Kaufman, right, stress direct outreach to the voters that the candidates hope to represent. Each candidate was urged to put together a plan that relies on door-to-door campaigning to guide his or her campaign over the coming weeks.
Novick and Kaufman use role-playing and other interactive techniques to help the candidates overcome any reticence about door-knocking and raising funds to finance their campaigns.
The ESPC believes that candidates who engage in direct campaigning will learn the needs of the people they eventually represent at city hall or in the state Capitol. That understanding will lead to better public policy that serves the needs of the people who elect them.
We appreciate the support of Western States Center in co-sponsoring the school.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Workers' Comp hearing June 2
Injured workers deserve better treatment
Monday we’ll take the quest for positive changes in the programs directed by Wyoming’s Workers’ Compensation and Safety division to the Joint Labor Health and Social Services Committee.
Some of the problems they encounter are embedded in state law and the division’s interpretation of those laws. Mental injury can be considered compensable only if the worker’s mental state —such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder —can be directly attributed to an injury suffered on the job. At least that’s how the division interprets the law as written.
Among the changes we're asking for:
- Improve compensation for permanent disabilities.
- Improve compensation for temporary disabilities.
- Redefine injury to include all injuries, including mental injuries, arising in the work environment when those injuries are provable and impact that person’s ability to function.
- Devise a way to ensure the Division’s accountability for increased access to information to help injured workers. This could include establishing an ombudsman’s office.
- Increase the death benefit.
- Require the Division to investigate any accident that results in one or more serious bodily injuries.
The hearing starts at 8 a.m. June 2 at the UW Outreach Building, 951 N. Poplar in Casper. Please consider joining us, especially if you're an injured worker who can tell the committee about real experience with the state's Workers' Compensation system.
Keeping children’s issues on the table
Marc Homer of the Wyoming Children’s Action Alliance put together an excellent analysis of Wyoming’s child care needs. You won’t be surprised to hear that demand far exceeds capacity. It’s a great burden on the state’s working families. You can read Marc's column here.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Union pay advantage
It seems so obvious, but still needs to be said: If you're laboring in the lower or middle levels of the Wyoming wage scale, joining a union makes a difference.
New work by economist John Schmitt and others at the Center for Economic and Policy Research refines the common view that union membership benefits the average worker. Schmitt, Margy Waller, Shawn Fremstad and Ben Zipperer discusses the hand unionism has in moving people up the economic ladder.
Their study shows the "disproportionately large benefits of unionization for lower-wage workers."
Nationally, unionization raised the average wage about 11.2 percent. But if you're a Wyoming worker at the lowest end of the Wyoming wage scale, the 10th decile, union membership raised your pay by 23.3 percent. At the 20th decile, union members earned 21.2 percent more than non-union workers.
The study found that the union pay advantage declines the higher up the scale one climbs. At the 90th decile, the pay advantage is just 8 percent — still significant, but less so. At that level, you'd find doctors, lawyers, or other professionals.
Unfortunately, Wyoming has made unionization difficult with its so-called "Right to Work" law. Workers who hire on with a job that has a union are allowed to decline joining the union. They get to enjoy all the benefits, including health care, that the union obtains for workers at that site without paying any union dues.
This is precisely the wrong thing to do if we want to improve the lot of low-wage workers and maintain a good life for those in the middle. Other recent research has shown that Wyoming, like the rest of the nation, is seeing society pulled apart: over the past two decades, those at the bottom of the economic heap have seen their incomes stagnate while those in the top fifth have enjoyed big gains and those in the Top 1 Percent have let the rest of us far behind.
It does not bode well for a state that believes in equal opportunity. People who lose out economically will stop participating politically and eventually become cynical and bitter.
Reference
John Schmitt, Margy Waller, Shawn Fremstad and Ben Zipperer, "Unions and Upward Mobility for Low-Wage Workers," Center for Economic and Policy Research Briefing Paper, August 2007. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/uions-and-upward-mobility-for-low-wage-workers/
You can access it here.
Meanwhile, here's the news release we issued jointly with the Wyoming Chapter of the AFL-CIO on May 15:
New work by economist John Schmitt and others at the Center for Economic and Policy Research refines the common view that union membership benefits the average worker. Schmitt, Margy Waller, Shawn Fremstad and Ben Zipperer discusses the hand unionism has in moving people up the economic ladder.
Their study shows the "disproportionately large benefits of unionization for lower-wage workers."
Nationally, unionization raised the average wage about 11.2 percent. But if you're a Wyoming worker at the lowest end of the Wyoming wage scale, the 10th decile, union membership raised your pay by 23.3 percent. At the 20th decile, union members earned 21.2 percent more than non-union workers.
The study found that the union pay advantage declines the higher up the scale one climbs. At the 90th decile, the pay advantage is just 8 percent — still significant, but less so. At that level, you'd find doctors, lawyers, or other professionals.
Unfortunately, Wyoming has made unionization difficult with its so-called "Right to Work" law. Workers who hire on with a job that has a union are allowed to decline joining the union. They get to enjoy all the benefits, including health care, that the union obtains for workers at that site without paying any union dues.
This is precisely the wrong thing to do if we want to improve the lot of low-wage workers and maintain a good life for those in the middle. Other recent research has shown that Wyoming, like the rest of the nation, is seeing society pulled apart: over the past two decades, those at the bottom of the economic heap have seen their incomes stagnate while those in the top fifth have enjoyed big gains and those in the Top 1 Percent have let the rest of us far behind.
It does not bode well for a state that believes in equal opportunity. People who lose out economically will stop participating politically and eventually become cynical and bitter.
Reference
John Schmitt, Margy Waller, Shawn Fremstad and Ben Zipperer, "Unions and Upward Mobility for Low-Wage Workers," Center for Economic and Policy Research Briefing Paper, August 2007. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/uions-and-upward-mobility-for-low-wage-workers/
You can access it here.
Meanwhile, here's the news release we issued jointly with the Wyoming Chapter of the AFL-CIO on May 15:
NEWS from the Equality State Policy Center May 15, 2008
For immediate release
Contact: Dan Neal, 307-258-2783
Sarah Gorin, 307-760-8280
Kim Floyd, 307-214-7845
Unionization Can Boost Family Economic Self-Sufficiency
A new national study shows that joining a union significantly increases income for low-wage workers, and Wyoming is no exception, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and the Equality State Policy Center (ESPC).
The report, “The Union Advantage for Low-Wage Workers,” finds that unionization raises the wages of the typical low-wage worker by 20.6 percent. Unions also have a substantial impact on the wages of workers at the middle and top of the wage distribution, but the report found that the effect for low-wage workers was the largest.
In Wyoming, the effect is even more pronounced. Union workers in the bottom tenth of wage earners earn 26% more than their non-union counterparts; in the next-highest tenth, union workers earn 23% more.
“Higher wages are the key to reducing dependency on public assistance programs, and keep more families from slipping down the economic ladder,” said Dan Neal, ESPC executive director. “Wyoming is a so-called “right-to-work” state, which means we have laws in place to weaken unions – exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to improve the economic status of low-wage workers and maintain a good life for those in the middle.”
Neal pointed to the recent “Pulling Apart” study, which showed a widening gap between the rich and poor nationally and in Wyoming. “In our state, underneath the prosperity of the energy boom, the bottom fifth of income earners gained almost nothing over the past 20 years,” Neal said. “This new study suggests that welcoming unions would extend economic prosperity to more Wyomingites.”
An added bonus is access to health care. “Nearly all union wage agreements include benefits such as health insurance,” said Kim Floyd, executive secretary of the Wyoming State
Floyd noted that union membership has grown during the energy boom of the past few years. Federal data show that just under 10% of Wyoming workers are unionized.
“Broader unionization would put more money in workers’ pockets and help everyone in the state,” Floyd said. “On a more personal note, joining a union is one way a person can help ensure greater stability for his or her family.”
