http://www.green-technology.org/gcschools/session-descriptions.html
11:00 am – 12:15 pm
The ABC’s of VRF: A Green HVAC Technology that Provides an Ideal
Green School Solution
What to look for in a Green HVAC solution? What if your HVAC system could not only
provide better comfort and deliver energy savings, but also potentially improve the
productivity and health of your students and faculty as well? What if you could solve all
four issues with a single system?
Fujitsu VRF (variable refrigerant flow) may be the answer. This state-of-the-art
technology has the ability to save up to 30% on energy bills and provides schools with
year-round comfort, it can also provide the fresh air necessary for student health and
“library” quiet operation for improved productivity. Join us in this session to understand
the ABC’s of VRF and learn how this Green HVAC technology can deliver an ideal
solution. This session, presented by Roy Kuczera, Senior Vice President for Fujitsu
General America. He will review the benefits of these modular, scalable, zoned,
centrally controlled, advanced scheduled, remotely monitored, energy savings
managed, Airstage VRF HVAC systems, their technology, and strategies for applying
them to efficiently meet the heating and cooling needs of school facilities.
Speaker:
Roy Kuczera, Senior Vice President, Fujitsu General America
California Proposition 39 (2012)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposition 39
Tax Treatment For Multistate Businesses
Results
Yes or no
Yes
Votes
7,384,417
No
Total votes
Percentage
61.1%
4,701,563
38.9%
12,085,980
100.00%
[1]
Elections in California

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state
corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the
November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.[2][3][4][5][6]
Supporters of Proposition 39 claimed that it will close a tax loophole that currently rewards outof-state companies for taking jobs out of California and, for tax purposes, treats out-of-state
companies the way California-based companies are treated. The savings generated by closing the
loophole will be directed to fund public schools and create jobs in the state, especially
construction jobs in the clean energy sector.[6][7][8][9][10] Opponents argued that Proposition 39 is
simply a tax increase, and it will make out-of-state companies less likely to do business in
California.[7][11] The proposition does not affect California-based companies or California
residents.[6][7][12][13][14][15]
The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office has determined that changing the way
out-of-state corporations are taxed in California will generate approximately $1 billion in
revenue and create 40,000 jobs.[6][16]
The primary financial backer of Proposition 39 was Thomas Steyer, who also played a lead role
in designing the initiative.[17] California State Senator Kevin de León served as the co-chairman
of the Prop 39 campaign.[18]
California State Controller John Chiang appointed three members to a board created to oversee
the Allocation of new funds related to the California Clean Energy Jobs Act.[19] The three board
members include: Gary Kremen, the founder of Match.Com also a clean technology engineer,
entrepreneur and inventor; Erik Emblem, executive administrator and chief operating officer of
the Western States Council-Sheet Metal Workers in Sacramento; and Dana Cuff, professor of
Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Contents
[hide]




1 Background
o 1.1 Assembly Bill 1500
2 The measure
3 Analysis
o 3.1 Positive effects
o 3.2 Negative effects
4 Endorsements


