Advanced Search
Solar Energy: Coming to a Community Near You
We all see solar panels daily, whether or not we register them. On the side of some telephone poles, on a few street signs, even small lamps in gardens. The technology of photovoltaic cells is becoming more compact by the year and efficiency is going through the roof. Literally.
But that still doesn’t mean everyone wants one on their home. Or even that they necessarily can. Renters may face the predicament of wanting to power their homes with solar power with an inability to do so. Home owners might not have the funds to cover expensive up-front costs of photovoltaic installation. What many are left with is a wish to utilize solar technology without anyone to grant it.
Until now. When you pair power grid advancements with recent legislation you get a winning combination. A previous MN2020 blog pointed to the new mandate in Minnesota, which is 1.5% of our energy being produced by solar power by 2020. The overall goal is to have 10% by 2030.
What we also got out of that bill was a push to promote community solar gardens. Community solar gardens allow Minnesotans to partake in clean energy with relative ease. They sign up, the group purchases panels to be installed in a common area, and group members reap the clean energy benefits. This takes away from the bother of multiple installations and grid hookups while promoting renewable energy and receiving cash credits on their electricity bills.
One Minnesota community solar garden has already been in the works. The Hennepin-Wright project in Rockford has started construction and is slated to be online soon. But these community solar gardens are not just for rural communities. They are coming right here to the Twin Cities.
When you head down Lake Street, look up. One is being built right in Minneapolis atop Northern Sun Merchandising. Applied Energy Innovations and MN Community Solar project will produce up to 40 kW, which could power up to 10 homes. The solar panels will be made right here in Minnesota while creating more than a dozen jobs.
With the economic and environmental benefits coming from community solar gardens, I have no doubt we can expect to see more of them popping up throughout the state.
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Energy Solar energy
It’s Sansabelt for Transportation
After more than a decade of rolling state budget deficits and finance gimmicks brought on by conservative cut-taxes-and-spend-anyway policies, it was heavy lifting for progressive leaders to return Minnesota government to structural fiscal balance and tax fairness. Not even progressives relish raising taxes, but it's a tough job and somebody's got to do it when the budget's busted.
Congratulations are due the Minnesota Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton for their good work finally getting the state's house in order. Unfortunately, that mighty task left no energy for attacking our state's transportation deficit, which may not be glaring to the eye, but is just as real as red ink in the state general fund.
"We are grossly underfunded," state Transportation Commissioner Charles Zelle told the Brainerd Dispatch. "It's not politics; it's arithmetic."
More than half the state's roads are past their life expectancy of 50 years and in need of costly rebuilding, and more than 40 percent of the bridges are over 40 years old, Zelle noted. Meanwhile, fuel taxes haven't kept up with needs in the face of declining driving and greater vehicle efficiency. But, as Zelle pointed out, it's hard to arouse a sense of urgency for a long-term crisis.
Minnesota policymakers didn't totally ignore transportation this year. They authorized $300 million in trunk highway bonding, pushing the state near its limit for that financing tool. They appropriated $37 million in general funds to keep the Southwest light rail project on course after conservatives stonewalled a far better strategy for long-term capital investments: state borrowing at historically low interest rates. They filled statewide transit operating deficits with general fund money as well.
Despite a $11 million cash infusion for Greater Minnesota transit, it "will only allow the state to meet 60 to 65 percent of the identified transit needs rather than meeting the statutory goal of 80 percent by 2015," said Barb Thoman of the Transit for a Stronger Economy Coalition.
Proposals for local sales taxes for transit and higher fuel taxes for roads and bridges were left in the dust. A while back I called for a belt-and-suspenders approach -- bonding and sales taxes -- to support transit. Neither happened. Given the unpalatability of raising the gasoline tax for better roads and bridges, it's no surprise that went nowhere, either.
For the next couple of years, at least, it seems we're going sansabelt on transportation. Let's pray we don't get caught with our pants down.
Posted in Transportation | Related Topics: Transportation Funding
2013 Session was “Radical” Only by Tea Party Standards
Hours after the gavel ended 2013's legislative session, conservative leaders were holding press events and penning editorials to complain about the session’s outcome. Their principal talking points can be summed up in two catch phases: “overreach” and “soak the rich.”