State policy-makers could take a few other steps to improve the lot of workers by raising the low minimum wage for tipped employees in Wyoming, which stands at just $2.13 an hour, and by indexing the minimum wage to inflation, ESPC researcher Sarah Gorin said.
The Equality State Policy Center, a broad-based coalition of Wyoming interests, works through research, public education and advocacy to hold Wyoming state and local governments accountable to the people they represent, and to encourage and assist state residents to participate effectively in public policy decision-making.
Dan Neal, executive director, 307-258-2783 dneal@equalitystate.org
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The shrinking American Dream
Rising tide lifts only some boats
Economic growth no longer shared broadly in America or Wyoming
Government policies over the past two decades have failed those at the bottom of the economic scale in this country and this state and have only moderately benefitted people in the middle.
For those at the top of the economic heap, however, public policies have delivered a bigger and bigger share of the economic pie.
The ESPC worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute to jointly publicize the news that Ronald Reagan's dream of a "rising tide lifts all boats" is just dream that does not reflect reality.
This is not what happened in America in the two decades that followed World War II, when policies such as the GI bill and other public investments spurred the nation's economy and spread the newly created wealth equally across society.
You can get a look at the CBPP/EPI research and our news release through the ESPC website's Research and Publications page. You'll see suggestions for policy changes that can again assure people that when they work hard, they'll share in the additional wealth they create.
Public policy creates real results. I witnessed the effects of the GI bill in my childhood and youth in Idaho. You can read an op-ed I wrote reflecting on all this here.
Economic growth no longer shared broadly in America or Wyoming
Government policies over the past two decades have failed those at the bottom of the economic scale in this country and this state and have only moderately benefitted people in the middle.
For those at the top of the economic heap, however, public policies have delivered a bigger and bigger share of the economic pie.
The ESPC worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute to jointly publicize the news that Ronald Reagan's dream of a "rising tide lifts all boats" is just dream that does not reflect reality.
This is not what happened in America in the two decades that followed World War II, when policies such as the GI bill and other public investments spurred the nation's economy and spread the newly created wealth equally across society.
You can get a look at the CBPP/EPI research and our news release through the ESPC website's Research and Publications page. You'll see suggestions for policy changes that can again assure people that when they work hard, they'll share in the additional wealth they create.
Public policy creates real results. I witnessed the effects of the GI bill in my childhood and youth in Idaho. You can read an op-ed I wrote reflecting on all this here.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A de facto moratorium on coal?
Higher severance tax on coal should be in the policy mix
The Equality State Policy Center long has argued that the state should assess a higher severance tax on coal. A UW study of the severance tax long ago revealed that we can impose modest increases without endangering jobs and certainly without driving the companies away.
Even though the mining indisturty often play states off against one another, threatening to move if Colorado/Wyoming/Arizona/New Mexico raise taxes, we know the mining and railroad corporations have invested millions in the infrastructure needed to dig and ship the coal. They're not going anywhere. The coal is here. So's all their stuff.
Growing awareness of climate change due to carbon emissions has turned public opinion in many regions of the country against construction of new coal-fired plants. The country will rely on the existing coal plants for many years, though it will demand that they work harder to clean up emissions. New coal plants face an uncertain future. In fact, the Earth Policy Institute says the industry is now confronted by a de facto moratorium on the construction of new power plants. (See below. The Earth Policy Institute is formulating plans to phase out coal-fired electricity generation worldwide by 2020.)
State policymakers correctly have financed research to find ways to use the btus in coal more efficiently with significant reductions in environmental impacts. They should consider taking a parallel step and raise the severance tax now while we're certain of a market for Wyoming's coal.
Here's a news release from the the Earth Policy Institute forwarded by former ESPC executive director Tom Throop:
April 2, 2008
THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR COAL
A Long Year in the Life of the U.S. Coal Industry
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm
Lester R. Brown and Jonathan G. Dorn
With concerns about climate change mounting, the era of coal-fired electricity generation in the United States may be coming to a close. In early 2007, a U.S. Department of Energy report listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages in the United States. But during 2007, 59 proposed plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition, close to 50 coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged when they reach the permitting stage.
What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well as leading climate scientists and state governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading financial groups are now downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon emissions when proving economic viability.
On March 11, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman of California introduced a bill to ban new coal-fired power plants without carbon emissions controls nationwide until federal regulations are put in place to address greenhouse gas emissions. If Congress passes this bill, it will deal a death blow to the future of U.S. coal-fired power generation. Yet even without a legislative mandate for a moratorium, the contraction in financial support for new coal-fired power plants is escalating toward a de facto moratorium. The timeline that follows is witness to what may well be the beginning of the end of coal-fired power in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Long Year in the Life of the U.S. Coal Industry -- Timeline
On-line at www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm.
26 February 2007 - James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading climate scientist, calls for a moratorium on the construction of coal-fired power plants that do not sequester carbon, saying that it makes no sense to build these plants when we will have to "bulldoze" them in a few years.
26 February 2007 - Under mounting pressure from environmental groups, TXU Corporation, a Dallas-based energy company, abandons plans for 8 of 11 proposed coal-fired power plants, catalyzing the shift from coal-based to renewable energy development in Texas.
2 April 2007 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and that EPA's current rationale for not regulating this gas is inadequate.
3 May 2007 - Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signs a bill that prevents new power plants from exceeding 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour of electricity generated, creating a de facto moratorium on building new coal-fired power plants in the state.
30 May 2007 - Progress Energy, an energy company serving approximately 3.1 million customers in the Southeast, announces a two-year moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
2 July 2007 - The Florida Public Service Commission denies Florida Power & Light the permits needed to move forward with the massive 1,960-megawatt coal-fired Glades Power Park, citing uncertainty surrounding future carbon costs.
13 July 2007 - Florida Governor Charlie Crist signs an Executive Order establishing "maximum allowable emission levels of greenhouse gases for electric utilities." Under the emissions cap, building new coal-fired power plants in the state seems unlikely.
18 July 2007 - Citigroup downgrades the stocks of Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal Inc., and Foundation Coal Holdings Inc., prominent U.S. coal companies. The decision reflects the growing uncertainty surrounding coal's future in the United States.
18 August 2007 - After opposing new coal-fired power in Nevada, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he is opposed to building coal-fired power plants anywhere.
18 October 2007 - The Kansas Department of Health and Environment denies Sunflower Electric Power Corporation air quality permits for two proposed 700-megawatt coal-fired generators on the basis that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and should be regulated.
3 January 2008 - Merrill Lynch downgrades the investment ratings of Consol Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp., two leading U.S. coal companies.
22 January 2008 - The Attorneys General of California, six eastern states, and the District of Columbia submit a letter to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control opposing the proposed 1,320-megawatt Pee Dee coal-fired power plant. They note that emissions from this plant would "seriously undermin[e] the concerted efforts being undertaken by multiple states to address global warming."
30 January 2008 - Citing escalating costs, the Bush administration pulls the plug on federal funding for FutureGen, a joint project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant that captures and sequesters carbon.
4 February 2008 - Investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announce that any future lending for coal-fired power plants will be contingent on the utilities demonstrating economic viability under future carbon costs. Demonstrating economic viability would require speculation of future costs, imposing a risk on the investment.
8 February 2008 - The U.S. Court of Appeals overturns two EPA mercury rules covering coal-fired power plants, thus requiring new coal-fired plants to implement the most stringent mercury controls available. Compliance is expected to raise the considerable costs of 32 proposed coal plants, some already under construction.
12 February 2008 - Bank of America announces that it will start factoring in a cost of $20–40 per ton of carbon emissions in its risk analysis when evaluating loan applications from utilities.
19 February 2008 - The federal government suspends a low-interest loan program for rural utilities seeking assistance for new coal-fired power plants.
11 March 2008 - Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) introduce a bill that would block the EPA and states from issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants that lack state-of-the-art carbon capture and storage technology. Since this technology is at least a decade away from commercial viability, if this bill passes it would essentially place a near-term moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Earth Policy Institute, www.earthpolicy.org, April 2008.
