From the Dispatch

Extended Unemployment Benefits Approved by Feds

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:10:43 -0400

Extended Unemployment Benefits Approved by Feds - But Debates Continue on Raiding Already Approved Recovery Funds

This week, the U.S. Senate finally broke a filibuster by conservatives to approve an extension of unemployment insurance (UI) for 2.5 million people who lost their benefits when the program expired last month. The House is expected to approve the bill today, which extends the program through November, offering the long-term unemployed up to 99 weeks of aid and making benefits retroactive to June 2 when the program expired.

However, UI is only one part of job creation. Congress is currently considering further aid for state programs such as schools and Medicaid. Many opponents of state fiscal relief continue to demand that the government rescind other recovery funds to pay for programs, effectively calling for the firing of one set of workers to promote employment and services for other groups. Furthermore, it is quite telling that right-wing representatives who are purportedly concerned with the deficit, took issue with how the government would pay for the UI extension, but desire to maintain the Bush tax cuts, which are major sources of the long-term deficit and as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates, "will continue to harm the budget outlook throughout the next decade."

Robbing Broadband to Pay for Schools: Just this month, for example, the House approved an Appropriations Committee amendment to the supplemental war bill that would have added funds to avoid massive teacher layoffs along with funding for expanded Pell Grants, the Gulf Oil Spill, and other programs, but paid for this aid through $11.7 billion in cuts in other programs. With inflated deficit hysteria poisoning the debate, the amendment cut funding for a special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, some other education programs, and cut over $700 million from key broadband and technological investments allotted in the Recovery Act, including $602 million the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce for broadband grants, $112 million in funding for digital television, and $15 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) construction. Several advocates are concerned that a loss of crucial funding for broadband will compromise economic development, growth, and access provisions to un-served and under-served areas of the country. On top of that, due to current state budget shortfalls, ARRA broadband investments are the only direct source of funding states have at their disposal to improve and expand high-speed Internet access.

Jobs Now, Plan for Deficit Reduction Later: With unemployment hovering at 10 percent, most economic experts see the focus on short-term deficits as misguided and dangerous, since, if anything, we need more immediate spending to create jobs, not less. As Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute, and David Walker, the president and CEO of the anti-deficit Peter G. Peterson Foundation, relate jointly in a recent article, the nation can effectively engage in planning for long-term deficit reduction even as we run short-term deficits to create jobs that promote systematic federal investments in public structures, education, and benefits for the long-term unemployed as a means to spur recovery and future fiscal stability:

A focus on jobs now is consistent with addressing our deficit problems ahead... We must accept higher deficits in the short-term in order to put people back to work. At the same time, we must take immediate steps to agree on a path and a process for reducing the structural deficits that lie ahead.

Cutting short-term recovery dollars now does little or nothing to deal with long-term structural deficits and not definitively moving on necessary job creation measures can prolong economic pain and likely make those long-term deficits worse. So as Mishel, Walker and a range of other experts emphasize, the short-term spending cuts suddenly being debated in Congress are a distraction from both immediate economic recovery and from any genuine debate on long-term deficit reduction.

Resources:
Committee on Appropriations - House Consideration of the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act: Amendment on Fully Offset Education
Education Week - Some State Officials Worried About Race to Top Cut
Lawrence Mishel and David Walker - Address Jobs Now and Deficits Later
Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel - Obey Pushing for $10 Billion to Save Teacher Jobs
Progressive States Network - Broadband and Recovery
Stimulating Broadband - Alert: House Appropriations Cuts $602 Million from Broadband Stimulus
United States Senate - Bayh Letter to Inouye

Clean Energy Options: In the Wake of the Oil Spill, Energy Alternatives That Will Create Jobs

Fabiola Carrion — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:00:58 -0400

With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States produces 25 percent of greenhouse gases, making it the second largest emitter in the world after China. The American public is well-aware of this issue; according to a Pew Research Center Poll, three-fourths of Americans described climate change as a serious problem. Since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, support for off-shore drilling has waned substantially and more Americans want to look for clean energy policies that will avert more ecological disasters. Pew has also noted that the American public overwhelmingly supports (by 87 percent) renewable sources like wind and solar power.

Accompanying this environmental crisis is one of the worst economic periods in the nation's modern history. Overall unemployment rates are just below 10 percent and almost all states are dealing with budget shortfalls. Progressive state legislators, nevertheless, continue to take major steps to lessen our dependence on oil, create jobs that remain in this country, diversify our energy sources, and ensure that these sources are transmitted and distributed through a reliable electrical system.

States have taken an important – and often primary – role in setting the environmental and energy agenda in the United States. A review of state policies, federal policies based on state models, and federal policies where state leaders play a key role in implementation demonstrates that state actions will have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 536 million metric tons per year by 2020. As Progressive States Network has described in previous Stateside Dispatches, increasing the number of renewable energy systems reduces greenhouse gas emissions, relieves grid congestion, creates jobs, and provides their owners with surplus energy to sell back to the market.

In this Dispatch, PSN will examine clean energy options that contribute to a green economy, including evaluating the great strides that energy supply alternatives have created in the states that have enacted policies that promote them. We will explain how states have established Renewable Portfolio Standards and how these have created the demand for innovative investment, as well as how to promote new sources of renewable energy, including creative financial mechanisms, multi-state agreements, and the upgrade of an electrical grid that will better transmit energy from these intermittent sources. And for states looking for new job creation strategies, one key fact is that the production, installment and maintenance of renewable energy sources create sustainable jobs.

Federal Support for State Action: The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) assisted continued action by states with the inclusion of a wide array of provisions to spur clean energy generation and energy efficiency. A special package of $85 billion was allocated towards energy and transportation related spending, dedicating $21 billion toward incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable energy manufacturers. ARRA also provides more than $30 billion for direct spending on clean energy programs, including $11 billion to modernize the electricity grid, $2.5 billion for research into renewable energy, and $6 billion for state and local efforts to achieve energy efficiency. In addition to all of these national efforts, ARRA allocates $3.1 billion to the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program, which distributes funds to help state governments improve energy efficiency and expand the use of renewable energy in their states. According to Environment America, programs that have been funded by ARRA are expected to reduce emissions by approximately 10 million metric tons per year by 2020.

Resources
Environment America - America on the Move: State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World
American Clean Energy and Security Act
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

Table of Contents:

- Renewable Energy Sources in the States

- Renewable Portfolio Standards: One Key to Promoting Alternative Energy Production

- Putting a Price on Carbon: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Agreements

- Clean Energy Financing Options

- Networking the Green Economy: Creating Jobs and Improving the Transmission of Renewable Energy Sources

- Conclusion: A Greener Economy Drives Job Creation

Renewable Energy Sources in the States

Renewable energy sources (used interchangeably here as alternative energy sources) include solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, geothermal, conventional hydroelectric, and biomass waste. The production of renewable energy largely depends on the geographic location of these resources, the availability and location of infrastructure, and demand for energy. As such, the two most common barriers for the development of alternative energy sources are (1) cost, and (2) lack of infrastructure.

Solar Energy: Pike Research forecasts that the United States will become the largest market for small solar installations by 2011, surpassing Germany, the best known solar energy producer in the world. Unlike fossil fuels, solar energy is clean, safe and everywhere. With higher demand, solar energy is costing less. Thanks to this rapid growth, it is believed that the US can reach the goal of obtaining 10 percent energy consumption from the sun by 2030. One of the drawbacks of solar energy, however, is that it is intermittent and consequently not always available to match demand. It is therefore imperative that we use technologies that can measure the various levels of power that solar energy can generate and transmit them according to on- and off-peak times.

Wind Energy: Wind energy has become the fastest growing source of electricity in the United States. In fact, in 2008, the US surpassed Germany to reclaim the world’s leadership in installed wind power capacity. And in 2009, the wind industry increased by 39 percent. Now, almost two percent of our electricity is coming from wind turbines. Further, about half of components used in wind farms are now made in the US, compared with 25 percent in 2004, meaning that jobs in this sector have increased rapidly.

Thanks to our transition into wind generation, the US Department of Energy attributes approximately 17 million metric tons of the decline in carbon dioxide emissions during 2009 to expanded production of zero-emission electricity compared to 2008 levels. Environment America also concludes that the increase in renewable energy production since 2004 could be assumed to have reduced emissions in 2009 by roughly 44 million metric tons. Texas is currently the nation’s top wind producer, with a total of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They are followed by California, Washington, and Minnesota.

On their own, solar and wind power can significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we normally emit, and together, they can complement each other. Under the right conditions, solar generated energy is at its highest output during the hours when wind resources are least likely to be available.

Resources
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
The New York Times - Wind Power Grows 39% for the Year
US Department of Energy - Short‐Term Energy Outlook Supplement: Understanding the Decline in Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009

Renewable Portfolio Standards: One Key to Promoting Alternative Energy Production

A renewable electricity standard (also known as renewable portfolio standard) requires utilities to develop renewable energy resources as part of their energy portfolio. In other words, an RES (or RPS) requires utilities to obtain a certain share of electricity they deliver to consumers from renewable resources. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted minimum standards requiring that a percentage of their electricity come from renewable energy. Five additional states (Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) have set voluntary renewable portfolio standards.