The argument is that progressive leaders went too far in increasing taxes and spending and were victimizing the wealthy.
To rebut these arguments, one only needs to cite the facts:
- The state’s “Price of Government”—a measure of the size of government used by business and labor, conservatives and progressives—will decline over the next four years. (The precise magnitude of this decline will be known in a few weeks when Minnesota Management & Budget releases its updated Price of Government report.)
- In the next biennium, the growth in state general fund revenues and expenditures in the newly agreed to tax and budget bills will be less than the growth in the economy.
- The increase in revenue and spending agreed to during the 2013 session will replace only about a third of the real per capita spending decline over the last decade. Real per capita general fund revenue and spending in FY 2014-15 will be significantly less than they were in FY 2002-03.
“Soak the rich” is a reference to the 2013 omnibus tax act, which increased income taxes on the top two percent of Minnesota households by income. It is important to note that the state and local effective tax rate of the top two percent will remain less than what is paid by other Minnesotans. The truth of the matter is that the rich are not being soaked; rather, they are simply being required to pay taxes at rate somewhat closer to what other Minnesotans are paying. Overall, Minnesota’s tax system will remain regressive—just not quite as regressive as it was before the 2013 omnibus tax bill.
The 2013 legislature provided property tax relief, made long overdue education investments, and provided working parents childcare support through all day kindergarten funding.
Furthermore, a cautious DFL majority assiduously avoided excessive tax increases by only replacing a fraction of past spending cuts and by ensuring that growth in the state general fund did not out pace growth in the state’s economy. The outcome of the 2013 session was “radical” and “extreme” only by the standards of the tea party, which sees any spending increase and any infringement upon the privileged tax status of high-income households as anathema.
Posted in Fiscal Policy | Related Topics: Minnesota Legislature State Budget Tax Fairness Tea Party Movement
The Weaponization of the Charter Concept
I love the idea of charter schools, and I love that many charter schools have stayed true to that idea. Schools designed by teachers to innovate, experiment, and share their findings with the rest of the world? Yes, please!
Many charter schools live up to this idea. Some take on kids at risk of dropping out of the school system entirely, even though this jeopardizes their ability to make performance targets. Many do innovative work with technology, culture, and pedagogy. There are good people leading and teaching in these schools, and we should applaud the individual successes when charter schools have found ways to help students who were struggling in their previous schools.
However (and you knew there would be a “however”), the charter concept has been shifted from its original purpose. It wasn't the hard workers building good schools that did this; it was a collection of market idealists, profiteers, and those with animus towards district schools.
At their best, these folks want competition between charter schools and district schools to “unleash the power of the market.” (I've explained why that doesn't work.) This comes from a misplaced idealism that assumes competition will drive increases in the quality of education, when really it just increases the importance of marketing.
At their worst, these folks want to use charter schools as a way to shame and starve district schools. This describes a small but influential fraction of charter advocates. They've rejected the spirit of collaboration and innovation that animated the early charter concept, preferring a crusade against local school districts. It's this approach that spreads the inaccurate picture of charter schools being generally superior to district schools. That's where conservative candidates get the idea that the best way to improve low-performing schools is simply to encourage more charters.
The transformation of the charter concept from a helping hand into a fist does a disservice to everyone working to make more schools good places for kids. There are many schools – district and charter alike – that are doing great work. Others need more resources and fresh approaches. Let's lower our voices, unclench our fists, and work together to build a range of schools that meet the needs of the full spectrum of students.
Posted in Education | Related Topics: K-12 education Charter Schools
4 Comments ->
Big Banks Short on Friends in the Legislature (at least in public)
One of the maddening things about the foreclosure crisis for housing activists is how simple it would be for banks to resolve many of the cases that end in eviction. Community organizations have expended significant energy and taken dramatic actions defending homes from the banks one home at a time for homeowners like Bobby Hull, Monique White, and Rose McGee, who should never have been at risk for eviction in the first place.
