Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

California Proposition 7, Tax Credits for Emission Reductions Initiative (1998)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 7
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 1998
Topic
Environment and Taxes
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute
Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 7 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 3, 1998. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the State Air Resources Board to award tax credits annually until January 2011 to individuals and corporations for expenditures made to reduce emissions.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing the State Air Resources Board to award tax credits annually until January 2011 to individuals and corporations for expenditures made to reduce emissions.


Election results

California Proposition 7

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 3,315,267 43.63%

Defeated No

4,283,970 56.37%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Measure design

Proposition 7 would have provided tax credits to individuals and corporations for certain expenditures they made that would have reduced emissions of pollutants into the air. Under Prop 7, a total of $218 million in tax credits would have been available for award each fiscal year until January 1, 2011.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 7 was as follows:

Air Quality Improvement. Tax Credits. Initiative Statute.

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

  • Authorizes State Air Resources Board and delegated air pollution control districts to award $218 million in state tax credits annually until January 2011, to encourage air-emissions reduction through acquisition, conversion, and retrofitting of:
    • vehicles, buses, and heavy-duty trucks;
    • hearth products;
    • construction vehicles and equipment;
    • lawn and garden equipment;
    • ambient air pollution destruction technology;
    • off-road, nonrecreational vehicles;
    • port equipment;
    • agricultural waste and rice straw conversion facilities; and
    • through research and development.
  • Requires study of air quality market-based incentive program for prescribed burning projects.
Establishes local transportation funds as trust funds.

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 7:[1]

  • Annual net state revenue loss due to new tax credits, averaging in the range of tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars, from 1999 to beyond 2010. Increase in local sales tax revenues, potentially in the millions of dollars annually through 2010-11.
  • State costs of up to $4.7 million annually through 2010-11 to administer new tax credit program.
  • Potential long-term savings to state and local governments, of an unknown amount, in health care expenditures.[2]

Support

Supporters

  • Dr. John Balmes, co-chair of the Clean Air Advisory Group[1]
  • R. Michael Kussow, president of California Air Pollution Control Officers Association[1]
  • Kit Costello, president of California Nurses Association[1]

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 7 can be found here.

Opposition

Opponents

  • Dan Aguirre, president of California Association of Professional Scientists[1]
  • State Senator Quentin Kopp (Independent)[1]
  • Lenny Goldberg, executive director of California Tax Reform Association[1]

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 7 can be found here.

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1998, at least 433,269 valid signatures were required.

See also


External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed May 10, 2021
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.