Thanks to these standards, about three percent of power generated in the United States originates from renewable energy sources. The Department of Energy attributes state laws as the force behind the use of renewable sources. In concurrence, research by the North American Electricity Reliability Council shows that over 50 percent of the increase in renewable energy capacity occurred in states with mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards.

These efforts will reduce global warming pollution by 79 million metric tons nationwide. Environment America calculates that 119 million metric tons will be reduced by 2020 thanks to RES policies and the reductions in electricity consumption that will result from other related policies.

Renewable Energy Standards Vary from State to State: The mix of resources eligible for credit varies greatly from one state to the next: some include “carve outs” for particular technologies (most often solar power), and some allow out-of-state resources to count on an equal basis with in-state resources through credit trading. Each state has designed its RES to account for a range of state-specific conditions and policy priorities. These include available wind, solar and other renewable energy potential in a state, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating other environmental externalities associated with fossil fuels, and lowering electricity costs to consumers. Other goals include diversifying the energy mix to protect against potential fuel interruptions and attracting wind and solar farms, product manufacturers, and research and development facilities to promote economic development and job creation.

The first renewable energy standard was adopted in Iowa in 1983. Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey and Wisconsin followed suit in the late 1990s, all enacting standards in the space of a few years. RES spread even more widely in the 2000s, while many states that had been among the first to adopt the policy updated their legislation to enact more aggressive renewable energy goals and to ease implementation of the policy.

Even when states have already implemented renewable portfolio standards, they are still seeking to expand them. States have expanded compliance dates, raised compliance targets, or added carve-outs for specific technologies.

Oregon’s HB 3039, enacted into law in 2009 two years after the renewable portfolio standard was first signed, includes a solar photovoltaic standard within the state renewable portfolio standard. Oregon state legislators continue to seek to amend existing laws to increase RPS requirements over the years.
In 2002, Nevada enacted an aggressive renewable portfolio standard that required that 15 percent of all electricity generated be derived from renewable resources by 2013. In June 2005, Nevada raised the requirements of the RPS by 20 percent of sales by 2015.
Virginia also increased the state’s renewable portfolio standard to 15 percent during the 2009 legislative session.

We previously highlighted Colorado's leadership in clean energy legislation, including its recent law to expand its renewable energy standards. In one of the most far-reaching environmental initiatives in the country, HB 1001 requires 30 percent of large utilities' electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. In detail, utilities must supply at least 12 percent of their retail electric sales from such sources from 2011 to 2014, 20 percent from 2015 to 2019, and 30 percent for 2020 and beyond. Three percent of this standard must be met by local solar power, leading to the construction and installation of 100,000 solar rooftops, panels, and turbines.

The Undeniable Success of a Renewable Energy Standard: Seventy percent of the fastest growing energy supply -- wind power -- was generated in the US thanks to a renewable energy standard. Between 2004 and 2009, state mandates for renewable energy have averted the release of approximately 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2009. By requiring utilities to invest in renewable energy, states have established policies that have leveled the playing field for clean energy sources to compete with traditional fossil fuel.

Experts project that the manufacturing renewable sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs. Of the 18 states that have both renewable portfolio and energy efficiency standards in place, 11 states (61 percent) had more jobs in the clean energy economy than the national average. Similarly, in 12 of those 18 states, clean energy jobs made up a larger share of all jobs when compared to the US average.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Advance in the States
Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the Workforce Alliance, the Apollo Alliance - Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy
Stateline - The Rush to Renewables
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
Environment America - America on the Move: State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World
Progressive States Network - Colorado Leads Clean Energy Reform
Environment Maryland - Building a Solar Future: Repowering America's Homes, Businesses, and Industry with Solar Energy
Apollo Alliance - As Oil Spill Tragedy Continues, Clean Energy Progress in Missouri and Georgia Points to Hope for the Future
Renewable Energy World - Where the Wind Blows and Sun Shines: A comparative analysis of state renewable energy standards

Putting a Price on Carbon: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Agreements

In addition to complying with their own statewide portfolio, twenty-three states are participating in three major regional initiatives seeking to increase renewable energy generation and reduce carbon pollution from power plants that cause global warming. The most famous of these agreements is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, composed of 10 Northeastern states: New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

RGGI's 2002 Working Group proposed to keep emissions flat from 2009 to 2015, and then begin to cut the cap by 2.5 percent each following year. By 2018, emissions are expected to be reduced by 10 percent from the program's start date. RGGI holds an auction where the member states sell credits for carbon emissions. The buyers are electric utilities who purchase credits either to be able to emit carbon dioxide or to re-sell those credits to other utilities. Under this cap-and-trade regime, each auction raises on average $80.5 million and in total the auctions have raised $663 million. The money raised in these auctions is supposed to be directed towards projects that promote energy efficiency.

Although some states have used some of the RGGI funds to fill in the gaps of their state's budget, the RGGI still continues to create job opportunities for workers who conduct energy audits and install home weatherization measures. For example, the Center for Ecological Technology, a company that conducts RGGI-funded efficiency efficiency work on behalf of electric utilities has doubled its workforce - from 50 to 100 full-time employees. This increase has also spearheaded the creation of new positions in the IT and customer service departments. Furthermore, thanks to RGGI, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are below the cap they set. Along with RGGI, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) has been created to reduce emissions across the region by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Seven US states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and four Canadian provinces are part of WCI; the program, to be fully implemented by 2015, will cover close to 90 percent of emissions from the states' and provinces' territories. Also in the Midwest, six US states (Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) and a Canadian province have joined to form the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Accord in order to reduce their emissions. MGGA's Advisory Group recently published its final recommendations, setting an emissions reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Altogether, 23 states, accounting for half of the US population, are involved in greenhouse gas reduction accords.

Other Ways to Put a Price on Carbon: The most straightforward, and many would argue transparent, method to curtail carbon emissions might be to pay precisely for producing them. A carbon tax is aimed at taxing the actual emissions of carbon dioxide from energy producers. Instituting a tax provides the certainty of compliance, and has been successfully implemented in several countries, including Norway, Sweden and Germany. Carbon tax legislation has been introduced in US cities like Portland, Oregon and Boulder and Aspen in Colorado. According to the Oregon plan, builders that do not construct an energy efficient home must pay a fee. By the same token, the plan gives developers cash rewards if they save at least 45 percent more energy than the Oregon building code would require. The Boulder plan charges on the number of kilo-watt hours used, directing the profits to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. The idea of taxing for carbon emissions has received a lot of support from environmental and labor activists, and even from Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson.

Please click image above to view a full chart of state Mandatory Renewable Energy Standards for 2010 from RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

Resources
Stateline - The RGGI raid: how cap-and-trade revenues went to fix state budgets
Progressive States Network - Bold Plan for Carbon Tax Introduced in Portland, OR
Environmental Protection - First RGGI 2010 Auction Yields $87.9 M for Member States
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Western Climate Initiative
Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

Renewable Energy Financing Options

Through public bonds, pension funds, state-managed investment pools, and leveraging federal dollars, states can direct investment dollars into alternative energy production. These financial incentives are being applied over a long period of time to establish consistent and efficient programs and create a stable market.

Federal and State Funding: Federal monies, principally through the ARRA, are being directed towards bonds that enable local and states to finance renewable energy projects. The US Department of Agriculture, for instance, operates a loan guarantee program for agricultural adoption of renewable energy. States are taking full advantage of the federal government's support. Thirty-two of them have combined federal and state funding to provide residential, commercial, and industrial loan financing for the purchase of renewable energy. The following examples paint a good picture on what states are doing with government funding:

In Colorado, SB 31 was enacted in 2009 to create the Clean Technology Discovery Evaluation grant program for the purpose of improving and expanding the development of new clean technology discoveries at higher education research institutions. The state will also allocate $2 million in grants towards renewable from 2009 ARRA funding through the Governor's Energy Office.
Montana also provides direct funding for renewable energy development through grant and loan programs that typically target generation at the scale of residential and commercial buildings. It offers a grant program to subsidize small-scale renewable installations via a state-mandated system benefits fund maintained by the state’s largest private utility. Montana’s revolving fund loans up to $40,000 per renewable project.

Municipal Financing and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): A model called Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing enables municipalities to use their ability to obtain financing at low interest rates to pay for the upfront cost of installing renewable energy parts in businesses and homes. The financing is recouped through a special assessment on the property owner’s taxes, or in certain cases, their utility bill. In most programs, property owners pay back the costs over a period of 20 years. The tax remains with the property; if a property owner sells the property during the period of financing, the responsibility to pay back is transferred to the new owner. Hence, PACE absolves the homeowner of the risk that they will move out before they receive the full benefits of the system. Two barriers to making energy upgrades are therefore eliminated: (1) the up-front costs, and (2) the question of who pays for ongoing costs for upgrades when properties are sold.

The White House has estimated that if only 15 percent of residential property owners in the US took advantage of PACE related programs, the resulting emissions reductions would contribute to four percent of the savings needed for the US to reach 1990 emissions by 2020. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, PACE programs promise to lower energy bills for consumers and create jobs in home weatherization and renewable energy installation. So far, PACE programs have been authorized in 23 states.