This session, many of those same organizations came together to ask the legislature to regulate foreclosures in Minnesota, dramatically reducing the number of Minnesota families displaced by banks. Directing the grassroots power of foreclosure victims and their neighbors directly against a powerful financial industry lobby, the coalition got off to a slow start and the bill initially seemed destined to die in committee. Activists staged call-ins and sit-ins in what looked very much like last-ditch acts of desperation to revive a dead bill.
Toward the end of session, though, elements of this legislation resurfaced in a new bill SF 1276 and made it to the Senate floor.* In the bright spotlight of a public floor vote, conservative Senator Branden Petersen was the only representative in either house willing to go out on a limb for the banking lobby against common sense reforms to help Minnesotans stay in their homes. The 61-1 vote in favor of the bill in the Senate was followed quickly by an even more resounding 123-0 vote in the House.
The persistence of grassroots activists at Occupy Homes MN, ISAIAH, MN Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, and the rest of the coalition paid off. Thanks to their efforts, the Minnesota legislature passed one of the most aggressive foreclosure prevention bills in the country, putting an end to “dual tracking,” requiring lenders to offer modifications to all eligible homeowners, requiring services to ease the paperwork burden for modification applicants, and giving homeowners a right to sue to stop a foreclosure if mortgage servicers fail to follow the law. Had this been enacted years ago, it could have already prevented thousands of foreclosures. It will prevent thousands more in the years to come.
The vote should serve as a warning to the “too-big-to-fail” set and encouragement to foreclosure activists around the country. No party is willing to stand with big banks in public in 2013. When the vote was called, the Minnesota legislature voted with homeowners.
*An earlier version of this story conflated two separate bills.
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Financial Industry Housing Market
Top 10 Groups That Would “Own the Place” under Conservative Control
In the final hours of this year’s Legislative session, the Minnesota House approved a measure that gave in-home child-care providers and personal care attendants the right to vote for organizing. The victory drew applause from union members in the House gallery prompting Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington to angrily denounce the group, “We’re not in charge — let them applaud. They own the place!”
This might make you wonder, if not working Minnesotans, who would conservatives prefer “own the place!”? Don’t worry, here’s a top 10 list to answer that question.
1) ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council
While in control of the state Legislature, conservatives got much of their worst legislation directly from this D.C. based group. Sure, it doesn’t represent Minnesotans but that never stopped conservatives from using ALEC bills verbatim to push extreme anti-immigration and anti-labor legislation during the 2011 session.
2) Big Corporations
They are people, too? Right? At a time when most middle class Americans are struggling to rebuild after the recession, conservatives took aggressive lengths to support big corporations instead of working Minnesotans. In fact, one conservative admitted, "When it comes to the corporate taxes, that's a very big concern for us too.”
3) Members of the National Organization for Marriage and Minnesota Family Council
Sure they skirted campaign finance laws, but these groups who go about their public accounting in non-traditional ways while supporting “traditional marriage” are friends with a lot of conservative Minnesota policy makers. Luckily, now they are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of Minnesota law.
4) Bob Davis
Speaking about the families of the victims of the Newtown shooting, the ultra-conservative radio personality said, “I would stand in front of them and tell them, 'Go to hell.’” While most, you know, decent people would find the comment disturbing, that hasn't stopped conservative members of the Minnesota Legislature from being frequent guests on his show.
5) Bullies
I really wish I was joking on this one.
6) Polluters
During their short time in control of the Legislature, conservatives fought tirelessly to end job creating clean energy laws. Arguing that, "The climate changed before we were here; the climate will change long after we're gone." Conservatives continue to back carbon heavy forms of energy production over new, cleaner, forms of production that create more stable high-wage jobs for Minnesotans.
7) Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
Even after terrible national tragedies, conservatives successfully fought against common sense reforms that would have protected Minnesotans’ second amendment rights while making our communities safer.
8) #2 Pencil Producers
While progressives were busy passing a bold education bill that included all-day kindergarten for every Minnesota child, conservatives pushed the failed high-stakes-test policies of the past.
