Express Toll Lanes Expanding Rapidly

Share this article on:

Despite populist opposition in Charlotte, NC and parts of Texas, 2017 has been a banner year for express toll lanes (ETLs). At least eight new facilities opened to traffic this year, another dozen are under construction (or about to be), and at least another dozen new projects have been announced in eight states.
The largest project financed in 2017 was the $3.5 billion I-66 project in northern Virginia, whose ground-breaking was held in November. And by far the largest announcement was Maryland’s $7.6 billion plan to add express toll lanes to its portion of the Capital Beltway (I-495) and I-270. Two other potential new ETL states are Oregon and South Carolina. In Portland, Oregon DOT is planning some kind of value pricing for congested I-5 and I-205—either ETLs or some form of all-lanes-priced. And in Charleston, SC, the state DOT is considering congestion-relief improvements to I-526, and ETLs appear to be a lot more feasible than HOV lanes.
Georgia DOT is back in the public-private partnership (P3) business, with that form of procurement planned for major projects to add ETLs to the Georgia 400 and the northern portion of the Perimeter (I-285) in Atlanta. The Maryland and Virginia projects noted above are also P3s, given their very large costs and the ability of toll financing to cover large portions of their costs.
As I’ve previously reported, Texas is now suffering from a moratorium on new highway P3 projects and restrictions on developing more ETLs. Yet as the nation’s fastest-growing state, it will need toll-financed P3s for such projects as a massive $7 billion reconstruction of I-45 in Houston and the $8.1 billion reconstruction of I-35 through downtown Austin, plus the $1.8 billion LBJ East project in Dallas. Fortunately, new congestion relief will be provided by previously approved projects including the recently opened $1.4 billion I-35E project in Dallas and the new MOPAC ETLs in Austin, plus the $1.1 billion P3 project that is constructing ETLs on SH 288 in Houston.
A growing number of ETL projects are under way in Florida, including the $2.6 billion I-4 reconstruction in Orlando, ETL additions to I-75 in Broward County and SR 826 in Miami-Dade County, extensions of the I-95 ETLs through Broward County and into Palm Beach County, Jacksonville’s first ETLs on I-295, and Tampa’s first project announced as ETLs on the replacement Howard Frankland Bridge. Under construction in California are new ETLs on I-15 in Riverside County and I-405 in Orange County. Georgia has ETLs under way on I-85 (extending existing ETLs) and I-75/I-575 in northwestern Atlanta. And the I-77 project’s construction continues north of Charlotte (despite continuing populist opposition), where officials have recently recommended a second ETL project on I-77 south of downtown.
If past experience is any guide, opposition to ETLs in metro areas where the first project is under way generally fades within the first year of that project opening, as people learn that (1) it is a new option, in addition to the choices they had before, (2) in certain circumstances, the value of paying the variable toll is far more than the cost of arriving late, and (3) that the lanes are not “Lexus Lanes” but are used by a broad cross-section of motorists.
Speaking of the value proposition, the I-495 express lanes in northern Virginia last month celebrated their fifth anniversary. Over those five years of operation, concessionaire Transurban estimates that its 3.5 million customers making 67 million trips have saved more than 5 million hours of travel time.
(This article first ran in the December 2017 issue of Surface Transportation Innovations.)
Email this author

Posted in Transportation | Comments Off on Express Toll Lanes Expanding Rapidly

Missouri scrambles California’s eggs

Share this article on:

