Voters in Berkeley, California, voted strongly in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, a Berkeley native and co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, on Tuesday to impose a crippling tax on buildings that use natural gas. The bill was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
The natural gas tax proposal (Measure GG) suffered an ignominious defeat in Berkeley, 68-31 percent. Meanwhile, 72% of voters in Alameda County, which includes Berkeley, voted for Harris.
fossil fool
In 2019, the Berkeley City Council passed a measure banning natural gas connections in all newly constructed buildings. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law last year.
The New American reported in August:
Enraged by this, left-wing groups “felt the need to 'defend' Berkeley's responsibility as a leader in climate action,” Tahara told Berkeleyside. I looked for a way to avoid it. The Berkeley People's Alliance approached Tahara, who had previously failed to pass a similar gas tax in San Francisco and was willing to try again in Berkeley.
Tahara and others formed Fossil Free Berkeley. They drafted a bill that gathered enough signatures to be on Tuesday's ballot.
Berkeleyside said the measure would impose a $2.96 tax on every 100 cubic feet of natural gas used in buildings larger than 15,000 square feet. The tax would apply to 609 buildings and is expected to generate $26.7 million in revenue next year, which is “more than Berkeley's annual sales tax revenue and about the amount it receives from property taxes.” That's equivalent to one-third.”
moreover:
The initial tax rate will be about 1.5 to 2 times what PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) charges its customers for natural gas. The interest rate then rises at a rate of 6% above inflation each year and expires in 2050, at which point it will have risen about 10 times to about $27. The index's creators say the rate is based on the social cost of carbon, an estimate of how much society suffers from greenhouse gas emissions.
Look for the union label
Landlords were prohibited from passing the tax on to residential tenants. But as the city's report on the measure states, the provision would be difficult to enforce and could “lead to increased rents.”
The measure included exemptions for government buildings (required by law) and certain other structures. Additionally, the City Council would have been able to grant exemptions for small nonprofit organizations that own buildings.
The proceeds would go primarily toward city programs to help property owners convert to “green” energy sources. But 10 percent of that money would go toward “union-represented city positions” and “administrative costs for the city's decarbonization program,” Berkeleyside reported.
Not surprisingly, this measure was supported primarily by environmental groups and labor unions. In fact, trade unions and Mr. Tahara were the main funders of the movement to pass this bill. “Developers and property owners who don't want to pay taxes should use electricity instead of gas in their buildings,” Tahara said at Berkeleyside, summing up the views of tax advocates. He also didn't think it would hurt nonprofits.
gradual pushback
Of course, for taxes to have the desired effect, they must be punitive. As a result, many businesses and nonprofit organizations publicly opposed the measure, including those that support its goals.
According to Berkeleyside,
Bayer will pay about $6.5 million in 2025, while Sutter Health will pay more than $3.4 million for Alta Bates' two Berkeley campuses, according to city projections. The Berkeley Bowl, Berkeley City Club, and Berkeley Downtown YMCA could each pay six-figure sums, and for owners of many buildings, including restaurants, offices, churches, and apartments, the bill is expected to be slightly lower.
Furthermore, The New American writes:
The measure report said the tax would “further complicate the problem that existing taxes are already significantly higher in Berkeley than elsewhere in the Bay Area,” possibly leading to higher prices for food and services and a loss of business. He pointed out that there is a gender.
Emily Winston, owner of Wojcik Bagels in Berkeley, wrote a letter to the City Council expressing her concerns about the tax.
“The gas appliances I buy are meant to last for decades. My intention as I grow my business in Berkeley is to be here for decades,” she explained. “But if you're facing nearly $500,000 in penalties every year, you should seriously consider leaving.”
Nonprofit organizations such as the Berkeley Repertory Theater and the environmental activist David Brower Center also expressed concerns about the tax. While both men professed allegiance to “greening” Berkeley, they warned that the program would likely have to be scaled back due to rising costs. Rick O'Connell, executive director of GridLab, a nonprofit clean energy consultancy housed in the David Brower Center, told the City Council that the tax would “double the cost of gas at the pump and immediately It's like expecting people to switch to electric cars.” ”
“Large buildings can't easily install new, capital-intensive retrofits overnight. It often takes years for PG&E to install upgraded power drops.” he explained.
Ultimately, the pockets of Berkeley residents won out over progressivism, and the measure was repealed. Yes, they will have a “green” ideologue in the White House who they presume will punish anyone else for reducing carbon emissions. But when it comes to our bank accounts and our communities, saving the planet takes a backseat to survival.