Additional details and references at www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline2.htm.
# # #
Earth Policy Institute
News Release
April 2, 2008
THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR COAL
A Long Year in the Life of the U.S. Coal Industry
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm
Lester R. Brown and Jonathan G. Dorn
With concerns about climate change mounting, the era of coal-fired electricity generation in the United States may be coming to a close. In early 2007, a U.S. Department of Energy report listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages in the United States. But during 2007, 59 proposed plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition, close to 50 coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged when they reach the permitting stage.
What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well as leading climate scientists and state governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading financial groups are now downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon emissions when proving economic viability.
On March 11, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman of California introduced a bill to ban new coal-fired power plants without carbon emissions controls nationwide until federal regulations are put in place to address greenhouse gas emissions. If Congress passes this bill, it will deal a death blow to the future of U.S. coal-fired power generation. Yet even without a legislative mandate for a moratorium, the contraction in financial support for new coal-fired power plants is escalating toward a de facto moratorium. The timeline that follows is witness to what may well be the beginning of the end of coal-fired power in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Long Year in the Life of the U.S. Coal Industry -- Timeline
On-line at www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm.
26 February 2007 - James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading climate scientist, calls for a moratorium on the construction of coal-fired power plants that do not sequester carbon, saying that it makes no sense to build these plants when we will have to "bulldoze" them in a few years.
26 February 2007 - Under mounting pressure from environmental groups, TXU Corporation, a Dallas-based energy company, abandons plans for 8 of 11 proposed coal-fired power plants, catalyzing the shift from coal-based to renewable energy development in Texas.
2 April 2007 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and that EPA's current rationale for not regulating this gas is inadequate.
3 May 2007 - Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signs a bill that prevents new power plants from exceeding 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour of electricity generated, creating a de facto moratorium on building new coal-fired power plants in the state.
30 May 2007 - Progress Energy, an energy company serving approximately 3.1 million customers in the Southeast, announces a two-year moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
2 July 2007 - The Florida Public Service Commission denies Florida Power & Light the permits needed to move forward with the massive 1,960-megawatt coal-fired Glades Power Park, citing uncertainty surrounding future carbon costs.
13 July 2007 - Florida Governor Charlie Crist signs an Executive Order establishing "maximum allowable emission levels of greenhouse gases for electric utilities." Under the emissions cap, building new coal-fired power plants in the state seems unlikely.
18 July 2007 - Citigroup downgrades the stocks of Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal Inc., and Foundation Coal Holdings Inc., prominent U.S. coal companies. The decision reflects the growing uncertainty surrounding coal's future in the United States.
18 August 2007 - After opposing new coal-fired power in Nevada, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he is opposed to building coal-fired power plants anywhere.
18 October 2007 - The Kansas Department of Health and Environment denies Sunflower Electric Power Corporation air quality permits for two proposed 700-megawatt coal-fired generators on the basis that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and should be regulated.
3 January 2008 - Merrill Lynch downgrades the investment ratings of Consol Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp., two leading U.S. coal companies.
22 January 2008 - The Attorneys General of California, six eastern states, and the District of Columbia submit a letter to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control opposing the proposed 1,320-megawatt Pee Dee coal-fired power plant. They note that emissions from this plant would "seriously undermin[e] the concerted efforts being undertaken by multiple states to address global warming."
30 January 2008 - Citing escalating costs, the Bush administration pulls the plug on federal funding for FutureGen, a joint project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant that captures and sequesters carbon.
4 February 2008 - Investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announce that any future lending for coal-fired power plants will be contingent on the utilities demonstrating economic viability under future carbon costs. Demonstrating economic viability would require speculation of future costs, imposing a risk on the investment.
8 February 2008 - The U.S. Court of Appeals overturns two EPA mercury rules covering coal-fired power plants, thus requiring new coal-fired plants to implement the most stringent mercury controls available. Compliance is expected to raise the considerable costs of 32 proposed coal plants, some already under construction.
12 February 2008 - Bank of America announces that it will start factoring in a cost of $20–40 per ton of carbon emissions in its risk analysis when evaluating loan applications from utilities.
19 February 2008 - The federal government suspends a low-interest loan program for rural utilities seeking assistance for new coal-fired power plants.
11 March 2008 - Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) introduce a bill that would block the EPA and states from issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants that lack state-of-the-art carbon capture and storage technology. Since this technology is at least a decade away from commercial viability, if this bill passes it would essentially place a near-term moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Earth Policy Institute, www.earthpolicy.org, April 2008.
Additional details and references at www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline2.htm.
# # #
For a strategy on how to phase out coal-fired power generation worldwide by 2020, see Chapters 11 and 12 in Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, available for free downloading at www.earthpolicy.org.
Additional resources at www.earthpolicy.org
Additional resources at www.earthpolicy.org
Friday, March 7, 2008
Legislature takes accountability plunge
Management Council backs study of electronic voting
Knock us over with a feather ... the Management Council on Friday directed its Select Committees on Legislative Technology and Legislative Process to figure out how the Wyoming Legislature can integrate electronic voting into its procedures.
The Management Council, made up of most of the legislative leadership with a few other legislators thrown in, took the long-awaited step very carefully, and laid out a series of concerns.
House Speaker Roy Cohee and Senate President John Schiffer serve as chairman and vice-chairman. Cohee asked the Council to discuss electronic voting, citing letters sent to the Council this week by the ESPC and the League of Women Voters that requested an interim study.
Schiffer, who sounded off against the change last year, Friday expressed fears that electronic voting will somehow diminish the gravity of the Senate's voting.
"The most important thing we do is vote," Schiffer said.
Which is the reason the ESPC and others have urged the Legislature to move to electronic voting for years. It assures accountability in the most specific way.
Under present rules, the Legislature records floor votes when a bill is killed, on third readings of bills, when an amendment to any bill increases or decreases state spending, or when a member makes a motion to record the yeas and nays and gets a second for the motion. Votes on amendments are conducted as voice votes, making it impossible to determine who supports or opposes what can be critical motions.
This move means the select committees will figure out how to integrate electronic voting into all its procedures. We'll have to work hard to encourage recording of all votes. The Council already appears ready to get the votes up on its website.
Knock us over with a feather ... the Management Council on Friday directed its Select Committees on Legislative Technology and Legislative Process to figure out how the Wyoming Legislature can integrate electronic voting into its procedures.
The Management Council, made up of most of the legislative leadership with a few other legislators thrown in, took the long-awaited step very carefully, and laid out a series of concerns.
House Speaker Roy Cohee and Senate President John Schiffer serve as chairman and vice-chairman. Cohee asked the Council to discuss electronic voting, citing letters sent to the Council this week by the ESPC and the League of Women Voters that requested an interim study.
Schiffer, who sounded off against the change last year, Friday expressed fears that electronic voting will somehow diminish the gravity of the Senate's voting.
"The most important thing we do is vote," Schiffer said.
Which is the reason the ESPC and others have urged the Legislature to move to electronic voting for years. It assures accountability in the most specific way.
Under present rules, the Legislature records floor votes when a bill is killed, on third readings of bills, when an amendment to any bill increases or decreases state spending, or when a member makes a motion to record the yeas and nays and gets a second for the motion. Votes on amendments are conducted as voice votes, making it impossible to determine who supports or opposes what can be critical motions.
This move means the select committees will figure out how to integrate electronic voting into all its procedures. We'll have to work hard to encourage recording of all votes. The Council already appears ready to get the votes up on its website.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Interim intrigue
Labor Committee will propose Workers' Comp study
Advocates for workers apparently have succeeded in their efforts to convince the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Committee to open a study of the Wyoming Workers' Compensation system over the coming year.
