[1] See Timothy Bartik. Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies? W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Kalamazoo, MI. 1991.
[2] Robert Repetto, et. al. Green Fees: How a Tax Shift can Work for the Environment and the Economy. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. November l992.
[3] See for example, Stefan Bach, et. al., "Ecological Reform Even If Germany Has To Go It Alone", Economic Bulletin, German Institute for Economic Research. July 1994; Lawrence H. Goulder, Environmental Taxation and the 'Double Dividend': A Reader's Guide. October 1994; Taxation, Employment and Environment: Fiscal Reform for Reducing Unemployment. European Commission. Brussels. December 1993; Robert Shackleton, et. al., The Efficiency Value of Carbon Tax Revenues. EPA Draft November 5, 1992; Patrick G. Welle, et. al, Economic Benefits of Reducing Toxic Air Pollution: A Minnesota Study. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Draft. July 1992; Peter B. Sorenson, et. al., Taxation, Pollution, Unemployment and Growth: Could There Be a 'Triple Dividend' from a Green Tax Reform? Working Paper. Economic Policy Research Unit. Copenhagen Business School; Ian W.H. Parry, Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling, Working Paper. Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 1994. IA. Lans Bovenberg and Ruud A. de Mooij, Green Policies in a Small Open Economy. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 785. 1994; Studies on Energy Taxes, Energy Information Administration. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. April 1991; Lorenz Jarass and Gustav M. Obermair, More Jobs, Less Pollution: A Tax Policy for an Improved Use of Production Factors. Workshop on Transatlantic Fiscal Reform and the Environment. Amsterdam. June 6, 1994; Liesbeth Bakker and Arie N. Bleijenberg, An Ecological Tax Reform in Germany: A Study on the Economic Effects of a Shift in Tax Burden from Labour to Energy., Delft, Netherlands. March 24, 1992.
[4] Some background on the Minnesota carbon tax experience. The Minnesota legislature in 1990 requested a report from the Pollution Control Agency(PCA) and the Department of Natural Resources on carbon dioxide emissions in Minnesota and incentives to reduce them. In 1991 the legislature formally established a tree planting program, Minnesota ReLeaf and requested a further report from the PCA with an implementation plan and recommendations for a fee structure. The PCA recommended a 54 cents per ton of carbon tax to generate revenues for tree planting. In 1992 Senator Morse's bill called for a $6 tax per ton of carbon emissions. In 1993 a similar bill called for a $2 per ton tax on carbon, which would have raised about $50 million statewide per year. For further discussion of Minnesota green taxes see David Morris, Green Taxes. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Minneapolis, MN. July 1994.
[5] This includes payments from the federal government to the state.
[6] Laws of Minnesota. 1993. Chapter 356. Section 3.
[7] The American Almanac 1993-94 , p. 225
8 Carbon Dioxide Budgets in Minnesota and Recommendations on Reducing Net Emissions with Trees. Report to the Minnesota Legislature. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Division on Forestry. St. Paul, MN. January 1991, p. 15
9 Strategies for Mercury Control in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Mercury Task Force. 1994, p. 17.
[10] Some mercury is released from transportation sources but has not been measured. Mercury Atmospheric Processes: A Synthesis Report. Expert Panel on Mercury Atmospheric Processes. September 1994, p. 4.
[11] Major components include volatilization from latex paint , landfills, and Municipal Solid Waste Combustion.
[12] Based on the medium values proposed by the participants in the PUC contested case hearing.
[13] The DPS did not offer values for CO, SO2, Mercury, and Lead.
[14] To translate the tax on a ton of carbon to carbon dioxide divide by 3.67.
[15] The costs were determined by taking the average cost proposed by all the expert witnesses in the PUC proceeding.
16 Average fuel efficiency in 1990 was 16.5 miles per gallon and average annual vehicle miles driven was 10,800. Minnesota Department of Transportation.
17 Northern States Power Company. 1991 Annual Report.
18 Non-electric.
19 The average household gas usage for Northern States Power Company customers in 1991 was 122 MCF. 1991 Annual Report. The average usage for Minnegasco customers was 130 MCF in 1991. Personal conversation with David Kostik. Minnegasco.
[20] For example, coal is taxed at $97 per ton for households versus $24 per ton for business and natural gas at $82 per 1000 cubic meters versus $21 for business.
[21] Climate Change Policy Initiatives. 1994 Update Volume 1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Gross revenues of DKK 2.7 billion were projected. Refunds to energy intensive businesses reduced net revenue to 0.7 billion. The way the Danish carbon dioxide tax is handled is similar in some respects to the way Minnesota's Conservation Improvement Program is handled by Minnesota Power(MP). By state law, regulated Minnesota electric utilities must invest at least 1.5 percent of total revenues in energy conservation. Because only a handful of industrial customers account for over half of MP's electricity sales, MP has developed the Industrial Conservation Project(ICP), a unique program to serve its large customers. MP deposits 1.5 percent of its sales to these customers in a special account. Large customers can use this account to finance energy efficiency programs. Thus, for example, a customer that purchases $1,000,000 per year in electricity from MP will have deposited $150,000 per year in its energy conservation account. The ICP contains carry-forward and carry-back provisions which allow participants to design larger projects or leverage capital more effectively to implement improvements. Large power users can carry-forward 1992 and 1993 allocations into 1994 but must spend the three-year budget by the end of the third year, 1994. 1993-1995 allocations must be used by December 31, 1995. Participants can also carry-back up to five years of future allocations, therefore aggregating 5 years of conservation investments in a single project. The energy efficiency plan must be approved by MP and the Department of Public Service based on an extensive cost-benefit analyses. MP will allow funds to be used to make industrial process changes that can save thermal as well as electric energy. If large industrial customers do not use the funds in their account the funds revert to the MP's general Conservation Improvement Program fund. In some respects, the MP plan constitutes a forced energy savings program.
[22] A carbon tax introduced into the Maryland House of Delegates in 1992 included a tax cap of $250,000 per enterprise regardless of whether the business were engaged in export.
Return to Sustainable Minnesota's Ecological Tax Reform Page