Egg production costs soar nationwide, thanks to California’s cage regulations. Now other states are fighting back.
Yesterday, the Attorney General of Missouri filed a Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint in the United States Supreme Court, charging California with violations of the Constitution.
The Bill of Complaint “…involves a single State’s (California) attempt to dictate a manner of agricultural production in every other State.” Finally other states are standing up to California’s bullying tactics. California, with its friends at the Humane Society of the United States, has increased enormously the cost of egg production in numerous states.
Twelve states have joined together to challenge California in the U.S. Supreme Court. The reason Missouri and eleven other states have sued in the U.S. Supreme Court is that Article III of the U.S. Constitution declares that disputes where states are parties and there is a controversy between the states, the Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over such actions.
The States’ Bill of Complaint is composed of 101 paragraphs. The States want the Supreme Court to declare California’s regulations relating to the size of cages for hens be declared invalid under the Supremacy Clause because the regulations are preempted by the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA).
They also want the California egg cage size regulations declared invalid because they violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Many have never heard of the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). The EPIA requires uniformity of labeling, standards, and other provisions which allow for free movement of eggs and egg products in interstate commerce. According to the complaint, the EPIA displaces any state or local regulation for eggs shipped in interstate commerce. The States believe the EPIA “preempts” any state or local law under the Supremacy Clause.

Remember Prop 2?
Proposition 2 went into effect in California at the start of 2015, and required that “a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, including any egg-laying hen, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from: (a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) Turning around freely.”
Proposition 2 imposed a $1,000 fine and 180 days in county jail if the regulation was violated.
California farmers immediately claimed Proposition 2 placed them at a competitive disadvantage compared to egg farmers in other states. The farmers feared their costs would be 20% higher on average than non-California farmers.
To remedy this inequity the California legislature passed a bill which imposed California’s Proposition 2 requirements on non-California farmers who shipped eggs to California.
As a result, on January 1, 2015, no egg farmer or producer could sell shelled eggs to California consumers if the egg-laying hen did not have a minimum 116 sq. inches of floor space per bird.
Missouri and other states claimed their farmers have already or will incur costs between $228 million to $912 million to comply with California’s regulation. Moreover, the Bill of Complaint claims “…egg prices have increased nationwide by as much at 1.73 to 5.12%.”
The states also claim that California’s regulations have cost U.S. consumers approximately $351 million per year, and that welfare recipients have had to pay $96.5 million more for eggs as a result of the California regulations.
California imposed these regulations on other states’ egg farmers to ensure a level playing field for California’s egg producers. Without these requirements, of course, out-of-state egg producers would have lower costs and the California egg producers would go out of business or be forced to move to another state.
It appears the sole purpose of California’s regulations was to discriminate against other egg producing states and to increase the burden of regulations on other states and their farmers without their consent. Protect the Harvest, a non-profit organization that attempts to defend farmers’ and ranchers’ agricultural practices, has been a leader in suggesting states such as Missouri, Indiana and others sue California to stop this burdensome and inequitable action against agricultural practices. Missouri and 11 other states have now stepped up to the plate to defend agriculture.  
(This article first ran in the December 5, 2017 issue of Farm Futures.) 
Email this author

Posted in Agriculture | Comments Off on Missouri scrambles California’s eggs

Taxes and the Budget at Year’s End

Share this article on:

2017 tax reform bill and the budgetThe tax reform plan that Congress is producing will not be perfect. Nothing is. One would do well to remember that the choice Congress makes is never between perfect legislation and what it produces, but between what it produces and current law. With, at the time of this writing, a mere fifteen legislative days left this year, let’s take a look at the tax plan that appears to be developing and try to predict whether it improves on current law.
The starting point for any inquiry should be the purpose of the legislation and whether the developing product generally would move the law in the direction envisioned by the legislators. The stated purpose for this tax bill is to simplify the code for most individual taxpayers and reduce taxes for both individuals and businesses in order to spur economic growth. The theory, which has generally proven correct in the past, is that tax cuts lead to economic activities which cause job growth, improve wages, and make society more prosperous on the whole.
Congress has relegated to secondary and tertiary consideration whether the proposed tax plan would increase the annual deficit and the national debt over time and whether the bill represents good tax policy. Good tax policy for the purposes for this analysis is defined as whether the tax law raises or lowers revenue for the government without picking winners and losers and focuses exclusively on raising the amount of revenue necessary to pay for all that government does.
Given that the government is already borrowing vast amounts of money to pay for current expenditures, a tax cut of more than $1 trillion certainly could increase the annual federal budget deficit by some amount because even the Laffer Curve, named for famed economist Arthur Laffer who advised President Reagan, does not show that tax cuts pay for themselves beyond a certain point. However, there is a great deal of dispute about where the optimum point of tax cuts lie. The tax bill under consideration also would allow for the return of more than $2 trillion in corporate profits currently setting off-shore and beyond the reach of the federal tax man. Bringing that $2 trillion back into the United States would be a massive stimulus to the economy which currently produces about $17 trillion annually and this adds to the uncertainty about the point beyond which tax cuts would not pay for themselves.
The plans being proposed are a mixed bag of good and bad tax policy using the definition above. Removing or reducing the Home Mortgage Interest deduction and the deduction for state and local taxes is good policy because it stops the picking of winners and losers in the code. Studies indicate that the home mortgage interest deduction does not actually encourage home ownership but probably causes people to buy larger homes than they otherwise would. We should also ask why the tax code favors a home purchaser in Iowa over an apartment dweller in New York. Likewise, the tax code should not favor taxpayers in high-tax Connecticut or California over low-tax Tennessee or Texas through the State and Local Tax Deduction.
Expansion or even continuation of the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are poor tax policies because those provisions are designed to reward certain behaviors at the expense of others and do not lead to much economic growth while causing the government to forego a great deal of revenue. While the EITC may have admirable ends, the same goals could be accomplished more efficiently through the welfare payment system.
With those caveats in mind, the plans under consideration in Congress appear to achieve at least some, if not most, of the stated aims for the legislation. Doubling the personal exemption will mean most taxpayers will be able to file their taxes on a one-page form. The changes to the expensing provisions means that small businesses will be able to write off investments in new plant and equipment in the year in which the expense occurs rather than depreciating it over a number of years. That is both a simplification and reduction in one-fell-swoop, which should allow small businesses to have more money to expand, innovate, and spur the economy.
Reducing the corporate tax rate should help to make American companies more competitive with their overseas rivals and peers. The cut in the corporate rate, by most analyses, should be a major stimulus to job creation and economic growth. Stock markets have already grown substantially in the simple anticipation of the cuts. Allowing $2 trillion in corporate profits to come back into the United States will provide a stimulus to the economy which will obviously have some impact on growth and likely a moderate to large amount of growth will result from it.
Most taxpayers will see more money in their pockets as a result of the plans being considered. Best estimates indicate a so-called average family of four would see an additional $1,200 in the family’s coffers once the legislation is enacted. For Virginia, the Tax Foundation estimates that a middle income family will see an after tax income gain of $2,924. The Tax Foundation also estimates that Virginia would see job growth of more than 25,000 full-time equivalent positions as a result of the tax law changes.
There are likely to be some higher income earners whose particular circumstances result in little or no tax reduction but they should be the exception rather than the rule under the terms of the current proposals. Nonetheless, every state would see job growth and the vast majority of taxpayers should benefit from the proposed plans.
Claims that the current tax proposals will amount to a massive budget buster may or may not be correct. The best estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the congressional scorekeeper for the results of changes in the tax laws, indicate the proposed tax cuts will contribute substantially to the debt but their models do not account for the growth that will almost surely follow such a massive tax cut. While the Joint Committee on Taxation does as well as any group in making these predictions, their track record for failed predictions would send a race horse out to pasture. In truth we are in unknown territory as to how much, if any, increase in the debt will result from the proposed changes in the tax law.
Given the anemic growth of the economy and long stagnant wages, this plan may be just the shot in the arm the economy needs to increase our prosperity. It would be even better if it were accompanied by spending restraints and reforms of our precariously funded entitlement programs but the perfect must not be the enemy of the good. The proposed tax legislation will result in growth and that is worth the risk.
E-Mail this author.