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change

California enacted AB 811 in 2008 to allow cities and counties to offer PACE financing. Under the California program, property owners seeking funding for energy efficiency improvements must have a clear property title and be current on property taxes and mortgages. Financing may originate from bonds, local government funds, and third-party lenders. Under Minnesota law, loan amounts may not exceed 10 percent of the assessed value of the property and may include costs related to the required energy audit or feasibility study, equipment and labor costs, and performance verification. A recently enacted New York law (AB 40004A) allows counties, towns, cities and villages to offer sustainable energy loan programs that can pay for energy audits, cost-effective, permanent energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy feasibility studies, and the installation of renewable energy systems. The local program determines the sectors eligible for financing, and qualification for the loan is contingent on energy audits or renewable energy feasibility studies that meet New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) or equally stringent standards. Energy efficiency improvements must meet cost-effectiveness criteria as established by NYSERDA. Land-secured financing districts for PACE programs have been created in Florida, Georgia (HB 1388-2010), Hawaii, Louisiana (SB 224-2009), Nevada, Vermont (HB 446-2009), and New Mexico (SB 647-2009).

Also last year, Oregon established the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Technology loan program to provide state loans for residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The 100 percent upfront long term, low-interest loans can be paid back on the utility bill. The program is financed through state bonding and private loans.

This year, Maine enacted LD 1717 to implement a loan program through a local ordinance that provides financing for property owners who want to put clean energy improvements in their homes. This legislation is unique in two ways: (1) municipalities will be able to use federal grants or any other funds available for the purpose of funding PACE programs; and (2) PACE assessments will be considered subordinate liens, secondary to mortgages. Further more, Efficiency Maine Trust was directed to promulgate rules for Maine's PACE program, including eligible efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations, standards for underwriting requirements, and truth in lending provisions which are to guide the consumer disclosure that must be included in PACE agreements.

Another eight states have introduced PACE bills in 2010 in their legislatures, including Hawaii (SB 2865 and HB 2643), Missouri (HB 2178, HB 2298 and SB 1037), Michigan (HB 5640), New Jersey (AB 2500), Illinois (SB 2505).

Georgia also approved legislation this year (HB 1388) to help residential and commercial property owners make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements to their properties through voluntary property assessments.

PACE Programs Under Challenge: Recently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac asserted that because PACE programs' liens take priority over existing mortgages, this poses a risk to lenders and secondary market entities, as well as alter valuations for mortgage-backed securities. Consequently, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the US Treasury Department have instructed banks to place additional restrictions on home loans to borrowers in jurisdictions that have PACE programs. In response, cities and states have taken action to save PACE.

For instance, the state of California has filed a complaint against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack for blocking PACE programs; California Attorney General Jerry Brown argues that PACE funding is an assessment, not a loan, and that Fannie and Freddie have long accepted local governments' use of assessments in California to finance improvements that serve a public purpose. The city of Babylon in New York will likely follow California's action; its leaders joined more than 50 local workers at a rally last Tuesday to announce the town's plans to sue the FHFA. As these leaders note, programs like those in California actually work to reduce the risk of default by requiring a clean record on property taxes and mortgages. In New York, stringent standards have to be met in order to obtain financing under PACE. And in Maine, the Efficiency Maine Trust is creating standards for underwriting requirements and truth in lending provisions to guide consumer disclosure. Further, more federal money is being allocated to fund and guarantee the success of PACE programs. Last year, the US Department of Energy announced funding for PACE projects and is apportioning $80 million as upfront capital for PACE-type programs. PACE programs can also apply for competitive grants under the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant Program.

Feed-In-Tariffs: One other funding source for renewable energy is where a company that installs and maintains a renewable source device receives a Power Purchase Agreement or Feed-In-Tariff with a customer. Here, the customer pays no upfront costs while the energy provider pays for the entire project including installation, maintenance, and trouble shooting. Also, this relationship guarantees that the installation can take place quickly, the service is predictable, and the rate is at parity with other retail electricity rates. Feed-in tariffs have played a role in the development of Germany’s world-leading solar power industry. In the United States, feed-in-tariffs have been adopted in Vermont and Washington.

The Vermont feed-in-tariff law was designed to ensure that homeowners or businesses receive the same return on equity for their investment. Vermont's legislation bases the tariffs on the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit. Vermont's feed-in tariff program contains the key elements of the successful policies found in Europe: tariffs are differentiated by technology and size; tariffs are set on the cost of generation plus profit; and profit is set by a reasonable rate of return, loan contracts terms, and a regular program review.

Rebate Programs: By providing cash incentives, more homeowners and businesses will install renewable devices and technologies in their buildings. States have taken note of this efficient strategy. Twenty-three of them and the District of Columbia offer rebate programs to promote the installation of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency measures such as solar water heating and photovoltaic systems. We highlight a few of them:

California's Million Solar Roofs Initiative provides grants to homeowners who install solar systems, with the amount of the rebate declining over time to reflect the anticipated declining cost of solar power.

Thanks to ARRA funding, Minnesota offers rebates of $100 to $250 on refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers, and New Jersey residents will be able to receive rebates worth $25 to $ 100 on the purchase of those same items. Similar rebate programs for home appliances exist in Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Net Metering: Net metering allows customers who generate electricity through renewable sources to receive credit for electricity they put on the grid. In other words, net metering customers buy electricity when they need it, use the electricity they produce, and sell any excess to the utility. This provides an incentive for consumers to invest in small renewable generation systems. More than 40 states and the District of Columbia have adopted net metering laws.

Last year, Nebraska's LB 436 was enacted to provide net metering for electricity. It includes one to one credit for energy generated up to the amount used, protection against additional utility charges and fees, protection against unnecessary safety or performance standards, and prohibition of additional liability insurance.
Newly enacted AB 510 in California raises the cap set on the number of homes and businesses that can take advantage of net energy metering. Current law caps the amount of electricity that can be generated under the net metering program to 2.5 percent of a utility’s peak demand. AB 510 raises the net metering cap to 5 percent and will help meet projected demands received under the California Solar Initiative program. The law further allows the rate-making authority to compensate net energy producers for the value of the electricity itself, and the value of the renewable attributes of the electricity. Moreover, net energy producers will receive a bonus if the renewable attributes of the energy production add indefinite or unforeseen benefits. Environmental advocates claim that the law, which was introduced last year but died in committee, finally balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. This is a great win for the more than 50,000 customers, including schools, community colleges, cities and counties and homeowners in California who participate in net metering.
New Jersey has one of the most comprehensive net metering and interconnection laws in the United States. It includes a wide array of renewable sources: solar technologies, wind, fuel cells, geothermal technologies, wave or tidal action, and methane gas from landfills or biomass facilities. This program has been praised for standardizing the interconnection procedures for residential and small-commercial customers, who pay at the end of the each year for every excess Kwh they produce.

Protecting the Ability to Install Renewable Energy Sources: States are also enacting rules to protect access to renewable energy. Last year, Virginia enacted SB 320, which voids covenants that restrict installation of use of any solar energy collection device on private property.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Colorado Leads Clean Energy Reform
The Pew Charitable Trusts - The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America
The Apollo Alliance - As Oil Spill Tragedy Continues, Clean Energy Progress in Missouri and Georgia Points to Hope for the Future
The White House - Policy Framework for PACE Financing Programs
Environment America – America on the Move
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
Progressive States Network - Green Buildings: Multi-State Agenda Campaign Update
Apollo Alliance - Efforts Underway to Save Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs
The White House - Policy Framework for PACE Financing Programs
Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the Workforce Alliance, the Apollo Alliance - Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy
Environment Maryland - Building a Solar Future: Repowering America's Homes, Businesses, and Industry with Solar Energy

Networking the Green Economy: Creating Jobs and Improving the Transmission of Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable sources present unique and serious transmission challenges due to their intermittency (solar and wind) and the remoteness of the site of generation. For renewable energy production to maintain its current rate of growth, it must overcome significant obstacles, including the lack of capacity and connectivity in the regional electrical infrastructure. The only way that we can fully maximize the use of renewable energy sources is by upgrading the current electrical system. With an upgraded, or smart, grid, renewable energy production overcomes significant obstacles including lack of capacity and connectivity. Improving the electric grid will expand the ability of renewable energy and energy conservation to meet the nation’s energy needs.

The smart grid is an aggregate term that refers to a distribution system that allows the flow of information to the consumer and to the utility company through thermostats, Web based programs, appliances, and other devices. Establishing smart grids at the transmission level will enable digital controls and high-voltage transmission lines to transport energy from renewable energy sources. A smart grid improves the management of the distribution and consumption of energy that results in the integration of various sources of renewable energy into our power system. In this manner, it facilitates more efficient energy use and reduces the amount of emissions from harmful greenhouse gases.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act apportioned $4.5 billion on smart grid demonstration projects. Beyond this, $11 billion will be invested in general improvements to the grid, another important step towards a grid that will allow for more flexible and efficient generation and use of power.