It's a tribute to the workers and their advocates who began pushing last month to broaden public awareness of the problems injured workers face when they get hurt and need the benefits promised by the system. Rep. Jerry Iekel of Sheridan called Workers' Comp "the elephant in the room" when the House Labor Committee met to consider interim topices. He told those attending the late Monday meeting that he spends easily half his constituent service time helping people struggling with the Workers' Comp system.
With all the bills out of committees, many of the standing committees on Monday talked about the potential topics for consideration during the interim period — the months between the end of the budget session and the opening of the General Session next January.
Monday morning, all five members of the Senate Labor Committee listed Workers' Comp as a priority. Members of both the House and Senate committees said they want to examine the adequacy of death benefits. Kim Floyd of the Wyoming State AFL-CIO urged the committee to look at the difficulties injured workers encounter when they seek compensation for temporary or permanent disabilities. House Committee Chairman Jack Landon said he wants to look at the benefits schedule for the agency.
Opening the law will require careful attention from workers and others. Some will see the interim study as the opportunity to achieve other goals, such as eliminating co-employee liability. Expect others to argue that rather than increasing benefits, the system should cut premiums charged employers for the coverage that protects them from civil lawsuits even when they are culpably negligent.
Other topics considered by the House LHSS Committee include:
Other committee ideas
The Technology Committee discussed its plans to propose expansion of the Legislature's underlying electronic technology infrastructure. The committee discussed hiring a consultant to help design the system. Members want to to more to make the legislature's website more user friendly, transmit messages between the houses of the Legislature, keep citizens more informed about development of individual bills, and accommodate electronic voting (should it ever be adopted by the leadership). The ESPC suggested the future plan definitely should include electronic voting (there's some government accountability) and consider a system that would enable video streaming from the Legislature, including location of cameras and other needs. Might as well think positive about what we can do. Live video from the Legislature would provide the far-flung residents of the state to observe first-hand and would provide incredible education opportunities for the public schools, colleges and the University of Wyoming.
The Minerals and Economic Development Committee wants to continue efforts to spur pipeline development to get gas and oil out of Wyoming just as fast as we can ... the committee sees it as an effort to reduce the gap between the price paid for gas at the Opal hub versus hubs elsewhere in the country.
The committee also heard proposals to
Campaign finance - Still
The House-Senate Conference committee will meet Tuesday morning at 8 a.m. to consider resolving differences between the two house on House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting. Ever optimistic, we hold out hope that something good will come from this.
Advocates for workers apparently have succeeded in their efforts to convince the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Committee to open a study of the Wyoming Workers' Compensation system over the coming year.
It's a tribute to the workers and their advocates who began pushing last month to broaden public awareness of the problems injured workers face when they get hurt and need the benefits promised by the system. Rep. Jerry Iekel of Sheridan called Workers' Comp "the elephant in the room" when the House Labor Committee met to consider interim topices. He told those attending the late Monday meeting that he spends easily half his constituent service time helping people struggling with the Workers' Comp system.
With all the bills out of committees, many of the standing committees on Monday talked about the potential topics for consideration during the interim period — the months between the end of the budget session and the opening of the General Session next January.
Monday morning, all five members of the Senate Labor Committee listed Workers' Comp as a priority. Members of both the House and Senate committees said they want to examine the adequacy of death benefits. Kim Floyd of the Wyoming State AFL-CIO urged the committee to look at the difficulties injured workers encounter when they seek compensation for temporary or permanent disabilities. House Committee Chairman Jack Landon said he wants to look at the benefits schedule for the agency.
Opening the law will require careful attention from workers and others. Some will see the interim study as the opportunity to achieve other goals, such as eliminating co-employee liability. Expect others to argue that rather than increasing benefits, the system should cut premiums charged employers for the coverage that protects them from civil lawsuits even when they are culpably negligent.
Other topics considered by the House LHSS Committee include:
- Plan review - the system that new hospitals must adhere to that requires review of construction plans and construction inspection.
- Provider reimbursement (essentially the need to increase the Medicaid payment schedule.
- Access & Affordability
- A closer look at the aspects of Senate File 85, the Health pilot project rejected by the House committee last week. It rests on the idea of offering health insurance to selected participants who are working poor. The program called for state subsidized health accounts that the state could use to push people to adopt healthy lifestyles and take advantage of preventive care.
- Smoke-free Wyoming.
Other committee ideas
The Technology Committee discussed its plans to propose expansion of the Legislature's underlying electronic technology infrastructure. The committee discussed hiring a consultant to help design the system. Members want to to more to make the legislature's website more user friendly, transmit messages between the houses of the Legislature, keep citizens more informed about development of individual bills, and accommodate electronic voting (should it ever be adopted by the leadership). The ESPC suggested the future plan definitely should include electronic voting (there's some government accountability) and consider a system that would enable video streaming from the Legislature, including location of cameras and other needs. Might as well think positive about what we can do. Live video from the Legislature would provide the far-flung residents of the state to observe first-hand and would provide incredible education opportunities for the public schools, colleges and the University of Wyoming.
The Minerals and Economic Development Committee wants to continue efforts to spur pipeline development to get gas and oil out of Wyoming just as fast as we can ... the committee sees it as an effort to reduce the gap between the price paid for gas at the Opal hub versus hubs elsewhere in the country.
The committee also heard proposals to
- Review workforce issues. Joan Evans ot the Department of Employment urged the committee to examine its "Sector Strategy Approach"to meet workforce needs. Rep. Deb Hammons said more communication is needed between state educators and Evans' department to coordinate efforts so that public school and college graduates will be prepared for the jobs available in the state.
- Look at the Wyoming Business Council to assess its performance as the key element of state economic diversification efforts. Hammons said the council seems to spread its money around rather than employing a more targeted strategy.
- Review the Siting Act.
- Consider bonding needs for big industrial projects. (The Mining Association wants this.)
- Revisit the Revolving Loan Fund Accounts bill (House Bill 66.)
Campaign finance - Still
The House-Senate Conference committee will meet Tuesday morning at 8 a.m. to consider resolving differences between the two house on House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting. Ever optimistic, we hold out hope that something good will come from this.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Campaign finance limits still in play
House refuses to concur with Senate changes
Efforts to reduce the proposed high limits on individual contributions laid out in House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting failed Thursday and the Senate gave the bill final approval.
Sen. Ken Decaria of Evanston tried to amend the bill to bring Wyoming contribution limits closer to federal individual limits.
The Senate version of the bill, you'll recall, allows individuals to contribute $3,500 per election or up to $7,000 total if they support a candidate running both primary and general election campaigns. The Senate imposed identical limits on state Political Action Committees. The bill carries no upper limit, meaning a wealthy individual interested in getting involved in many elections could give hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence Wyoming elections.
The Senate also cut the penalty for violating the law from $25,000 to $10,000 and inserted an amendment affecting payroll deductions for contributions to PACs. That change eliminates a requirement that an employee annually sign a form authorizing the deductions.
The House refused to concur with the Senate's changes. Reps. Pete Illoway, Deb Hammons and Mary Throne were appointed to represent the House in the concurrence committee. The Senate has yet to appoint its committee members.
Efforts to reduce the proposed high limits on individual contributions laid out in House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting failed Thursday and the Senate gave the bill final approval.
Sen. Ken Decaria of Evanston tried to amend the bill to bring Wyoming contribution limits closer to federal individual limits.
The Senate version of the bill, you'll recall, allows individuals to contribute $3,500 per election or up to $7,000 total if they support a candidate running both primary and general election campaigns. The Senate imposed identical limits on state Political Action Committees. The bill carries no upper limit, meaning a wealthy individual interested in getting involved in many elections could give hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence Wyoming elections.
The Senate also cut the penalty for violating the law from $25,000 to $10,000 and inserted an amendment affecting payroll deductions for contributions to PACs. That change eliminates a requirement that an employee annually sign a form authorizing the deductions.