Posted in Taxes | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Taxes and the Budget at Year’s End

The Energy-Efficiency Option

Share this article on:

Virginia energy efficiency When Virginians contemplate their energy future, they have two broad options for accommodating a growing population and economy: generate more electricity (increase supply) and conserve electricity (reduce demand). The debate over the supply side of the equation gets most of the attention — what’s the best mix of nuclear, gas, coal and renewable energy sources? Energy efficiency gets less ink. But  investments in energy efficiency, say environmentalists, can not only reduce the pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions associated with electricity generation, they can effectively pay for themselves by obviating the need to build expensive power plants in the future.
That’s a great theory. How’s it working out?
From a public policy perspective, Virginia has lots of leeway to become more energy efficient. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranks Virginia only 29th nationally in an energy policy scorecard that takes into account utility programs and policies, transportation policies, building energy codes, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) policies, state-led energy-efficiency initiatives, and appliance and equipment standards. (Virginia did move up three notches in 2017, however, by adopting the 2015 IECC building energy code and partnering in an initiative to conduct a residential energy code field study.)
The McAuliffe administration has set a goal of reducing electricity consumption by 10% by 2020, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The main tools for achieving that reduction are programs managed by Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to foster conservation by businesses and homeowners. Trouble is, those programs don’t always pass muster with the State Corporation Commission.
“Utility programs make up about 90 percent of the progress toward our 10 percent reduction,” says Chelsea Harnish, executive director of the Virginia Energy Efficiency Council.
Here’s the hitch. When Dominion subsidizes, say, weatherization of a poor person’s house or a homeowner’s purchase of a new, energy-efficient heat pump, all Dominion payers chip in for a program that benefits only those customers who get the new heat pumps or the insulation in their attics. “A lot of utility programs are not passing, not able to get approval from the State Corporation Commission, says Harnish. The SCC, she explains, is “concerned about nonparticipant costs.”
Writes the Times-Dispatch:

In an order this year that rejected Dominion home-energy assessment and residential heat-pump upgrade programs, the commissioners said they could not find that the so-called demand-side management programs were in the public interest.

“We are sensitive to the impact of the proposed DSM (demand-side management) programs on customers’ bills, particularly the bills of customers not participating in the programs,” they wrote.
Part of the problem, Harnish said, is the challenge of calculating the value of such programs.

“What we hear from the SCC time and time again is they’re skeptical of deemed savings,” said Harnish, referring to industry-standard formulas that predict a certain benefit, such as the amount of energy use cut by installing LED light bulbs, for example. The SCC is currently receiving input on uniform standards for what the energy-efficiency industry calls evaluation, measurement and verification should look like, she said.

Another barrier to energy conservation is a price of electricity in Virginia that is below the national average. Explains Dominion spokesman David Botkins: “The costs of energy avoided for a given program is less than would be avoided in some other parts of the country, due to the higher cost of electricity elsewhere. This causes the economic value and cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency programs in Virginia to be lower than in some other regions.”
By most peoples’ standards, lower electric rates are a good thing. Likewise, many electricity customers undoubtedly are pleased that the SCC is protecting their interests as rate payers from programs generating an uncertain payback. But there may be ways to promote energy efficiency that don’t go through the SCC. The Virginia Energy Efficiency Council is pushing stricter building codes  and performance-based contracting for state-owned buildings. Under performance-based contracting, government agencies repay energy service companies out of the savings generated through lower utility bills.
Bacon’s bottom line: In my observation, the biggest obstacle to energy-efficiency is that the state and local government budgets have time horizons too short to allow investing in conservation. A high-return energy-efficiency project might pay itself back in three to four years — a handsome return. But the Commonwealth operates on two-year budgets, while most local governments go year-to-year. If a project doesn’t recover its costs within the current fiscal year, it can’t be justified. That’s just crazy. Surely there is a work-around.
(This article first ran in Bacon’s Rebellion on November 27, 2017)

bacon-90Email this author

Posted in Energy | Comments Off on The Energy-Efficiency Option

Virginia Economic Development Partnership — Moving Forward Globally

Share this article on:

Let’s discuss the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and set the record straight regarding what really happened with its management fiasco, along with its historic reform by the Virginia General Assembly this year.
At this point, a broad outline of the VEDP’s failures is well known to the public and to Richmond lawmakers. An economic grant of $1.4 million was given to a shadowy Chinese corporation that promised to invest in new Virginia operations. The corporation then walked away with the money, which Virginia most likely will not get back. This started an avalanche of press reporting, particularly by the Roanoke Times, and a General Assembly audit that eventually resulted in new legislation. Last spring’s legislation completely revamped the VEDP and its board, pursuant in part to recommendations from the audit and the final report of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC).
That report cited extensive managerial lapses, shortfalls in legislation, and simply shoddy practices. Though it recommended several actions that the VEDP’s board of directors could take and criticized the workings of both the board and the staff, it did not come down hard on the board’s key failure, which it only alluded to—board leadership that was essentially in cozy collaboration with its former president.
You could say that this is an issue of corporate governance in the public sector. You could argue that the former CEO of VEDP co-opted the board leadership or that the board leadership got the president it wanted. It doesn’t really matter. The end result was the same.
In any case, the board leadership did not fulfill its statutory obligations to exercise due diligence and good faith or carry out its fiduciary obligation. Often, no real business was seriously discussed at board meetings. This is why last spring’s new legislation totally reformed the VEDP and its board, and new board members were installed.
There is another factor, and what I believe to be a more important one, that led to this outrageous action by the Chinese corporation. Few of the former board members or those running it had much of a global view. At most, they were disinterested, and perhaps even hostile, about international operations and did not find them to be terribly important for business in Virginia.
The real lesson here is that, unfortunately, when a board’s leadership gets too cozy with the entity it is supposed to oversee and does not provide full disclosure to other members, bad things happen. Corporate governance today, especially in the public sector, demands openness, independence, and international awareness.
The new legislation enacted this year to reform the VEDP provided for the establishment of a Committee on International Trade—one composed of gubernatorial and legislative appointees separate from the VEDP’s board members. Is this really sufficient to ensure substantial success in promoting trade and better global engagement to create greater economic development and jobs? Maybe yes, maybe no—but it is a start.
You either have an international mind-set or you don’t. Foreign policy is more than just relations between Fairfax and Richmond. All too often, international programs are submerged within larger entities. A better strategy might be to place these efforts in a standalone entity, such as the Virginia International Trade Corporation, which was established by the General Assembly in spring 2016. It was designed to consolidate trade activities of different state agencies. However, it is now in some sort of suspended state based on the outcome of the new changes. But that’s another story.
Also, another story is the need for an effective legislative overview of economic and tax incentives administered by all state agencies. A November draft report of the JLARC concluded that projects receiving such incentives generally met investment goals but fell short of their job-creation and wage goals.
What we have with this year’s legislation is the Committee on International Trade that was established by the General Assembly and is composed of both gubernatorial and legislative appointees. The legislative charge is that it “shall advise the Board on all matters relating to international trade and trade promotion and shall make such recommendations as it may deem desirable.”
The enabling statute deems this committee to be a committee of the VEDP. But this is not an ordinary committee appointed by an agency board of directors. The committee was created by the General Assembly. It clearly has a separate legislative mandate and membership. In a sense, it is best viewed as a semiautonomous entity housed within the VEDP that gives trade a more effective voice.
My conclusion is that, in terms of public policy and state economic development, legislative oversight of economic development and one of its core elements—international trade promotion—is essential. However, individuals acting in good faith and with global awareness are the crucial human elements.
The VEDP’s new board and its new president, appointed several months ago, seem to be off to a good start. It is currently submitting detailed responses to JLARC’s questions raised earlier this year. But active leadership by all concerned parties needs to be emphasized over and over for all public bodies, board members, and gubernatorial and legislative appointees. This is so very important. Laws can only do so much; it is the people who implement them.

E-mail this author.

Posted in Economic Development | Comments Off on Virginia Economic Development Partnership — Moving Forward Globally