5 Editorial opinion
o 5.1 "Yes on 39"
o 5.2 "No on 39"
6 References
Background[edit]
In 2009, Sacramento legislators changed corporate tax law so that out-of-state companies could
choose between two methods for calculating their California income tax.[8][20] Companies could
choose either the “three-factor” or “single-sales factor” method. The three-factor method bases
half of a company’s tax bill on in-state sales and the other half on in-state property and
employees.[20][21][22]
A company with ample sales but no physical presence in the state significantly reduces its tax
burden when choosing the three-factor method.[14][21][22] The change was part of a balanced budget
deal between Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Republicans.[8][21] California is the only state that
allows out-of-state companies to choose how their income tax is calculated.[23]
Supporters of Proposition 39 include San Francisco-based philanthropist and businessman
Thomas Steyer, who founded Farallon Capital, a hedge fund, and One Pacific Bank, a
community bank. Steyer, a signer of The Giving Pledge,[24] has contributed $21.9 million of his
own money to a campaign in favor of the initiative.[7][15] In 2010, Steyer co-chaired the successful
effort to beat Proposition 23, a ballot initiative to overturn California’s climate change laws.[25]
The League of Conservative Voters has contributed $25,000 to the campaign, while the Western
States Council of Sheet Metal Workers PAC has added $5,000.[15]
Similar laws have been passed in New Jersey, Illinois, and Texas.[16][26] New Jersey Republican
Governor Chris Christie called closing the loophole an important part of the New Jersey
comeback.[26]
Assembly Bill 1500[edit]
John A. Pérez, a state representative from Los Angeles, introduced Assembly Bill 1500 in
2012.[22] The legislation seeks to remove the three-factor method from the state tax code.[11][22] As
of August 31, 2012, AB 1500 had failed to gain the necessary support to move forward.[5][8] The
extra tax revenue generated by AB 1500 would have reduced tuition costs for state university
students by up to two-thirds for families making less than $150,000 per year.[11] A number of
large out-of-state companies opposed the bill.[27]
The measure[edit]
Proposition 39 removes the ability for out-of-state corporations to choose how to calculate their
California tax burden.[13] If passed, all companies doing business in the state would use the
single-sales factor method, which only uses sales to calculate income tax.[6]
Proposition 39 also contains instructions on how the extra tax revenue —approximately $1
billion each year—will be spent.[13] For the first five years, half of the new tax revenue would be
spent on clean energy projects.[14] The other half would go to the state’s general fund.[14] After five
years, all extra monies would go to the general fund.[6]
Supporters of the measure mention four companies in particular that have been particularly
advantaged by the current law. These are Chrysler Group, General Motors, International Paper,
and Kimberly-Clark.[22] In September 2012, however, Procter & Gamble and Chrysler both
announced they wouldn’t oppose Proposition 39.[28][29]
In 2011, Genentech executive Andrea Jackson explained that her company located a new facility
in Oregon to take advantage of the three-factor method.[14][20] She said that California tax law
encouraged the company to move facilities out of the state.[20]
A recent study by the independent research firm Beacon Economics claims that Proposition 39
could limit liability incentives for out-of-state businesses.[30]
Analysis[edit]
Positive effects[edit]
According to independent analyses, passage of Proposition 39 would add $1 billion to state
revenue.[14] It would also remove the advantage of building new facilities or hiring employees
out-of-state.[6][12] Supporters say that the measure would create up to 40,000 new jobs.[7]
Environmental and health groups claim that the extra money for clean energy projects would
lead to safer schools and improved public health.[7] The editorial board of The Sacramento Bee
said that Proposition 39 represented “how direct democracy should work.”[10]
Negative effects[edit]
Opponents of Proposition 39 argue that companies will do less business with California because
of higher taxes.[7][11] They claim that the some form of the three-factor method has been in the tax
code since 1966.[11] Others fear that the proposition will add more bureaucracy and complexity to
an already bloated tax law.[7][11] They also point to California’s unfriendly business tax climate:
The state ranks 48th, according to the Tax Foundation.
Endorsements[edit]
As of September 2012, the Los Angeles Times,[17] the Sacramento Bee,[10] the San Jose Mercury
News,[31] the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce,[32] California State Assembly Speaker John
Perez,[33] the California Labor Federation,[34] California State Senate President pro Tem Darrell
Steinberg,[35] and former U.S. Secretary of State to Ronald Reagan, George Schultz,[36] had
endorsed the initiative.
On September 26, 2012, the California Democratic Party Chairman, John Burton, announced his
endorsement of Proposition 39. Other recent endorsements of the initiative include the San
Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the American Lung Association, Latin Business Association,
California Labor Federation, California Community College Trustees, and the California League
of Conservation Voters.[37]
As of October 1, 2012, General Motors, International Paper, Kimberly Clark, Chrysler and
Procter & Gamble will not oppose Proposition 39 any further.[38]
The Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce, Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Oxnard
Chamber of Commerce, and the United Chambers of Commerce all oppose Proposition 39.[36]
Editorial opinion[edit]
"Yes on 39"[edit]

The Bakersfield Californian is in support of the initiative, stating that, "It's time to fix a
bad tax policy, created three years ago by the California Legislature, once and for all."[39]

The Contra Costa Times favors Proposition 39. They write, "State lawmakers have
refused to correct the mistake they made in 2009 when, in a late-night budget session,
they created a tax incentive for companies to locate outside California. Voters need to fix
it for them on Nov. 6 by voting for Proposition 39."[40]

The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "Vote yes on this initiative to end a system
that lets out-of-state corporations choose their methods of taxation."[41]

The Fresno Bee endorsed Proposition 39 on October 1, 2012. They wrote, "If it's
approved, the initiative would generate $1 billion a year."[42]

The Los Angeles Times has endorsed Proposition 39. In a September 27, 2012 opinion
piece, they wrote that, "Proposition 39, would raise an estimated $1 billion a year, about
half of which would be dedicated temporarily to making public buildings more energy
efficient."[43]