The House refused to concur with the Senate's changes. Reps. Pete Illoway, Deb Hammons and Mary Throne were appointed to represent the House in the concurrence committee. The Senate has yet to appoint its committee members.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Opening the floodgates
Money could drown system with new limits
The Equality State Policy Center's work to close a loophole in Wyoming's campaign finance laws instead has opened the floodgates to more money in Wyoming politics.
House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting was drafted to address a situation that arose in the 2006 elections. A political donor used a political action committee (PAC) to give more money to one candidate than was allowed under current limits on individual contributions.
Wyoming law presently imposes no limits on state PAC contributions to candidates.
We asked legislators to consider putting a limit on state PAC contributions. They did, but then they raised the individual contribution limit to the sky.
We hope the Senate will either eliminate these sky-high limits or simply kill the bill on third reading today and try it again next year.
A little more background
We wanted the Legislature to impose a limit on state PACs because in 2006, a single individual in Natrona County used a state PAC he formed with his wife to funnel $11,200 to a county commission candidate. Using the PAC enabled him to circumvent existing limits on individual contributions. Those existing limits hold individual contributions to a single candidate to $1,000 per election or a total of $2,000 in an election cycle. ($1,000 for a primary election; $1,000 for a general election.)
The Legislature's Management Council approved an interim study of campaign financing last March and the Joint Corporations Committee agreed to plug the loophole. Unfortunately, House Bill 9 since has been turned into a vehicle to flood Wyoming campaigns with political money. As approved by the Senate Corporations Committee, the bill allows individual contributions of $3,500 per election, or $7,000 per cycle. State PACs would have the same limits EXCEPT in statewide races. A PAC contributing to a candidate for governor could give $7,000 per election or $14,000 total.
There's some irony here. Under the bill as it now stands, the guy in Natrona County could give $7,000 personally to a county commission candidate and another $7,000 through his PAC. The Legislature wants to plug an $11,000 loophole with a $14,000 cork.
Worse, a really rich contributor could give that amount of money to as many candidates as he or she chooses, because the proposed bill eliminates the $25,000 overall limit on any one individual's contributions during a cycle. There's no way that this bill keeps the playing field relatively level for grassroots candidates.
Call to action
Please contact your state senator and ask them either to reduce the limits or kill the bill. We hope an amendment will be offered on third reading tomorrow that will propose raising state contribution limits for both individuals and state PACs to the federal limit on personal contributions: $2,300 per election. (Considerably less than the $3,500 now in the bill.)
Please suggest to your legislator that he or she should protect Wyoming's election process from the corrosive effects of the far-too-high limits in the bill now.
Those arguing for the $3,500 limits maintain that the hike is justified because of inflation. That argument dismisses the political realities in Wyoming, where the average winning campaign in the 2006 general election cost about $11.700. The ESPC believes the limits should be more in proportion to the cost of campaigns in Wyoming, not campaigns conducted in Texas, New York, or California.
The Equality State Policy Center's work to close a loophole in Wyoming's campaign finance laws instead has opened the floodgates to more money in Wyoming politics.
House Bill 9 - Campaign finance reporting was drafted to address a situation that arose in the 2006 elections. A political donor used a political action committee (PAC) to give more money to one candidate than was allowed under current limits on individual contributions.
Wyoming law presently imposes no limits on state PAC contributions to candidates.
We asked legislators to consider putting a limit on state PAC contributions. They did, but then they raised the individual contribution limit to the sky.
We hope the Senate will either eliminate these sky-high limits or simply kill the bill on third reading today and try it again next year.
A little more background
We wanted the Legislature to impose a limit on state PACs because in 2006, a single individual in Natrona County used a state PAC he formed with his wife to funnel $11,200 to a county commission candidate. Using the PAC enabled him to circumvent existing limits on individual contributions. Those existing limits hold individual contributions to a single candidate to $1,000 per election or a total of $2,000 in an election cycle. ($1,000 for a primary election; $1,000 for a general election.)
The Legislature's Management Council approved an interim study of campaign financing last March and the Joint Corporations Committee agreed to plug the loophole. Unfortunately, House Bill 9 since has been turned into a vehicle to flood Wyoming campaigns with political money. As approved by the Senate Corporations Committee, the bill allows individual contributions of $3,500 per election, or $7,000 per cycle. State PACs would have the same limits EXCEPT in statewide races. A PAC contributing to a candidate for governor could give $7,000 per election or $14,000 total.
There's some irony here. Under the bill as it now stands, the guy in Natrona County could give $7,000 personally to a county commission candidate and another $7,000 through his PAC. The Legislature wants to plug an $11,000 loophole with a $14,000 cork.
Worse, a really rich contributor could give that amount of money to as many candidates as he or she chooses, because the proposed bill eliminates the $25,000 overall limit on any one individual's contributions during a cycle. There's no way that this bill keeps the playing field relatively level for grassroots candidates.
Call to action
Please contact your state senator and ask them either to reduce the limits or kill the bill. We hope an amendment will be offered on third reading tomorrow that will propose raising state contribution limits for both individuals and state PACs to the federal limit on personal contributions: $2,300 per election. (Considerably less than the $3,500 now in the bill.)
Please suggest to your legislator that he or she should protect Wyoming's election process from the corrosive effects of the far-too-high limits in the bill now.
Those arguing for the $3,500 limits maintain that the hike is justified because of inflation. That argument dismisses the political realities in Wyoming, where the average winning campaign in the 2006 general election cost about $11.700. The ESPC believes the limits should be more in proportion to the cost of campaigns in Wyoming, not campaigns conducted in Texas, New York, or California.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Campaign finance in the morning
Senate Corporations Committee hears campaign finance bills Tuesday
We'll take our effort to plug the PAC loophole in state campaign finance law to the Senate Corporations Committee Tuesday morning at 8 a.m.
If you've been tracking these bills -- House Bill 3 Campaign Finance - electronic filing and House Bill 9 - Campaign Finance -- you know they bring to mind the old axiom about being careful about what you ask for. We wanted campaign financing on the Joint Corporations Committee's 2007 interim work list because we saw a loophole exploited in 2006.
Casper developer Mickey McMurry set up a Political Action Committee called the Committee to Elect Natrona County Candidates, to which he was the sole contributor. He put about $11,575 in it, then gave roughly $11,200 to Barb Peryam to finance her campaign for a seat on the Natrona County Commission. She won with a well-funded media campaign that included billboards all over Casper.
The PAC enabled McMurry to avoid the $1,000 per election limit on individual contributions. The move was completely legal and was accurately reported in the PAC's required contributions and expenditure report.
The Legislature's leadership recognized the loophole and agreed to put the law on the interim work list. The committee took it up and imposed limits on PACs of $3,500 per election, a figure further reduced via amendments last week in the House to $2,300 for all but statewide campaigns. The limit there is $4,600 per election.
Unfortunately, the interim committee decided to increase the individual campaign contribution limit to $3,500 per election, or $7,000 for the election cycle. The majority of the committee reasoned that the limit has not been raised since the mid-1970s so asserted that an inflation adjustment is in order. (Too bad they don't bring the same reasoning to the state's minimum wage. Oh, well.)
Worse, the interim committee eliminated the overall individual limit of $25,000.
Research by the ESPC's Sarah Gorin revealed that on average, it cost about $11,000 to $12,000 in 2006 to win a contested legislative campaign. The proposed contribution limit is out of proportion to these costs. Just three or four people could fund a winning campaign.
Campaigns for the governorship recently have cost about $1 million. The new limit would enable candidates for governor to shrink their pool of contributors substantially.
During debate in the House, opponents of the higher limits warned about public cynicism toward the role of money in politics and worried about its corrosive effects. The state should be moving toward broader funding of its politics, not making it possible for a few financially-able individuals to dominate the process.
The irony here is that under the proposed higher limits, the situation in Natrona County could repeat itself under the new law. The Committee to Elect Natrona County Candidates could contribute $4,600 to a single candidate. Combine that with the $7,000 that its principal could give in an election cycle and there it is: $11,600 to a single candidate from a single person.