9) The 1%
Progressives created a 4th tier income tax rate so families making over $250,000 will pay their fair share. Minnesota conservatives, ignoring our history of economic success, argued that the new taxes would “threaten Minnesota’s competitiveness.”
10) Bermudians
Minnesota leads the country when it comes to tax revenue lost because of tax havens in other countries. Ending those loopholes will mean losing our #1 spot but it will also mean better funded schools. Conservatives fought to keep the loopholes but progressives won the fight. This one time, I think I’m happy that Minnesota will no longer be a national leader on an issue.
Posted in News & Notes | Related Topics: Minnesota Legislature Conservative Policy
3 Comments ->
Kindergarten Lessons in Transportation
Despite what most of us were taught in kindergarten, the American "ownership society," to quote George W. Bush, hasn't been very good at sharing. One example: We own millions more cars than there are licensed drivers.
But maybe the All Mine Culture is evolving, especially when it comes to urban transportation. Modern bicycle sharing is spreading to every corner of the country, so fast that the U.S. fleet of 9,000 shared bikes is projected to quadruple in the next couple of years as dozens more cities get on board.
Minneapolis, already served by Zipcar and HOURCAR auto-sharing services, is launching a two-year pilot program to make up to 250 vehicles available for occasional use.
Other modes of shared mobility such as transit and intercity passenger rail keep rattling off ridership records.
Meanwhile, U.S. driving has been declining for nearly a decade. There are economic reasons for this -- Great Recession joblessness that reduced commuting and the $7,800 annual cost of owning and maintaining the average American private car -- but lifestyle changes of both younger and older Americans are playing a part, too.
Driving our own cars everywhere we go is still the dominant U.S. mode of mobility, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But as shared transportation choices proliferate and become more convenient, everyone benefits. Early adopters get better health and lower costs, drivers face less traffic congestion and we all share cleaner air.
Posted in Transportation | Related Topics: Automobiles
A Senior Year With No Cuts?
Long before I started college in Fall 2010, MnSCU schools like mine (Minnesota State University Mankato) had been cutting course offerings and raising tuition thanks to a decade of declining state higher education funding.
As the graph below shows from 1999-2011, successive state legislatures have trimmed an astounding 48% from Minnesota’s public colleges and universities, when adjusted for inflation and student population. This far exceeds the nationwide 23% average higher education cut.
![[ graph: click blog title to view in browser ]](/assets/uploads/article/House_HigherEd_Summary.png)
Source MNSCU
A February MnSCU report highlights that before Minnesota began disinvesting in education, the state’s “higher education appropriation per student was 24% higher than the national average; now it is 17% below.” This has shifted the education funding burden to the middle-income and working-class students that typically attend state colleges. In 2002, the state covered 2/3rds of the average MnSCU student’s costs. The state now covers only about 1/3rd of the costs.
Since I’ve been in college, there have been even more cuts. As part of the deal that ended the 2011 state shutdown, which covered fiscal years 2012-2013, lawmakers cut $170 million from MnSCU. As a result, my tuition has steadily risen, from $2,815.60 for fall semester 2010 to $3,175.04 this coming semester.
Fortunately for students, this year’s legislative majorities will raise higher education funding back to adequate levels. However, after a decade of cuts, it’s not likely we’ll see a major difference on campus. Still, it’s a step in the right direction. Furthermore, changes in how the state generates revenue will help us sustain proper funding levels for the future.
It might be a generation before Minnesota sees the true impact a decade of cuts yields. I can tell you form a personal perspective, however, having higher tuition debt going into a still fragile job market will likely lead to economic setbacks for my peers and I. We’ll be holding off on buying houses. We’ll have to get another 10-20 thousand more miles out of our old cares. And most of us will hold off on big ticket consumer goods.
Posted in Education | Related Topics: Higher Education MnSCU Education Funding
Regulating the Sands of Silica
Long before southeastern Minnesota’s rich Silica Sand deposits became an attractive energy industry resource, companies had been mining modest amounts of silica in the region for less controversial purposes, such as glass-making, abrasives, and golf course sand traps, according to the DNR.