Last year, California enacted SB 17/AB 238 to declare that new and modified electric transmission facilities, including the employment of smart grid technologies, are necessary to facilitate the state's energy efficiency goals and renewable portfolio transmission facilities. This is the first smart grid state law in the country, as it promotes the installation of smart meters, data networks and other infrastructure for a cleaner, more efficient electrical grid by — by July 1, 2010. Under this law, the Public Utility Commission is required to report on a yearly basis, starting on Jan. 1, 2011, to the governor and legislature on the progress being made in improvements to the electrical grid.
Vermont and Maryland have each provided funding to study smart metering and/or smart grids, as a means of reducing energy use.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has teamed with utilities in the states of Washington and Oregon to test new energy technologies designed to improve efficiency and reliability, while at the same time, increasing consumer choice and control.
In North Carolina, 100 Lafayetteville residents and businesses cut energy use an average of 20 percent during a six-month pilot last year. The customers were equipped with software that enabled them to check their energy use from the Internet.

By using applications and devices supported by digital infrastructure, such as broadband and information communication technology, we can build a green economy:continuing our economic growth and creating new jobs while decreasing our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future
Progressive States Network - Green Jobs Programs to Drive Economic Recovery
The Apollo Alliance - Make It in America: The Apollo Green Manufacturing Action Plan
Progressive States Network - Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future

Conclusion: A Greener Economy Drives Job Creation

Nearly six out of ten jobs in the green economy fall specifically in the area of energy generation, which includes jobs responsible for producing clean forms of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. Jobs responsible for solar power generation dominate this subgroup: 62.5 percent of all energy generation jobs in 2007 were in the solar industry. Jobs in wind power were second overall, making up 9.7 percent of energy generation jobs in 2007, but they grew more rapidly – by 23.5 percent between 1998 and 2007, compared to 19.1 percent growth for solar power jobs during the same period. Since the ARRA was enacted, an estimated 150,000 jobs were saved or created in the construction of solar panels and wind turbines.

Industry sector experts have cited state policies such as renewable portfolio standards as important factors in driving investments, attracting companies and growing new industries and jobs because they help create market demand for clean energy technologies, products, and services. However, without key policies such as renewable electricity standards, the market will be slow to grow. The Union of Concerned Scientists agree; they have estimated that a national RPS requiring 20% in renewable energy sources by 2020 could generate 355,000 jobs across the country. Also by this time, the domestic market for renewable energy supplies is likely to reach $226 billion annually.

Potential Federal Action: While states are still making progress on their own, a stronger federal partner would help. Last year, US Representatives introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which requires that 20 percent of the country’s electricity be generated by renewable energy by 2020. This year, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (also known as the APA) was unveiled in the Senate. The APA includes: a cap and price on greenhouse gas emissions, similar to a cap-and-dividend already considered at the state-level, a target for reducing those emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and a fee for “carbon leakage” of imports in order to level the playing field between American manufacturers and foreign competitors that emit carbon. Not included in the Senate bill is a national renewable portfolio standard. Although the APA offers support for renewable energy sources, a federal mandate is needed in order to push the remaining 20 states to seriously commit to the use of alternative sources of energy. In the absence of renewable energy standards in the American Power Act, states can and must continue to fill in gap by continuing to mandate the use of renewable energy.

State Policy Program: Whatever the feds ultimately do, states are taking action to ensure that the future is bright -- literally and metaphorically -- for alternative energy production in the United States. With more than half of states having enacted renewable portfolio standards we are well under way to achieving our environmental and economic goals, but much more needs to be done. States should continue to build on their track record of innovation in clean energy policy by continuing to enact and renew their renewable energy goals. Specifically, as this Dispatch has demonstrated, states should:

Enact RPS standards, and for those that have enacted them, to find ways to set higher goals that can be accomplished and are meaningful;
Provide financial support -- in the form of bonds, rebates, or other innovative financing mechanisms -- to accelerate the deployment of more renewable energy technologies;
Integrate renewable sources into an upgraded, “smart” grid, and;
Create good, sustainable green jobs that will enable those employees to develop, manufacture, deploy, and maintain the various elements of renewable sources and smart grid infrastructure.

The key is not only promoting renewable energy supplies, but also of creating actual incentives that spur their use. These incentives come in the form of mandating goals for renewable use, as was the case in Colorado, and placing financial incentives for clean energy investment. As more and more renewables are manufactured, installed and used, it is imperative that our electrical grid also undergoes a drastic reformation.

Resources
Environment America - America on the Move
Headwaters Economics - Clean Energy Leadership in the Rockies: Competitive Positioning in the Emerging Green Economy
Pew Research Center Publications - An Increase in GOP Doubt About Global Warming Deepens Partisan Divide
The Pew Charitable Trusts - The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green

Unemployment Insurance Extension Filibuster Worsens Economic Pain

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:13:40 -0400

The country is still reeling from the effects of the downturn. Though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has undoubtedly benefited the economy, there are still 15 million Americans out of work.

Unfortunately, due to right-wing obstructionism in the US Senate, Congress was unable to extend unemployment insurance (UI) resulting in 1.7 million Americans losing their benefits on July 3. The Department of Labor released state-by-state breakdowns of Americans who lost UI earlier this month.

Follow this link to view a chart of the Estimated Number of Claimants Losing Unemployment Benefits by July 3, 2010 if Congress Fails to Continue Federal UI Programs.

If Congressional inaction continues, a total of 3.2 million workers will lose their umemployment benefits by the end of July. Furthermore, as the Center for American Progress notes, "[t]he lapse in congressional reauthorization forces 23 states and the District of Columbia to stop distributing extended benefits at a time when additional unemployment insurance benefits are needed most."

Not only are unemployment benefits critical for the long-term unemployed, but federal inaction on UI threatens economic recovery. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com and former adviser to Senator John McCain, finds that extending unemployment benefits provides a significant fiscal bang for the buck in fueling economic recovery by maintaining consumer spending in hard-hit communities. In fact, every $1 in federal spending on extending UI generates $1.61 in market activity.

As Zandi states, "[t]he odds that the economy will slip back into the recession are still well below even. But if Congress is unable to provide this help, those odds will rise and become uncomfortably high." Congress needs to move swiftly and boldly on enacting further job creation to boost the ailing economy. If you are a state lawmaker, please sign onto a letter calling on the President and Congress to enact a comprehensive jobs plan, including fiscal relief to states and local governments to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs.

Resources
Center for American Progress - Today's Unemployment Crisis by the Numbers
House Ways and Means Committee - Estimated Number of Claimants Losing Unemployment Benefits by July 3, 2010if Congress Fails to Continue Federal UI Programs
The Huffington Post - Congress Should Quit Its Deficit Dithering Unless It Wants Another Recession
Mark Zandi - The Impact of the Recovery Act on Economic Growth
Progressive States Network - Saving Jobs: More Federal Action Needed on State Fiscal Relief

Economy Adds 290,000 Jobs in April - But State Government Layoffs Could Drag Down Economy

Altaf Rahamatulla — Mon, 10 May 2010 12:17:52 -0400

Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the economy added 290,000 jobs in April, exceeding initial economic forecasts. This marks the fourth consecutive month the country experienced economic growth and added workers. Industries across the board saw increases in jobs, including construction, business services, education, health, and leisure and hospitality. Manufacturing employment rose by 44,000 jobs, the largest expansion since 1998. As Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) states, the "employment report shows the strongest signs yet of healing in the labor market."

The jobs numbers indicate that the crucial investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) are spurring private job growth and boosting national economic performance. The graph below depicts the slowing of job losses that followed the passage of the Recovery Act and the recent surge in job creation.

Unfortunately, while private sector job growth is now expanding, state and local governments actually lost 6,000 jobs in April-- and the overall unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. Massive state budget shortfalls will likely exacerbate this alarming trend with potentially hundreds of thousands of state and local jobs lost if Congress does not act to provide additional help for states.

President Barack Obama acknowledged that while the job growth is encouraging, "we’ve got a ways to go" with unemployment rates still stubbornly high. Accordingly, this points to the urgent need for federal action on further job creation and state fiscal relief measures. Though Congress passed a modest small business package in March, conservative leaders in Congress continue to delay and even block additional support for state Medicaid programs, funding for educational programs, investments in infrastructure projects and public transportation, support for the long-term unemployed to sustain them until they reenter the workforce, and direct assistance to state and local governments to perform the vital services needed to maintain growth in local communities.

AFSCME's State and Local Fiscal relief action page provides critical resources to strengthen the advocacy efforts of individuals and organizations. If you are a state or local lawmaker, please sign onto this letter calling on the President and Congress to move on a jobs and state fiscal relief plan.