We'll offer amendments Tuesday morning to restore the old limits. We'll also propose a second amendment to remove a House-approved provision that exempts some large contributions made within a week of election day from timely reporting requirements. The exemption applies if the contribution comes from the candidate or from his or her immediate family. In the last week of a campaign, the law should require reporting of any contribution of $1,000 or more within one business day.
HB 3 - Campaign Finance - Electronic filing
This idea is made for a large state like Wyoming where most voters live many miles away from the Capitol, where the written reports are now sent. The bill will require all candidates to file contribution and expenditure reports electronically, beginning in 2010. The information will go into a searchable database managed by the Secretary of State. Anyone with an internet connection will be able to access the information and determine who their favorite -- and most hated -- organizations are supporting.
The measure serves both the need for transparency and accountability in the political process.
As things stand now, campaign spending reports are muddled, with candidates committing various, very human errors in arithmetic, transposing numbers, skipping entries, etc. Our own research efforts found some reports simply impossible to straighten out so they made sense.
Secretary of State Max Maxfield, deputy Pat Arp and Elections Director Peggy Nighswonger deserve high praise for preparing and supporting this bill.
We'll take our effort to plug the PAC loophole in state campaign finance law to the Senate Corporations Committee Tuesday morning at 8 a.m.
If you've been tracking these bills -- House Bill 3 Campaign Finance - electronic filing and House Bill 9 - Campaign Finance -- you know they bring to mind the old axiom about being careful about what you ask for. We wanted campaign financing on the Joint Corporations Committee's 2007 interim work list because we saw a loophole exploited in 2006.
Casper developer Mickey McMurry set up a Political Action Committee called the Committee to Elect Natrona County Candidates, to which he was the sole contributor. He put about $11,575 in it, then gave roughly $11,200 to Barb Peryam to finance her campaign for a seat on the Natrona County Commission. She won with a well-funded media campaign that included billboards all over Casper.
The PAC enabled McMurry to avoid the $1,000 per election limit on individual contributions. The move was completely legal and was accurately reported in the PAC's required contributions and expenditure report.
The Legislature's leadership recognized the loophole and agreed to put the law on the interim work list. The committee took it up and imposed limits on PACs of $3,500 per election, a figure further reduced via amendments last week in the House to $2,300 for all but statewide campaigns. The limit there is $4,600 per election.
Unfortunately, the interim committee decided to increase the individual campaign contribution limit to $3,500 per election, or $7,000 for the election cycle. The majority of the committee reasoned that the limit has not been raised since the mid-1970s so asserted that an inflation adjustment is in order. (Too bad they don't bring the same reasoning to the state's minimum wage. Oh, well.)
Worse, the interim committee eliminated the overall individual limit of $25,000.
Research by the ESPC's Sarah Gorin revealed that on average, it cost about $11,000 to $12,000 in 2006 to win a contested legislative campaign. The proposed contribution limit is out of proportion to these costs. Just three or four people could fund a winning campaign.
Campaigns for the governorship recently have cost about $1 million. The new limit would enable candidates for governor to shrink their pool of contributors substantially.
During debate in the House, opponents of the higher limits warned about public cynicism toward the role of money in politics and worried about its corrosive effects. The state should be moving toward broader funding of its politics, not making it possible for a few financially-able individuals to dominate the process.
The irony here is that under the proposed higher limits, the situation in Natrona County could repeat itself under the new law. The Committee to Elect Natrona County Candidates could contribute $4,600 to a single candidate. Combine that with the $7,000 that its principal could give in an election cycle and there it is: $11,600 to a single candidate from a single person.
We'll offer amendments Tuesday morning to restore the old limits. We'll also propose a second amendment to remove a House-approved provision that exempts some large contributions made within a week of election day from timely reporting requirements. The exemption applies if the contribution comes from the candidate or from his or her immediate family. In the last week of a campaign, the law should require reporting of any contribution of $1,000 or more within one business day.
HB 3 - Campaign Finance - Electronic filing
This idea is made for a large state like Wyoming where most voters live many miles away from the Capitol, where the written reports are now sent. The bill will require all candidates to file contribution and expenditure reports electronically, beginning in 2010. The information will go into a searchable database managed by the Secretary of State. Anyone with an internet connection will be able to access the information and determine who their favorite -- and most hated -- organizations are supporting.
The measure serves both the need for transparency and accountability in the political process.
As things stand now, campaign spending reports are muddled, with candidates committing various, very human errors in arithmetic, transposing numbers, skipping entries, etc. Our own research efforts found some reports simply impossible to straighten out so they made sense.
Secretary of State Max Maxfield, deputy Pat Arp and Elections Director Peggy Nighswonger deserve high praise for preparing and supporting this bill.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Working on Workers' Comp
Injured workers deserve fair, just compensation
We're been working with the AFL-CIO and the Wyoming Trial Lawyers' Association to raise awareness of problems with the state Workers' Compensation system.
We staged a forum in Casper last month and another in Cheyenne Wednesday night.
Here's the joint news release from the Cheyenne event.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release February 21, 2008
Contact:
George Santini Dan Neal
Cheyenne Attorney Equality State Policy Center
307-632-8957 (307) 258-2783
Kim Floyd
AFL-CIO
(307) 635-2823
STATE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SYSTEM IS BROKEN
FORUM EXPOSES FLAWS IN SYSTEM
Workers, Labor Leaders, Trial Attorneys and Worker Advocates Demand Changes Needed to Better Protect Workers and their Families
(Cheyenne, February 21, 2008)—The State Workers’ Compensation law must be reformed to ensure that injured workers receive the benefits they need, especially after accidents that leave them permanently or temporarily totally disabled, a coalition of advocates for working families contend.
In a forum in Cheyenne Wednesday night, labor leaders, Wyoming workers and their families, trial attorneys and others heard injured workers such as Richard Johnson now of Grantsville, Utah outline a litany of abuses they’ve suffered at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Division.
Johnson, who has had eight back surgeries since being injured on an oil drilling rig more than 20 years ago, said the division has made his life miserable. Among other complaints, Johnson noted the division has sent him letters informing him he is no longer considered disabled “because my wife can work. Get that — because my wife can work.”
Wednesday’s forum was the second in a series sponsored by the Wyoming State AFL-CIO, the Equality State Policy Center and the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.
“The system seems able to deal with ordinary injuries but it is tougher on people who are disabled in a job accident,” stated Dan Neal, Executive Director of the Equality State Policy Center. “The system owes injured workers efficient access to medical care and should fairly compensate people who suffer temporary or permanent disability.”
Wyoming State AFL-CIO Executive Secretary Kim noted that many injured workers experience delays in health benefit coverage, unfair examination of claims and long delays in treatment. “They often need legal assistance simply to negotiate a very difficult bureaucratic process,” he said.
“We’ve got to demand change,” Floyd told the group. Those changes must acknowledge that workers carry Wyoming’s boom-time economy on their backs and deserve just and fair compensation if they’re injured on the job.
Among the changes proposed by Floyd:
1. Revise the definition of permanent total and permanent partial disability to reflect actual work life expectancy.
2. Increase the maximum weekly benefit for permanent total disability to at least two-thirds of the employee’s average weekly wage.
3. Pay total disability benefits for the duration of the worker’s disability, or for life, without any limitations on dollar amount or time.
4. Restore the right to compensation for mental stress or trauma.
5. The 44-month limit on permanent partial impairment payments should be restored to at least the former 60-month limit with improved benefits.
6. Provide vocation rehabilitation designed to restore the employee to his or her per-injury earning capacity.
Jackson attorney Mel Orchard urged people to “take back their democracy” and demand that legislators provide just benefits to people injured while creating wealth for their employers and the state. Those especially concerned should consider running for office in the coming elections,” he said.