Those wary of more mining advocated for a 1-mile buffer around trout streams and lakes to decrease the potential threat of pollution from the mines. Industry retorted that the buffer would effectively halt new mines, resulting in a compromise.
Sweeping statewide regulation is pretty much off the table. The process for creating a new silica sand mine in southeastern Minnesota goes a little something like this: Find a spot, do a study, get a permit, build a mine. The hydraulic study is intended to determine whether the mine will pollute and the DNR permit is to keep mines in check that are operating within one mile of trout streams in a specific part of southeast Minnesota.
While the standards could have been stronger, all in all, it is better than no regulation. The new silica sand mine regulations require at least four different environmental entities be involved in the process. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will be given $1 million over two years to create an interagency task force to “provide technical assistance regarding the mining, processing, and transporting of silica sand and develop the model standards and criteria.” The EQB will also review the standard process for approving a silica sand mine and determine whether new steps should be taken due to the increased mining interests.
The MPCA and the Department of Health (DOH) will evaluate air quality issues around silica sand mining. The MPCA will adopt rules to control particulate emissions and the DOH will develop air quality health-based values. The DNR is not only responsible for the permitting process but also for overseeing silica sand mine reclamation, should it happen. They are allotted $600,000 the first year for silica sand mining rulemaking.
However, actually following the interagency group’s recommendations is up to the local governments and municipalities. This is one of the elements that makes me nervous. Should one county (let’s say it is upstream from another) allows lax standards, it can affect the entire watershed. A statewide regulation could have set a consistent standard to avoid this problem.
As silica sand mines boom over the next few years, Minnesota needs strong oversight and local government cooperation to protect southeastern waterways. We can only hope the resources allocated to the studies and permitting process are used effectively and more will be provided if necessary. If not, we can expect to see big problems with southeastern Minnesota’s water and public health.
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Environment
Minnesota Loses Jobs For Second Straight Month
For the first time since Feburary 2010, Minnesota’s economy lost jobs two months in a row. The North Star State shed 11,400 jobs in April after dropping 3,300 in March.
Data from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
The jobs reports for the last six months have inspired optimism. If that trend had continued, it would have relieved worries about the state’s economic growth. But with the significant losses in April, that relief may have to be put on hold.
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (TTU) and Government were the hardest hit in April. With weakness in trucking and wholesale trade, TTU dropped 5,700 seasonally-adjusted jobs. The drop in this sector exemplifies the greatest weakness in the private sector in 2013: weak demand. Consumers cannot afford to buy more things, and businesses are not betting that they consumers will anytime soon.
Government jobs contracted by an additional 2,000. After finally returning to pre-recession employment levels at the end of 2012, the government sector, which includes all levels of government as well as public school employees, has fallen in each of the last four months. The contraction this spring has largely been driven by cold spring and federal sequestration. The later than usual spring has delayed the opening of municipal parks and golf courses, and the hiring has also been delayed.
April was not solely a gloomy month for the state economy, however. Unemployment fell one-tenth of a percent to 5.3%, the labor force participation rate ticked up to 70.9, and the number of unemployed Minnesotans fell below 160,000 for the first time since June 2008.
A main reason that it took a full five years for unemployment to drop below pre-recession levels is that only two of Minnesota's five largest sectors have grown since then. Jobs in Health Care and Professional and Business Services have increased by 43,000 and 15,000, respectively.
Data from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
On the other hand, three of the largest sectors in the state are still shrinking. There are 6,400 fewer government jobs in Minnesota than in 2008, or about 2% of the total, although employment in this sector has remained much more stable than other areas of the economy.
Manufacturing and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities have only barely begun to recover from their low points in early 2010. Both sectors are highly dependent on the health of consumer spending, since they include making, transporting, and selling products. Seeing these two large sectors struggling to increase employment again points to the mediocre nature of the recovery. As jobs and household wealth have stagnated, consumer spending has not grown fast enough to spur producers and distributors from adding many jobs.
The Minnesota labor market is improving, but slowly and not without set-backs. Five years later, the state has not recovered from the Great Recession.
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Job Growth Unemployment