Resources:
AFSCME - State and Local Fiscal Relief
Bureau of Labor Statistics - Employment Summary
Center for Economic and Policy Research - Unemployment Rises to 9.9 Percent, Driven by Jump in Labor Force Participation
Council of Economic Advisers - The Employment Situation in April
Progressive States Network - Saving Jobs: More Federal Action Needed on State Fiscal Relief
The New York Times - Economy Gains Impetus as US Employers Add 290,000 Jobs
White House - Remarks by the President on the Monthly Jobs Numbers

Arizona and the Nation: A Failing State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration

Suman Raghunathan — Mon, 03 May 2010 14:33:14 -0400

As we highlighted two weeks ago, the Arizona legislature and Governor's decisions to pass a punitive, anti-immigrant bill - SB1070 - have unleashed a torrent of condemnations inside and outside of Arizona. Voices speaking up against the bill have come not only from civil rights organizations, but have also included public safety officials, constitutional legal scholars, and, significantly, Republican leaders and candidates from other states with significant immigrant populations.

While Arizona's extreme, draconian law is grabbing headlines, what's gotten less attention is how Arizona is an isolated case with increasingly anti-immigrant laws and policies advanced over the last few years. A handful of states have joined Arizona in its punitive approach to immigration, yet the often-ignored reality is that the vast majority of immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, live in states that have promoted far more humane and successful approaches emphasizing immigrant integration into local economies and communities.

As this Dispatch will detail, Arizona has blazed its own (misguided) path on immigration, which reflects dysfunctional right-wing politics that have driven the state into an economic disaster of low wages, mass-foreclosures and a punishing fiscal crisis. Grandstanding on race may be Arizona's substitute for grappling with its deep, systematic economic problems, but few other states have followed its lead in recent years, and even fewer seem likely to follow it on SB1070.

SB1070 highlights the need for more systematic campaigns to deepen immigrant integration policies in the states and for passage of federal comprehensive immigration reform to address the border and the need for legalization. The economic gains from positive reforms on immigration are too large to ignore at both the state and federal level.

We invite state legislators to join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy (SLPIP) and other allies to sign up with PSN's State Immigration Project for updates on promoting progressive state immigration policy by emailing immigration@progressivestates.org.

Table of Contents:

- SB1070: Legalizing Racial Profiling, Violating Federalism

- Police, Civil Rights Groups and Republican Leaders Condemn SB1070

- SB1070: Symbol of Arizona's Failed Economy and Right-Wing Politics

- Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Politics Not the Norm for States with Immigrant Populations

- SB1070 Deepens the Need for Federal Comprehensive Immigration Reform

- The Economic Benefits of Legalization and Positive Immigration Integration Strategies

- Progressive Strategy to Address Immigration Policy

SB1070: Legalizing Racial Profiling, Violating Federalism

As we described two weeks ago, SB1070 is a radical anti-immigrant piece of legislation that will open the floodgates to racial profiling and abuses of civil liberties. The law will be challenged in court for both violating individual rights and being an illegal assertion of state authority given the federal government's primary responsibility for border and immigration matters. But in the meantime, the effects of its implementation will be sweeping, since the law:

Legalizes Racial Profiling: State and local government law enforcement officers are required to determine if a person is illegally in the United States based on a “reasonable suspicion,” an open ended approach that will encourage suspicions based on race. The law does little, if anything, to prohibit police officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate.
Criminalizes immigration, which isn't a crime under federal law: Makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal status.
Undercuts Federalism: The law grants local police arrest authority for administrative violations of federal immigration law, even though the state police do not even have that authority under federal law.
Criminalizes Speech: The law criminalizes the solicitation of work even though courts have previously ruled that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Potentially Deters Enforcement of Other Laws: Since the law requires police officers responding to any city ordinance violation to automatically determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant, many local violations won't be reported, consequently diverting law enforcement attention from violent crimes.

SB1070 Is a Product of a Racist, Anti-Immigrant National Network: The sweep of the law is hardly accidental, since it is the product of a national network of anti-immigrant groups tied to racist hate groups. As the Center for New Community noted in a recent email update:

[SB1070] was drafted by a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose founder has warned of a “Latin onslaught” and complained about Latinos’ alleged low “educability.” FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters.

Kris Kobach, a Kansas law professor now running for Kansas Secretary of State, is the chief author of the bill, as emails recently revealed. Kobach was a top immigration advisor to John Ashcroft at the Justice Department who promoted national racial profiling of legal U.S. residents post-September 11th. He also drafted the local anti-immigrant ordinance for Hazelton, PA, which was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2007.

With an eye on empowering allied groups like FAIR and related anti-immigrant groups, SB1070 is designed to allow them to sue local law enforcement agencies if they believe that are not adequately enforcing the new law, giving the right-wing new tools to control local police departments under threat of litigation.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Arizona Risks Jeopardizing its Economic Future as it Contemplates Passing Anti-Immigrant Law
Center for American Progress - Fast Facts on Arizona’s Immigration Crack Down
Center for New Community - Fair Exposed, an online bi-weekly publication produced by the Center for New Community, a national civil rights organization. To subscribe email, fairexposed@newcomm.org.
Southern Poverty Law Center - Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling
Wonk Room - The Group Behind The Harshest Immigration Bill In America
TalkingPointsMemo - AZ Immigration Bill Writer's Resume: GOP Activist, Ashcroft Aide, Arpaio Ally
The Rachel Maddow Show - Against Racial Profiling, Except When They're For It, Immigration Group President Addresses Racism Accusations, To Be FAIR: Following Dan Stein, Correcting the Record

Police, Civil Rights Groups and Republican Leaders Condemn SB1070

Unsurprisingly, a wide range of civil rights, labor, community and immigrant rights organizations within Arizona and the nation have condemned the law. The opposition to the bill has extended to law enforcement officers, legal experts and even Republican leaders in other states with large immigrant populations.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush noted, "I think it creates unintended consequences. It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well." Even Republican strategist Karl Rove echoed, "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill. I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way."

Within Arizona, it is notable that the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police has opposed the law on both fiscal and public safety grounds, since they worry that fear of government officials by immigrant populations will diminish the public’s willingness to cooperate with police in criminal investigations and will “negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”

The President of the American Bar Association in a statement said, "It is, quite simply put, a law based on prejudice and fear, one whose purpose is to be divisive. This law encourages second-class treatment of individuals based on the color of their skin, and that is unacceptable."

Most telling for how out of step Arizona leaders have been are statements by Republican state leaders from states with large immigrant populations:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger believes Arizona's approach is "as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional," and vowed to pull California's state pension funds invested in Arizona.
Florida Senatorial candidate, former Florida Speaker of the House and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio warned SB1070 will create a police state: "From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation... I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position." He later told reporters, "That's not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state."
Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement that "some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe." Perry's views parallel those of his corporate supporters, like the president of the right-wing Texas Association of Business, who recently called Arizona's law "blatantly unconstitutional," saying there was "little likelihood the Texas Legislature would pass anything so misguided as what they've done in Arizona."

When conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Rick Perry think a law is too extreme, it's clear Arizona's leaders have moved into their own corner of anti-immigrant extremism.

SB1070: Symbol of Arizona's Failed Economy and Right-Wing Politics

Click for larger image online.

If other state leaders, even conservative ones from border states like Texas, are not rushing to copy SB1070, it's because whatever their partisan politics, they don't share the peculiar brand of pathological right-wing politics and the hollow economy that has left Arizona such a political and economic basket case.

Other states have grappled with a range of programs to reform their economies and budgets during the current economic crisis. That Arizona's claim to fame in this crisis is immigrant bashing in the form of SB1070 is symbolic of years, even decades of failed political and economic policies. That Arizona politics has promoted low-wage jobs that have left state residents with falling individual incomes relative to the rest of the nation and conditions for the state's children that rank at the bottom of the nation. Since the current economic recession began in December 2007, Arizona has lost 265,000 jobs, or 9.9 percent of the state's employment. And with little else to offer the unemployed, scapegoating immigrants has become a substitute in Arizona for having a real solution to solving the economic needs of its residents.

Individual Incomes Fall Behind the Nation: For decades, Arizona's average wages and income have been falling behind other states. A University of Arizona business school study from 2005 noted that "over the long term, the real income of the average Arizonan has lagged behind the rest of the nation... Arizona slipped from 94 percent of the U.S. level in 1970 to 86 percent in 2003." While the bubble economy in the state of the mid-decade gave a slight bump to individual incomes in the state, per capita income fell 4 percent from 2008 to 2009 after having been stagnant for the previous two years, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported. Arizona was tied for fourth place with Idaho in having the highest drop in personal incomes per capita. Nationally, the decline last year was 2.6 percent.

An Economy Built on a Construction Bubble: The Urban Land Institute has referred to Phoenix as the "poster child" for the housing downturn and bad mortgages. The average price paid for office space in the Phoenix metro area tumbled more than 50 percent one year in 2009. Back in 2006, when growth peaked, about 30 percent of the Phoenix area’s economic output was tied to real estate and construction; subtract that bubble economic engine and even the nominal job growth in the state during the last decade collapsed into unemployment and foreclosures.

Part of the problem is that state leaders encouraged a low-wage, bubble-based economic strategy that added a mirage of job and population growth during the last decade, but left the state with poor fundamentals for long-term growth when the financial bubble collapsed nationally. Highlighting the weak economic underpinnings of the state economy, the Arizona Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale metropolitan area ranked near the bottom, 192nd of 200 metro areas, for growth in high-tech gross domestic product from 2003 through 2008, according to the Milken Institute.