“As attorneys we work to ensure that deserving individuals have access to justice, even when taking on the most powerful interests. We often hear complaints about unfair treatment by Workers’ Comp and personally witness the inadequacy of the current system,” stated Larry Clapp, a Casper attorney who is President of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.
“We want to work with legislators and other interested organizations to make sure the system works,” concluded Clapp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporters: To obtain an interview with an injured worker like Richard Johnson, please contact the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association at 307-635-0820.
We're been working with the AFL-CIO and the Wyoming Trial Lawyers' Association to raise awareness of problems with the state Workers' Compensation system.
We staged a forum in Casper last month and another in Cheyenne Wednesday night.
Here's the joint news release from the Cheyenne event.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release February 21, 2008
Contact:
George Santini Dan Neal
Cheyenne Attorney Equality State Policy Center
307-632-8957 (307) 258-2783
Kim Floyd
AFL-CIO
(307) 635-2823
STATE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SYSTEM IS BROKEN
FORUM EXPOSES FLAWS IN SYSTEM
Workers, Labor Leaders, Trial Attorneys and Worker Advocates Demand Changes Needed to Better Protect Workers and their Families
(Cheyenne, February 21, 2008)—The State Workers’ Compensation law must be reformed to ensure that injured workers receive the benefits they need, especially after accidents that leave them permanently or temporarily totally disabled, a coalition of advocates for working families contend.
In a forum in Cheyenne Wednesday night, labor leaders, Wyoming workers and their families, trial attorneys and others heard injured workers such as Richard Johnson now of Grantsville, Utah outline a litany of abuses they’ve suffered at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Division.
Johnson, who has had eight back surgeries since being injured on an oil drilling rig more than 20 years ago, said the division has made his life miserable. Among other complaints, Johnson noted the division has sent him letters informing him he is no longer considered disabled “because my wife can work. Get that — because my wife can work.”
Wednesday’s forum was the second in a series sponsored by the Wyoming State AFL-CIO, the Equality State Policy Center and the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.
“The system seems able to deal with ordinary injuries but it is tougher on people who are disabled in a job accident,” stated Dan Neal, Executive Director of the Equality State Policy Center. “The system owes injured workers efficient access to medical care and should fairly compensate people who suffer temporary or permanent disability.”
Wyoming State AFL-CIO Executive Secretary Kim noted that many injured workers experience delays in health benefit coverage, unfair examination of claims and long delays in treatment. “They often need legal assistance simply to negotiate a very difficult bureaucratic process,” he said.
“We’ve got to demand change,” Floyd told the group. Those changes must acknowledge that workers carry Wyoming’s boom-time economy on their backs and deserve just and fair compensation if they’re injured on the job.
Among the changes proposed by Floyd:
1. Revise the definition of permanent total and permanent partial disability to reflect actual work life expectancy.
2. Increase the maximum weekly benefit for permanent total disability to at least two-thirds of the employee’s average weekly wage.
3. Pay total disability benefits for the duration of the worker’s disability, or for life, without any limitations on dollar amount or time.
4. Restore the right to compensation for mental stress or trauma.
5. The 44-month limit on permanent partial impairment payments should be restored to at least the former 60-month limit with improved benefits.
6. Provide vocation rehabilitation designed to restore the employee to his or her per-injury earning capacity.
Jackson attorney Mel Orchard urged people to “take back their democracy” and demand that legislators provide just benefits to people injured while creating wealth for their employers and the state. Those especially concerned should consider running for office in the coming elections,” he said.
“As attorneys we work to ensure that deserving individuals have access to justice, even when taking on the most powerful interests. We often hear complaints about unfair treatment by Workers’ Comp and personally witness the inadequacy of the current system,” stated Larry Clapp, a Casper attorney who is President of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.
“We want to work with legislators and other interested organizations to make sure the system works,” concluded Clapp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporters: To obtain an interview with an injured worker like Richard Johnson, please contact the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association at 307-635-0820.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Helium tax rises
Revenue Committee votes 8-1 to tax helium
The industry lobbyists came out in force Wednesday trying to throw sand and gravel in the way of a severance tax on helium. It was tempting to take a helium-filled balloon into the committee room and huff it so I could testify in full helium voice. We could have used a little morning humor.
Exxon's attorney Patrick Day complained that the tax singles out his company since its the only outfit producing helium in Wyoming today. Exxon strips helium produced from its gas wells during processing at its big plant near Shute Creek. He gently, a number of times, outlined the likelihood of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tax. Angling for a delay that could save his company around $3 million, he asked for an interim study to consider the complexities of the matter.
But he was just one of the many industry reps in the room. The Petroleum Association of Wyoming sent Bruce Hinchey, a former House speaker, to read a letter from Peter Wold, president of a Casper-based producer. Wold asked the committee not to rush the new tax.
Questar's lobbyists said the company had considered a gas processing plant and found it economically infeasible. If its analysis had been required to account for a severance tax on helium, the idea would have been even more risky, really risky.
Show us the money
The Revenue Department held its ground, though and Craig Grenvik assured the committee that lawsuits are simply a part of everyday life in his world.
The committee withstood the industry barrage and kept its focus on the state's constitutional requirement of a severance tax levy on valuable minerals produced in the state. Reps. Tom Lubnau, Tim Stubson, Mark Semlek and Chairman Rodney Pete Anderson stuck to the basic principal that if a mineral comes out of the ground in Wyoming, the state expects to recover some of the value in tax revenues.
No doubt some of the resolution the committee displayed derived from the public shaming Gov. Dave Freudenthal subjected them to earlier this month after they declined to advance the helium tax bill and then dumped the governor's property tax relief proposal to help senior citizens. The governor essentially called it a $3 million tax break for Big Oil and a stick in the eye for seniors. Dave can cut to the quick sometimes.
These companies are making millions in Wyoming producing the minerals that bless this wind-swept place. If we get to that interim study, it should include a long, hard look at the question of whether the state is getting its fair share of the value when it levies a severance tax of a measly 6 percent. When you see the number of industry lobbyists and witness the skills they wield to pressure Wyoming legislators, the reason for such a low tax rate becomes clear.
Electronic filing and campaign finance
The House gave final approval to House Bill 3 - Electronic Filing Wednesday. The bill moves to the Senate.
It follows House Bill 9 - Campaign Finance, the bill that limits state PAC contributions and more than triples the individual contributions limit.
The industry lobbyists came out in force Wednesday trying to throw sand and gravel in the way of a severance tax on helium. It was tempting to take a helium-filled balloon into the committee room and huff it so I could testify in full helium voice. We could have used a little morning humor.
Exxon's attorney Patrick Day complained that the tax singles out his company since its the only outfit producing helium in Wyoming today. Exxon strips helium produced from its gas wells during processing at its big plant near Shute Creek. He gently, a number of times, outlined the likelihood of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tax. Angling for a delay that could save his company around $3 million, he asked for an interim study to consider the complexities of the matter.
But he was just one of the many industry reps in the room. The Petroleum Association of Wyoming sent Bruce Hinchey, a former House speaker, to read a letter from Peter Wold, president of a Casper-based producer. Wold asked the committee not to rush the new tax.
Questar's lobbyists said the company had considered a gas processing plant and found it economically infeasible. If its analysis had been required to account for a severance tax on helium, the idea would have been even more risky, really risky.
Show us the money
The Revenue Department held its ground, though and Craig Grenvik assured the committee that lawsuits are simply a part of everyday life in his world.
The committee withstood the industry barrage and kept its focus on the state's constitutional requirement of a severance tax levy on valuable minerals produced in the state. Reps. Tom Lubnau, Tim Stubson, Mark Semlek and Chairman Rodney Pete Anderson stuck to the basic principal that if a mineral comes out of the ground in Wyoming, the state expects to recover some of the value in tax revenues.
No doubt some of the resolution the committee displayed derived from the public shaming Gov. Dave Freudenthal subjected them to earlier this month after they declined to advance the helium tax bill and then dumped the governor's property tax relief proposal to help senior citizens. The governor essentially called it a $3 million tax break for Big Oil and a stick in the eye for seniors. Dave can cut to the quick sometimes.
