Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Proposition 39: Investments in Energy Efficiency for Schools Capitol Advisors Group, LLC CASBO Annual Conference 1 Kevin Gordon, President – Capitol Advisors.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Proposition 39: Investments in Energy Efficiency for Schools Capitol Advisors Group, LLC CASBO Annual Conference 1 Kevin Gordon, President – Capitol Advisors."— Presentation transcript:

1 Proposition 39: Investments in Energy Efficiency for Schools Capitol Advisors Group, LLC CASBO Annual Conference 1 Kevin Gordon, President – Capitol Advisors Brad Chapman, Climatec, Inc. Bill McGuire, Superintendent St. Helena Unified School District

2  Prop 39 on the Ballot – What Voters Approved  The Governor’s Proposal  The Legislative Analyst’s Perspective  SB 39 – Senator Kevin DeLeon  AB 39 – Assembly Member Nancy Skinner  The Education Community Response  Outlook for the May Revision & Beyond

3  Passed by voters last November  Raises more than $1 billion annually in Corporate income tax revenue by moving to single sales tax factor for most businesses.  For first five years, half the revenue required to fund Clean Energy Job Creation Fund  An estimated $450 the first year and $550 for each of the next four years is dedicated for this purpose.  Improve energy efficiency and expand alt energy. ◦ K-14 Public Schools, CSU and UC and other “public buildings” ◦ Public-Private partnerships and workforce raining related to energy ◦ Appropriate only to agencies with expertise in managing energy projects and programs  Coordinated with CEC and CPUC to avoid duplication and leverage existing energy efficiency and alternative energy efforts. 3

4  More than a dozen existing programs managed by multiple agencies including CEC, CPUC, and by public and Investor- owned utilities.  California has spent almost $15 billion over the past years on these efforts. 4

5  Significantly departs from ballot measure in implementation approach  Counts all revenue from Prop 39 toward Prop 98 minimum guarantee, including funds spent on energy projects  Focus energy funding exclusively on K-14 schools. ◦ $400.5 Million for K-12 schools ◦ $49.5 Million for Community Colleges

6  Funding administered through CDE for K-12 and Chancellor’s Office for CCs. ◦ These agencies would issue guidelines for prioritizing the use of funds by LEAs. ◦ CDE and Chancellor’s Office required to “consult” with CEC and CPUC on guidelines.  Budget provides a permanent full time position at CDE for coordination.  Allocates funding on an ADA basis ◦ $67 for K-12 ◦ $45 for Community Colleges ◦ Report due to CDE and Chancellor on expenditures.

7  Funds may be used for uses consistent with the state’s loading order policies, including: ◦ Construction or modernization of buildings in a manner that uses less energy ◦ Purchasing energy efficient equipment ◦ Undertaking renewable energy projects such as installation of solar panels and geothermal heat pumps 7www.capitoladvisors.org

8  Questions Treatment of Proposition 39 Revenues ◦ Varies from LAOs longstanding view of Proposition 98. ◦ Assert potential for greater manipulation of the minimum guarantee.  Questions Allocation Method - Limited Benefit ◦ Excludes many eligible projects. ◦ Fails to account for energy consumption differences. ◦ Allocates funding inefficiently. ◦ May not guarantee return on investment. ◦ Does not account for significant past investments in K– 14 facilities. ◦ Fails to sufficiently leverage existing programs and experience.

9  Senator Kevin DeLeon & Senate President Pro- Tem Darrell Steinberg  “Clean Energy Employment and Student Advancement Act”  Follows emphasis on education but allows funds for both K-12 and higher ed. institutions  Vests the Office of Public School Construction and State Allocation Board with administrative role  They shall “consult” with Energy Commission and PUC  Competitive grant-based, and need-based approaches

10  Assembly Member Skinner and Assembly Speaker John Perez  “California Clean Energy Jobs Act”  K-12, Higher Ed, “Other public buildings,” Public-Private Partnerships, Job creation and workforce development agencies  Vests the Energy Commission with administrative authority  “In consultation with Superintendent of Public Instruction”  Grant, loan based approaches

11  Governor’s approach preferable ◦ Per ADA funding with fewest strings possible ◦ Grant writing expertise not required ◦ As little bureaucracy as possible ◦ Keeps Energy Commission and PUC in consultative roles only.  Job related provisions should be linked to the energy work directly, not a fund to simply be directed to workforce development generally.  All proposals have end of project reporting and bill language related to Citizens Oversight Board.

12  Governor’s influence never stronger  Education focus is politically defensible  Per ADA approach is unfortunately vulnerable ◦ Both bills & LAO reject this approach ◦ Small school districts argument is double edged ◦ Almost every district can use these funds for some form of energy efficiency. ◦ Local control versus biggest possible projects

13  Reducing overall energy load first ◦ Real state-of-the-art energy efficient infrastructure ◦ Education on efficiency measures everyone can take  Renewable focus comes next ◦ Solar projects – What helps and what doesn’t  Leveraging every resource ◦ Public Utilities ◦ Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) ◦ Bond Augmentation  Data proven results for accountability process


Download ppt "Proposition 39: Investments in Energy Efficiency for Schools Capitol Advisors Group, LLC CASBO Annual Conference 1 Kevin Gordon, President – Capitol Advisors."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google