Fiscal Solutions More Irresponsible Than Any in Nation: Arizona's fiscal crisis is considered one of the worst in the country by the Pew Center on the States. Since 1992, the state has approved 42 tax cuts to its three major revenue sources -- personal and corporate income, and sales -- and eliminated statewide property taxes that accrued to the general fund-- and despite promises of right-wing economic nirvana, the results have been low personal income growth and a generally low-level of resources for human needs.

Arizona has some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country, 18.9 percent of the state lacks health insurance and 276,500 Arizona children do not have coverage. In the most recent Annie E. Casey Foundation's annual "Kids Count" report, Arizona ranked 40th in the nation in child well-being, one of the worst in the nation for its teen birth rate (46th), high-school dropout rate (46th) and percentage of children not attending school and not working (44th).

But what truly distinguishes Arizona is its right-wing, inhumane and short-sighted approaches to addressing its current fiscal problems:

State leaders passed a law to abolish the state's KidCare program providing children's health care to 40,000 kids, the only state in the country to take such a step, and only reversed themselves when they discovered they would forfeit billions in federal dollars if they did so.
Wide-ranging cuts in programs across the state, from eliminating full-day kindergarten to cutting state employee salaries to removing 10,000 families from TANF cash assistance.
Two-thirds of Arizona state parks will be closed.

And this has been combined with a whole range of other right-wing and just plain kooky laws promoted by the Arizona's legislature.

SB1070 Will Make Arizona's Economic Problems Worse: Passing SB1070 will simply deepen the state's economic crisis. As the National Employment Law Project points out, smaller-scale anti-immigrant ordinances have cost individual localities millions of dollars. And other studies estimate SB1070 will further decimate Arizona's economy by driving immigrant families, undocumented and legal residents alike, from the state, further depressing demands for goods and already vacant housing tracts.

The Arizona Republic detailed, "More than 100,000 undocumented immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years because of the bad economy and earlier enforcement crackdowns. Now, a new wave of Latinos is preparing to leave."

"So, rather than massive deportations, we are basically going to encourage them to leave on their own," said State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who is also a criminal-justice professor at Scottsdale Community College. But even he admits that the law will likely drive legal residents and their families out of the state.

The Texas-based Perryman Group found if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and other local leaders anticipate a drop in new business creation in the state because of the new hostile environment. Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski observed: “We’re the laughing stock of the country because of these crazy laws.”

Resources:
Think Progress - Arizona Expands Its Discrimination: Teachers With Heavy Accents Can’t Teach English, Ethnic Studies Are Banned
Rogue Columnist - Arizona's Continuing Crisis and Kookocracy Watch
Arizona State University W.B. Carey School of Business - Jobs, Income, And Growth In Arizona: Individual Versus Aggregate Measures Of Economic Performance
Progressive States Network - Eye on the Right: Arizona's Failed Experiment with Tax Cuts

Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Politics Not the Norm for States with Immigrant Populations

Despite much media hype, most states with high concentrations of undocumented and legal immigrants have rejected the punitive approach of Arizona and a handful of like-minded states. Most states have quietly been moving forward with positive, integrative approaches to new immigrants in their communities.

As PSN detailed in a report in 2008 -- and the basic numbers have changed little since then -- only 11% of undocumented immigrants live in states that have enacted comprehensive punitive policies or sanctions in private workplaces against undocumented workers.

Most Undocumented Residents Live in States with Integration Policies: Instead, a significant majority of undocumented immigrants live in states with positive integrative or somewhat integrative policies. As detailed in a section below, with the right state policies, new immigrants bring new skills, business startups and economic growth-- and most states with experience with new immigrants have promoted policies to tap that economic growth potential.

Many states, including many of those where most undocumented immigrants live such as Texas and California, now provide in-state tuition (so-called DREAM Acts) for undocumented immigrants going to public universities. Others are promoting policies to integrate immigrants through English language instruction and assistance in navigating the citizenship process. A number of states such as Illinois and New York are providing health insurance to undocumented children. And instead of trying to punish immigrant workers, states are increasingly working with native and immigrant workers to crack down on bad employers who are violating minimum wage, safety and workers compensation laws.

In fact, over 50% of undocumented immigrants live in states that provide in-state tuition for undocumented immigrant children and nearly the same majority of undocumented immigrants live in states that are promoting "New Americans" policies to better educate new immigrants and nearly a majority also live in states that have recently enacted new penalties for wage law violations in order to raise wages for all workers, native and immigrant alike. See the chart for a comparison of the more pervasive positive approaches to immigration compared to the minority punitive approach.

The media largely rewards the tactics of political opportunists who to use the issue of immigration as a "wedge" issue, but ignore the political and economic success of other states in integrating new immigrants into their state economies and communities.

A State Agenda for Progressive Immigration Policy: As we highlighted in our Dispatch, State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change, there are a range of positive state policies that can improve the lives of immigrants and raise living standards and public safety for everyone, native and immigrant alike. These include:

Wage Law Enforcement as Immigration Policy - Redirect anger at lawlessness in the workplace toward employers who violate wage and other worker rights laws -- an approach that unites all workers, immigrant and native alike.
Immigrant Integration and Naturalization - Highlight policies that help all immigrants to better integrate into society, a broadly popular policy and one that also unites the interests of legal and undocumented immigrants.
Address Debate on Immigrants and Public Benefits - Emphasize the benefits to the public from providing education and preventive care to immigrants. Support resolutions that demand that the federal government, which receives billions in taxes paid by undocumented workers, share those revenues with states to expand services for communities with heavy immigrant populations.
Voting Reform versus "Voter ID" Attacks - Challenge the voter ID requirements that are disenfranchising many legal voters and support anti-voter intimidation policies. Support reforms like same day registration and vote-by-mail to assist citizens forced to overcome any new barriers to voting.
Community Policing and Immigrant Outreach for Public Safety - Support community policing policies that encourage immigrants to work closely with the police when they either see a crime or are victims themselves. Encourage community policing efforts involving undocumented immigrant communities.

Smart state policy proposals that emphasize the areas where the public is supportive of immigrant integration into our communities are both smart policy and smart politics. By better controlling the debate at the local and state level, progressives can help build support for federal reforms to regularize the legal status of undocumented immigrants and build a path to citizenship. Such strategies can isolate those who promote the scapegoating of immigrants and instead emphasize the issues that will benefit everyone, from wage law enforcement to integrating new immigrants into our local economies.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change
Progressive States Network - The Anti-Immigrant Movement that Failed: Positive Integration Policies by States Still Far Outweigh Punitive Policies

SB1070 Deepens the Need for Federal Comprehensive Immigration Reform

If SB1070 accomplishes anything, it will be to focus national attention on why it is critical to revamp and improve federal immigration laws. Those on both sides of the partisan aisle overwhelmingly agree the nation's immigration system is broken, and long overdue for an update.

While federal law essentially decides who can legally enter the US and determines immigrants' eligibility for most services and benefits (according to federal immigration law, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most public benefits apart from emergency room medical care), states have considerable jurisdiction over immigrants' access to some basic services and programs - such as, for example, New York state's decision to provide basic prenatal health care for women -- regardless of their immigration status -- as well as how state and local government (including law enforcement officers) interact with immigrant residents.

As noted above, most states have engaged immigration in a more positive manner: for example, several states (including Utah and Texas) extend in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who attend state universities and colleges. But given the given the federal vacuum on immigration, some states like Arizona will inevitably take matters into their own hands in a punitive direction.

The last comprehensive immigration reform, enacted in 1986 by Republican President Ronald Reagan, included a large-scale legalization program that allowed roughly 3 million undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status. Despite attempts at immigration reform in 2001, 2006, and 2007, there has been no significant change in the status quo of immigration policy since 1986. The longer the nation is forced to wait for federal immigration reform, the more states will make patchwork attempts to address immigration at the state level and the more opportunities there are for states to take misguided and economically disastrous approaches to immigration policy such as Arizona's.

Proposed Federal Reforms Promote Compromise Solution: The most recent proposal, unveiled by Senators Menendez, Reid, and Schumer, outlines a number of provisions to address the crisis:

On the negative side, it introduces a national identity card and takes a 'zero tolerance' approach with plans to continue to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants who are suspected of committing crimes; it also significantly ramps up militarization of the US-Mexico border.
However, the proposal also dramatically expands the channels for legal immigration into the US and provides an (albeit lengthy) path to legalization, and ultimately citizenship, for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. The proposal grants provisional legal status (which includes work authorization) to undocumented residents who come forward, register with the federal government, pay a fine, and commit to learning English. After eight years, if border enforcement and surveillance programs are successfully implemented, these individuals are then eligible for permanent resident status, and five years later are eligible to apply for US citizenship.
The Menendez-Reid-Schumer proposal also would grant permanent resident status (known as a 'green card') to every immigrant who earns an advanced degree from an American university, and would end country-based quotas on the number of H1B visas extended to highly-skilled workers who seek to enter the US.
Finally, the proposal would streamline the process for spouses and immediate relatives of those with green cards to enter the US themselves, addressing a backlog of family-based immigration that often requires family members to wait a decade before they can legally join their relatives in the US.