These companies are making millions in Wyoming producing the minerals that bless this wind-swept place. If we get to that interim study, it should include a long, hard look at the question of whether the state is getting its fair share of the value when it levies a severance tax of a measly 6 percent. When you see the number of industry lobbyists and witness the skills they wield to pressure Wyoming legislators, the reason for such a low tax rate becomes clear.
Electronic filing and campaign finance
The House gave final approval to House Bill 3 - Electronic Filing Wednesday. The bill moves to the Senate.
It follows House Bill 9 - Campaign Finance, the bill that limits state PAC contributions and more than triples the individual contributions limit.
Headway on filing
In turnaound, House votes to make filing universal
Feb. 20, 2008 - The House voted Tuesday to remove an amendment from House Bill 3 that made compliance with electronic filing requirements voluntary.
In one of those moves that reminds you that the Wyoming Legislature can sometimes stand up and do the right thing, the House voted to remove an amendment that weakened this bill. Now all candidates running in 2010 will have to file electronically. The move means contribution and spending information filed by candidates will be part of a searchable database that voters across Wyoming can use to see who is supporting state politicians.
Somehow, fears of a mandatory system evaporated. The vote is one that's good for state politics.
Feb. 20, 2008 - The House voted Tuesday to remove an amendment from House Bill 3 that made compliance with electronic filing requirements voluntary.
In one of those moves that reminds you that the Wyoming Legislature can sometimes stand up and do the right thing, the House voted to remove an amendment that weakened this bill. Now all candidates running in 2010 will have to file electronically. The move means contribution and spending information filed by candidates will be part of a searchable database that voters across Wyoming can use to see who is supporting state politicians.
Somehow, fears of a mandatory system evaporated. The vote is one that's good for state politics.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Showing the money
Fun with campaign finance
Tuesday, Feb. 19 - Yesterday the House approved a campaign finance bill that threatens to flood state elections with more money. At best, it means that a legislative candidate could obtain the funds to run a winning campaign in a contested race with as few as two or three contributors backing her.
Contributors would be allowed to give up to $7,000 to the candidate of their choice. The bill in the House, as presently written, opens the door so wide that any very wealthy political contributor could pump an unlimited amount of dough into state and local campaigns. That's right. Pick your multi-millionaire - there will be no limit on the amount of money they can spend to elect candidates in Wyoming.
Wyoming’s current campaign contribution law allows individuals to contribute $1000 per candidate per election. The primary and general elections are considered separate elections, so, in effect, an individual can contribute up to $2000 to a candidate in an election year. The current law also sets an overall limit of $25,000 for contributions from any one individual.
While a significant number of contributors “limit out” in a typical governor’s race, $1000 contributions are relatively rare in legislative races, and no single contributor has pushed the $25,000 limit.
The current law imposes no limits on contributions from state political action committees (PACs). (Federal PACs face federal limits.) In 2006, Natrona County philanthropist Micky McMurry formed a PAC and used it to funnel about $11,600 to a candidate for the Natrona County Commission. In a completely legal move, he used a PAC to give more to a candidate than was allowed under the individual limit.
Citing the loophole diving in Natrona County, the ESPC asked the Legislature to consider putting contribution limits on state PACs.
This duly occurred during the 2007 interim (the time between legislative sessions, when committees meet to study legislation). Unfortunately, the Joint Interim Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee decided not only to plug the PAC loophole, but also to raise the individual contribution limits substantially – from $1000 per candidate per election to $3500 per candidate per election.
The ESPC opposed this move. We believe that it is better for a candidate to raise less money (apiece) from more people than to raise more money from fewer people. Raising contribution limits likely will have the effect of shrinking the pool of people contributing to campaigns, which already is relatively small. It also will feed public cynicism about the influence of money in politics.
These arguments were largely ignored and the bill passed the House yesterday with the individual limit of $3500 per candidate per election. The majority of members also approved an amendment lowering the proposed PAC contribution limit from $3500 per candidate per election ($7000 per candidate per election for statewide races) to $2300 per candidate per election.
Ironically, this combination of individual and PAC limits will allow Mr. McMurry, who set this train in motion with his PAC ruse in 2006, to give the same amount of money he gave before, this time without having to circumvent any limits. How, you ask? He can contribute $7,000 individually and use the PAC to send another $4,600 to the candidate of his choice - nearly exactly the amount he poured into the Natrona County Commission race in 2006.
The committee's main justification for hiking the individual contribution limits was "inflation." We can only hope that legislators are as concerned about inflation when it comes to something like the minimum wage for tipped employees, set at $2.30/hour since heaven knows when.
Electronic filing - an idea made for a big, square state
A number of legislators feel limits are unnecessary as long as there is transparency. This is the subject of HB 3, electronic filing, which would require candidates to electronically file their contribution and expenditure reports, and create a searchable database from these reports (beginning in the 2010 election year).
HB 3 took ahit yesterday with the addition of an amendment making electronic filing optional rather than mandatory. Proponents say the Secretary of State can scan paper report and post a pdf of the filing on the Internet. While better than the current system, those reports will not be part of the searchable database.
Once a system is established, however, we believe most candidates will choose to file electronically. Other states’ experiences indicate that candidates don’t want to appear inept or obstructive.
Certainly the current system of paper reports provides little transparency. Some are barely readable; others contain math errors and other inconsistencies. One has to be in Cheyenne to get to them, or request (and pay for) copies and mailing. The Secretary of State's office has strongly advocated moving to an electronic filing system to get Wyoming out of the accountability basement among the 50 states.
Please contact your legislator and ask for support of HB 3. We'd love to see the system require participation by all candidates, but we'll take as much as we can get this year.
Healthcare pilot project
We told the Senate Labor, Health and Social Services Committee that we have a few questions about Senate File 85. The measure sets up a pilot project that proponents believe will, as they say in the business world, "incentiveize" low income people to live more healthy lifestyles. It's a good objective but the idea has not been analyzed by the Wyoming Healthcare Commission or the Department of Health. We wonder why.
Here are the questions that concern us most:
1. How will setting up a new, separate structure affect administrative costs? (One of the goals of reform is to reduce administrative costs.) For example, how will bills be processed and paid?
2. The bill outlines the groups of people to be given priority for participation. Will participation be completely voluntary?
3. The “administrator” of the pilot holds considerable power. If the administrator decides to “decline to offer … or limit these [clinical prevention] services to those who is his judgment will not benefit from them,” what recourse is available to the patient?
4. The program can withhold the state payments into the health service account if clients fail to comply with “specific preventative requirements.” Who decides this? What recourse is available to a family that finds itself in this situation?
5. The bill does not specify the qualifications for members of the benefit design committee. Sen. Charles Scott said Tuesday he has chosen to “trust the governor.” The governor apparently plans to name Hank Gardner of the University of Wyoming, Wendy Curran of his office, and Rick Schum of Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
6. What limits are imposed on healthcare providers serving the program? How will those costs be controlled?
7. Poor people live complicated lives (like all of us) but they are teetering at the poverty line. The state will need to find motivated people to participate in a study that asks them to change lifestyles and give up some unhealthy habits such as smoking. The bill allows the administrator to drop people from the program in order to control costs. What insurance company would not love the opportunity to walk away from its insurance contracts? Won’t the fact that they can be dis-enrolled discourage people from participating in the program?
8. Why is the state poaching money from the KidCare CHIP expansion to pay for this? Sure, the state has not obtained a needed waiver from the feds managing the program (funded via Medicaid). But the waiver applies only to the federal Medicaid funds. The state could decide simply to fund the expansion itself – or a significant portion of it. Why not use the state funds to advance that program?
9. Why are we pondering a significant new project without running it through the Wyoming Healthcare Commission for a detailed evaluation? Was the proposal vetted by the Department of Health or the College of Health Sciences at UW?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