The Marin Independent Journal: "This measure needs to be on the ballot because the
state Legislature has refused to close a business tax loophole it approved in a late-night
budget decision in 2009."[44]

The Merced Sun-Star: "The initiative on the Nov. 6 ballot would close a $1 billion
corporate tax loophole, one that legislators are incapable of shutting because they are
beholden to outside influences."[45]

The Modesto Bee favors Proposition 39, writing, "Proposition 39 shows how direct
democracy should work."[46]

The Oakland Tribune formally endorsed Proposition 39, writing "Prop. 39 will help keep
businesses here."[47]

The Press-Enterprise: "California has no need for a tax break that puts the state at an
economic disadvantage."[48]

The Redding Record Searchlight has endorsed Proposition 39, writing, "[Proposition 39]
ends a billion-dollar giveaway to out-of-state corporations."[49]

The Sacramento Bee has endorsed Proposition 39. The newspaper advocated that voters
approve the measure, writing, “Essentially, out-of-state corporations such as cigarette
maker Altria gained the privilege to determine which of two methods of taxation allowed
them to pay the least in state taxes, and they are allowed to toggle back and forth each
year so as to gain the greatest benefit,... Proposition 39 shows how direct democracy
should work.”[9][50]

The San Diego Free Press has announced support for Proposition 39. They wrote that,
"Proposition 39 would eliminate the ability of companies to choose between two methods
to calculate their taxable income in California and require them to use sales only for the
calculation."[51]

The San Jose Mercury News endorsed Proposition 39, writing, "State lawmakers have so
far refused to correct the mistake they made in 2009 when, in a late-night budget session,
they created a tax incentive for companies to locate outside California. Voters will be
able to fix it for them Nov. 6 by voting yes on Proposition 39."[52]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "It's more fair, it creates the right incentives to keep
jobs and equipment in the state, and it cuts a hole in the deficit."[53]

The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Ballot-budgeting? Yes. But as it stands, Steyer's Prop. 39
revenue would help create jobs while also cutting down on energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions at public buildings -- and the revenue directed toward these causes is
limited to five years. More importantly, the tax loophole is egregious and only
encourages multistate companies doing business in California to create jobs outside the
state."[54]
"No on 39"[edit]

The San Francisco Chronicle opposed the initiative in a September editorial, stating that,
"Proposition 39, which would direct about half of the extra $1 billion in annual revenue
to energy-efficient projects, corrupts a very good idea (tax reform) with a very bad one
(ballot-box budgeting)."[55]

The San Diego Union Tribune opposed the initiative, writing, "We recommend a no vote
on Proposition 39."[56]

The Ventura County Star opposed Proposition 39, stating, "Supporters of Proposition 39
may have had good intentions, but this initiative on the Nov. 6 ballot doesn't measure up
to reasonable expectations. The Star recommends a no vote."[57]

The Pasadena Star-News opposed Proposition 39, writing that, "PROPOSITION 39 is a
mixed bag - like so many of the initiatives that appear on California's ballots - that should
be rejected."[58]

The San Bernardino Sun opposed the initiative, writing, "Of the $1 billion or so in
additional tax revenue that change would produce, Proposition 39 directs half into energy
efficiency and alternative energy projects for four years."[59]

The editorial board of the Appeal-Democrat opposed Proposition 39 in an editorial in
May, writing, "Steyer said the initiative would create green jobs. But taxes kill jobs by
sucking money out of the private sector. Similar green-jobs claims were made about
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. But A.B. 32 didn't prevent state unemployment from soaring well
above the national rate. California's real employment problem is not a lack of green jobs,
but the state's severe anti-jobs climate, to which A.B. 32 and the specter of Steyer's
initiative contribute."[60]

The Los Angeles Daily News wrote "...the measure has two big problems: One, it's yet
another example of ballot-box budgeting, directing half the revenue that would be
generated into niche projects instead of into the general fund; and two, it goes back on a
budget deal that the Legislature made three years ago."[61]