Resource: American Immigration Lawyers Association - Analysis of Senate Democrats Immigration Reform Proposal

The Economic Benefits of Legalization and Positive Immigration Integration Strategies

Several recent academic studies have underscored the economic benefits that a large-scale legalization program would bring to the US economy and households, despite the current flawed conventional wisdom that legalization would cause already-high unemployment rates to rise.

A study by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Oveda of the University of California - Los Angeles uses the economic impact of the 1986 legalization program (one that also occurred during an economic recession with high unemployment) to forecast how a legalization program would affect the current economy. His analysis found a legalization program would yield at least $1.5 trillion in gross domestic product over a ten-year period. Legalization would allow undocumented workers to emerge from the underground economy, and would, as a result, raise not only their wages but those of their native-born counterparts, raising the wage floor for many workers. Increased wages would, in turn, fuel increased purchasing power and homeownership among newly-legalized immigrants, injecting billions, if not trillions, of dollars into the US economy as a whole.

Libertarians also echo the belief that immigrants, even those working in low-wage sectors, expand the American economy. According to this commentary analysis from the libertarian CATO Institute, "the addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like." Undocumented immigrants are typically low-income, but they are almost all employed. According to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, male undocumented immigrants, ages 18 to 64, had a labor-force participation rate in 2004 of an amazing 92 percent.

Other studies have found wage levels of low-wage immigrant workers increase by as much as 30 percent when they improve their English fluency by just one level, because they are able to advocate for themselves more effectively in the workplace - a powerful testimony to increasing state and federal funding for English as a Second Language classes.

Finally, federal, state, and local tax bases would benefit significantly from the increased earnings and purchasing power of newly-legalized immigrants. The Social Security Administration estimates that roughly 75% of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes. In fact, the Drum Major Institute notes that undocumented workers already are largely responsible for the future viability of the Social Security system with their $7 billion in annual tax contributions - most which they will never be able to access. And the President's Council of Economic Advisors found that US natives gain an estimated $37 billion annually from immigrants' economic contributions as a whole.

Resources:
Immigration Policy Center - The Fiscal Bottom Line on Immigration Reform
Immigration Policy Center - Assessing the Economic Impact of Immigration and the State and Local Level
Immigration Policy Center & UCLA: Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Immigration Policy Center - Immigration Reform as Economic Stimulus
Commentary Magazine - Higher Immigration, Lower Crime
Drum Major Institute - Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class
America's Voice - Immigrants to Tea Party Protesters: We'll Pay!
America's Voice - Facts at a Glance on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Progressive Strategy to Address Immigration Policy

To defeat anti-immigrant attacks, the key for progressives is to proactively use smart policy campaigns to change the public debate on immigration both at the state and national level. Globalization is driving economic changes, including immigration, that cause fear and uncertainty for many voters, but if progressives promote economic and social policies that address the broader needs of working families and propose a vision of how to effectively integrate new immigrants into our communities, there is no sustained majority for punitive measures against undocumented immigrants.

Beyond individual policy options, advocates and elected leaders need to emphasize that the coalition in support of humane policies involving new immigrants is diverse and cuts into even many seemingly conservative communities. Elected leaders can build on traditional support from many African-American leaders to labor unions to forge alliances with forward-looking business leaders and religious leaders, including many evangelicals, who recognize that smart, humane immigration policies for our communities is a source of both moral and social strength.

Anti-Immigrant Conservatives Playing a Losing Game: And the dangerous reality for anti-immigrant conservatives is that they are playing a losing demographic game, with new legal immigrants voting in increasing numbers that will punish any party or ideological group that promotes racist approaches to the immigration issue -- one reason many Republican leaders are denouncing SB1070 so quickly.

There were 10 million Latino voters in 2008, an increase of 4 million since 2000. And a May 2009 poll of Latino voters found that 82% of Latino voters felt immigration was important to them and their families. Punitive approaches like SB1070 will inevitably impel a negative reaction, with nearly six-in-ten (57%) Latinos in a 2008 Pew Hispanic Center survey, saying they worried that they themselves or a friend or family member would be deported as a result of similar policies.

Conclusion: Humane immigration politics are also smart politics in the long-term, since the present coalition for progressive immigration policy is rapidly being joined by new citizens who are unlikely to forgive politicians who vote for racial profiling or other attacks on their communities. Ultimately, in an increasingly diverse nation, there is no long-term political future for politicians pushing these anti-immigrant laws. Elected officials who step up with intelligent, humane policies on immigration will both build a stronger economy and society in their states and win politically in the long-term.

Resources:
Progressive States Network -State Policymakers Need to Respond to Growing Clout of Latino Voters Nationwide
Pew Hispanic Center - Hispanics and Arizona’s New Immigration Law
America's Voice - The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections: They Tipped Elections in 2008; Where Will They Be in 2010?

Public Employees Earn Substantially Less than Private Sector Counterparts

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:24:45 -0400

Refuting right-wing attacks on state workers, a new report by the National Institute for Retirement Security (NIRS) and the Council on State and Local Government Excellence (CSGE), Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation Over 20 Years, demonstrates that state and local employees earn an average of 11 and 12 percent less, respectively, than comparable private sector workers.

In the past year, 42 states have either slashed public employee wages, required furloughs, imposed hiring freezes, or cut state workforce positions. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that since August 2008, state and local governments have eliminated approximately 192,000 jobs. These types of actions not only diminish the quality of public service provision, but additionally hurt working families.

With the economic downturn fostering a renewed interest in public employee compensation and privatization schemes, this report serves as a critical resource to push back against some of the misguided claims that target state workers' wages as a primary cause of budget shortfalls. Some of the most significant findings include:

On average, public sector jobs demand higher education levels compared to the private sector. State and local government workers are twice as likely to have a college or advanced degree.
Although pensions make up a larger share of public employees overall compensation, state and local workers' total compensation is 6.8 and 7.4 percent lower than comparable private sector workers.
The public-private wage gap has only widened in the last 20 years. As the graph below illustrates, state public employees of comparable skill levels were almost reaching wage parity with private sector counterparts in the late 1980s, but their relative pay fell sharply during the 1990s.

The report also analyzes states with large populations -- California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- and finds that this general wage dynamic exists across the country. As the authors point out, "[t]his recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages and benefits."

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - An Update on State Budget Cuts
National Institute for Retirement Security and the Council on State and Local Government Excellence - Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation Over 20 Years

Easing the Financial Burden on the Unemployed: States and the Federal Government Taking Action

Nathan Newman — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:39:18 -0400

While the Great Recession has been hard on families across the country, both states and the federal government have stepped up in unprecedented ways to ease the financial burden on the unemployed through extended benefits and modernization of state programs. Compared to pre-recession rules that generally provided only 26 weeks of unemployment insurance, federal action extended support for up to 99 weeks in states hit hardest by the recession. See map below, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Click image for a larger version online..

Both the Senate and House have passed separate bills that contain an unemployment insurance extension; however, the chambers have not agreed on a final version. Congress needs to move a bill to the President's desk quickly as part of a more general new round of state fiscal relief to support economic growth. If you are a state lawmaker, please sign onto this letter calling on the federal government to enact a comprehensive jobs plan.

Modernizing State UI Programs: State governments have also continued to move forward in modernizing their unemployment insurance systems, taking advantage of last year's Recovery Act which made $7 billion available to states to help groups of workers who traditionally fall through the cracks of the program, including low-wage workers, women, and part-time workers.

Last year, 28 states enacted reforms to qualify for incentive funding, with 14 new states adopting the so-called alternative base period and seven states providing benefits to workers in training programs. This year, Alaska and South Dakota increased the incentive funding for which they qualify through additional modernization of their UI programs, while Maryland, Utah and Nebraska all newly qualified for UI incentive funds through modernization legislation enacted this year. Including states that had enacted reforms prior to the Recovery Act, a total of 31 states have enacted reforms that qualify for full or partial incentive funding.

Of the 21 remaining states that have not claimed their full share of ARRA incentive funding, 12 have introduced reform legislation this year and seven states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Washington, and the District of Columbia, still have pending bills. See the National Employment Law Project’s (NELP's) state-by-state summary of 2010 state legislation implementing the unemployment modernization provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

For NELP's breakdown of the legislation enacted last year, see Federal Stimulus Funding Produces Unprecedented Waiver of State Unemployment Insurance Reforms and their model legislation. Also, see below for a map of reforms enacted in 2009. Click image for a larger version online.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Policy Basics: How Many Weeks of Unemployment Compensation Are Available?
National Employment Law Project - State-By-State Summary of 2010 State Legislation
National Employment Law Project - Federal Stimulus Funding Produces Unprecedented Waiver of State Unemployment Insurance Reforms
National Employment Law Project - UI Modernization Model Legislation

Saving Jobs: More Federal Action Needed on State Fiscal Relief

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:56:44 -0400

Last month, President Barack Obama signed the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act into law to assist small businesses and spur job creation. This was definitely a start, but the gravity of the current crisis demands much bolder and quicker action. Congress needs to enact further state fiscal relief to support jobs and avoid the massive layoffs that threaten social and economic vitality in the states.

Federal action is still needed to provide support for state Medicaid programs by extending the increased medical assistance percentages (FMAP), boost funding for educational programs, invest in infrastructure projects and public transportation, support the long-term unemployed to sustain them until they reenter the workforce, and provide direct and comprehensive financial assistance to state and local governments to perform the vital services needed to maintain growth in local communities.

In the past few months, Congress has started to take action:

Jobs for Main Street Act (H.R. 2847): On December 16, 2009, the House passed this bill, which would redirect money from the Wall Street bailout to fund environmental and infrastructure projects, extend FMAP, support education jobs, and provide small business loans. The bill would additionally provide funding to public safety and law enforcement jobs, address public housing needs, and invest in clean and safe water projects.
American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 (H.R.4213): On March 10, the Senate passed this piece of legislation to provide state fiscal relief through FMAP increases, provide support for the long-term unemployed though Unemployment Insurance and COBRA extensions through the end of December 2010, reverse a scheduled 21 percent payment cut for doctors who provide services through Medicare, and extend several tax breaks, such as the research and development tax credit. The bill also raises almost $40 billion in new revenue by reducing a biofuel tax break utilized by the paper industry and strengthening tax shelter rules.
The Local Jobs for America Act (H.R. 4812): Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced this bill last month to provide $75 billion to local communities to hire needed staff over two years, funding for 50,000 private-sector training jobs, $23 billion to support education and teaching positions, and $1.18 billion for law enforcement. Overall, the legislation would appropriate $100 billion to job creation efforts. Within a month of its introduction, the bill already has 105 co-sponsors.

Individuals and advocacy organizations should press their Congressional leaders on the need for action. If you are a state or local lawmaker, please sign onto this letter calling on the President and Congress to enact a comprehensive jobs plan, including relief to states and local governments to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs.

Resources:
Campaign for America's Future - Major New Jobs Bill Gains 105 Co-Sponsoring
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - An Update on State Budget Cuts
Economic Policy Institute - Dire states--State and Local Budget Relief Needed
Economic Policy Institute - Jobs Crisis Fact Sheet
Progressive States Network - Take Action: Additional Federal Job Creation and State Fiscal Relief

Solar Energy Continues to Make Its Case - Now as a Job Creator

Fabiola Carrion — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:27:11 -0500

With more people worried about job security and the economy, state policy leaders and several corporations are making the case for renewable energy legislation as a job creator.

Solar energy creates and retains jobs, including those in the manufacturing industry. Texas business leaders noted in a recent report, Lone Star Power: How Texas Businesses Can Supply the World with Solar Energy, one of the great advantages of solar plants is the large number of components that are involved in installing solar power systems. Manufacturing and installing these devices requires significant job creation. In addition, jobs to maintain solar plants cannot be transferred overseas, therefore guaranteeing that jobs will remain in this country. In fact,the same Texas business leaders acknowledged the solar industry creates 50% more jobs than the coal industry. Additionally, an increasing number of American manufacturers are losing their edge in the international playing field. For instance, China is currently the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels and the front runner in the green world economy, boasting 1.12 million renewable energy jobs at the end of 2008. There is a clear need for investment in solar energy in order to remain a competitor in the global market.

So what does it mean to be solar? One way to generate solar energy involves using mirrors to reflect and focus the sun’s rays, providing heat, which in turn results in power. Another increasingly popular way to create solar energy is through photovoltaic panels, where solar systems are installed on the rooftops of homes and office buildings. These solar roofs are also easily linked to the electrical grid, which manages electricity consumption, thus increasing efficiency.

In our Dispatch last March, we listed some state efforts to enact solar energy legislation. So, what are some states doing lately with solar energy?

In Maryland, one bill was introduced to require a quicker ramp-up of the solar portion of the state's renewable portfolio standard and another bill was introduced to require utilities to pay customers back any surplus energy they create with the solar panels on their roofs.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) has also initiated a project to create what will be the world's largest solar farm in Owens Lake, California.
Corporations and environmental groups in Texas are advocating for incentives to build solar-integrated buildings in the state that enjoys the most solar solar radiation in the country. They also cite a Blue Green Alliance report, which finds that Texas could gain over 23,000 manufacturing jobs in solar energy if the US were to move to a 25% renewable energy standard.

If states continue to take action encouraging investment in solar power, manufacturers, workers, and consumers will benefit from the opportunity to create and retain jobs in building solar capacity.

Resources:
Environment Texas - Lone Star Power: How Texas Businesses Can Supply the World With Solar Energy
Tree Hugger - New Bill Could Create 10 Million Solar Roofs Across US
Progressive States Network - Promoting Municipal Financing for Solar Power Investments
The Baltimore Sun - Maryland Aims for 100,000 Solar Rooftops in 10 years
Reuters - Los Angeles Eyes Owens Lake for Huge Solar Project
Blue Green Alliance - Building the Clean Energy Assembly Line: How Renewable Energy can Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing and the American Middle Class

State Policymakers Need to Respond to Growing Clout of Latino Voters Nationwide

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:19:43 -0500

A recent report from the advocacy group America’s Voice highlighted the growing power of Latino voters in the upcoming 2010 elections. Latino voters played a critical role in 2008 to propel President Obama to victory in several key swing states that previously trended Republican, including Virginia. Latino voter registration and turnout rates have exploded over the past few years: roughly 10 million voted in the 2008 Presidential election alone, a 2.5 million increase from 2004 and 4 million person increase since 2000. Latino voter registration grew by over 54% between 2000 and 2008, and turnout grew 64% over the same time period.

The shifting composition of the electorate nationwide will increasingly affect state legislators and races. This trend is particularly evident in immigrant ‘new destination states’ in the South and Southwest, where growing numbers of immigrant residents are expected to translate into new Congressional districts after the 2010 Census. In response, progressive state leaders can take a few key steps:

Take Action on Immigrant Rights, a Defining Issue for Many Latinos: Immigration was not the number one issue for all Latino voters: like most Americans, the economy remains critical for them. Nevertheless, immigration reform remains important to a broad majority of Latinos as they make voting decisions. According to a May 2009 poll of Latino voters, 82% felt the issue was important to them and their families. Foreign-born Latinos (many of whom still have friends or family members who are documented residents but aren’t yet US citizens or who are undocumented) often feel comprehensive immigration reform and immigration policy is a top issue. State leaders can join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy to promote state policies that support immigrants and add their voices to those of other state legislators calling for comprehensive federal immigration reform.
Address Other Key Concerns of Latino Voters: Latino voters need to see progressive state leaders standing up for other key concerns as well, such as health care. A survey last November found Latino registered voters' top concern was health care reform, with 61% saying the government should ensure that all people have health insurance, even if it means raising taxes. Addressing core issues for working families is also key to cementing support from Latino voters.
Support Latino Voter Participation: State leaders can respond to increased Latino voter engagement by continuing to protect their voting rights. State leaders can encourage this trend by introducing and supporting measures to encourage voting such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and reforms, as well as strengthening civic engagement overall.
Support State-Level Policies and Programs that Integrate Immigrant Residents: Funding immigrant integration measures such as expanded ESL classes is critical for immigrant residents to fully participate in their community, yet demand continues to far outweigh supply for free or low-cost ESL classes. Waiting lists for ESL programs, which often receive some federal funding, remain long nationwide. English proficiency also translates to better wages for immigrant workers, as they can speak up for their rights at the workplace: one academic study found low-wage workers who moved up one English proficiency level saw a 30% increase in their wages.
Reach Spanish-Dominant Latinos: Foreign-born Latinos who predominantly speak Spanish are emerging as swing voters, and are a sizeable share of the Latino electorate: 40% were born outside the US and are naturalized US citizens. According to the New Democrat Network, the GOP more than doubled its share of the Latino vote from 1996 to 2004 by prioritizing outreach to Spanish-dominant Latinos. Both parties are well aware of this dynamic, and continue to step up their outreach: nearly 70% of 2008 immigration-related Presidential campaign ads were in Spanish.

Raising state voices in support of immigration reform is critical, especially in the wake of Congressional inaction on the issue. Despite repeated promises from White House and Congressional leaders to enact comprehensive immigration reform during President Obama's first year in office, momentum on comprehensive immigration reform has slowed in recent months. Yet the current federal vacuum on immigration reform presents an opportunity for states to craft progressive policies that support immigrant integration, such as English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and protect the rights of immigrant workers. Meanwhile, efforts continue toward comprehensive immigration reform: in an interview last week with Los Angeles’ Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión, US House of Representatives Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated her commitment to enacting comprehensive immigration reform this year – a message she notably has not broadcast in the mainstream media. Pelosi noted she recently raised the issue with President Obama, who said he would work with Congress to develop a bill this year.

Resources:
America's Voice - The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections: They Tipped Elections in 2008; Where Will They Be in 2010?
Latino Decisions/UNM RWJF Center/impreMedia - Survey of Latino Registered Voters
Progressive States Network - State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change