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "California can't stand any more ballot-box budgeting
that squirrels away money for a single purpose favored by an initiative's proponents - in
this case a hedge-fund billionaire. Proposition 39 creates the Clean Energy Job Creation
Fund, another otherwise untouchable pot of money like the First 5 and mental health
funds that past initiatives have given us. The purposes are good, but they should be
weighed against other priorities like education and care for the indigent and elderly."[62]
References[edit]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Jump up ^ "Statement of Vote". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 3 June 2013.
Jump up ^ "Statement of Vote November 6, 2012, General Election". California Secretary of State.
Retrieved 3 June 2013.
Jump up ^ Joe Mathews (June 30, 2012). "The Three Numbers You'll Hear This Fall: 38 - 39 - 40". NBC
Bay Area. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ Nannette Miranda (September 12, 2012). "Prop 39 aims to cement California as green leader".
ABC 7. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b "Assembly speaker backs Proposition 39's corporate-tax revamp". Los Angeles Times.
September 12, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency
Funding. Initiative Statue.". Legislative Analyst's Office. July 18, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h "Argument in Favor of Proposition 30". CA.gov. 2012. Retrieved September 25,
2012.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
^ Jump up to: a b c d James Nash (September 17, 2012). "California Voters Weigh $1 Billion Tax Break for
Business". BusinessWeek. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Steven Maviglio (September 24, 2012). "Sacramento Bee Backs Prop 39". The California
Majority Report. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c Editorial Board (September 23, 2012). "Endorsements: Proposition 39 is a tax code fix
worthy of your 'yes' vote". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Katy Grimes (August 20, 2012). "Prop 39 and AB 1500: A taxing alliance".
CalWatchdog. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b "Proposition 39". SmartVoter.org. 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Proposition 39 – Why You Should Vote Yes on the Most Boring Proposition on the
2012 Ballot". San Diego Free Press. September 6, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Mercury News editorial: California's Prop. 39 will help keep businesses here".
Silicon Valley Mercury News. August 9, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c "KCET Presents Election 2012". KCET.org. 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b "Reconsidering the Optional Single Sales Factor". Legislative Analyst's Office. Retrieved
September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b "Yes on Proposition 39". Los Angeles Times. September 27, 2012. Retrieved September
27, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Senator Kevin de Leon Challenges CEOs of General Motors, Kimberly-Clark and
International Paper to Public Debate on Proposition 39". MarketWatch. Sep 25, 2012. Retrieved September
25, 2012.
Jump up ^ John, Chiang. "Controller’s Appointees to Prop. 39 Citizens Oversight Board".
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Oakland Tribune editorial: California's Prop. 39 will help keep businesses here"
(August 13, 2012). Oakland Tribune.
^ Jump up to: a b c "TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESSES. CLEAN ENERGY AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.". CA.gov. 2012. Retrieved September 25,
2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Prop. 39 backers suggest California end contracts with tax foes". The Sacramento
Bee. July 31, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Corporate Income Tax Apportionment and the "Single Sales Factor"". Institute of Taxation
and Economic Policy. August 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "40 billionaires pledge to give away half of wealth". MSNBC. 2012. Retrieved September 25,
2012.
Jump up ^ "Up against Big Oil: Tom Steyer on backing state pro-environment initiatives". Current.com.
August 31, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b "The New Jersey Comeback". State of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. June 14, 2012.
Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Opposition Letter to AB 1500". cajobsnottaxes.com. April 13, 2012. Retrieved September 25,
2012.
Jump up ^ "Chrysler States it Will Not Oppose Proposition 39". The Scramento Bee. September 19, 2012.
Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Procter & Gamble stands aside as corporate tax battle heats up". Los Angeles Times. August
3, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "The Worst of Both Worlds: Understanding Why Prop 39 Is The Right Way To Go". Beacon
Economics. September 29, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Mercury News editorial: California's Prop. 39 will help keep businesses here". Mercury News.
August 9, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ Gwen Oldham (2012). "San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Announces Ballot Positions for
November Presidential Election". San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ Marisa Lagos (September 14, 2012). "Tax measure gets Speaker Pérez's support". San
Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Prop 39: Closing a Corporate Tax Loophole and Bringing Jobs Back to California". California
Labor Federation. 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
Jump up ^ "California State Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg Endorses Proposition 39".
Yesonprop39.com. 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
36. ^ Jump up to: a b "2012 Ballot Measures". Chambers of Commerce Alliance. September 17, 2012. Retrieved
September 25, 2012.
37. Jump up ^ "California Democratic Party Chairman, John Burton, Endorses Proposition 39". San Diego
Politico. September 26, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
38. Jump up ^ "Political Blotter: About 110,000 Californians did online voter registration in first week".
Mercury News. October 1, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
39. Jump up ^ "Prop. 39 evens field for state's businesses". The Bakersfield Californian. September 20, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
40. Jump up ^ "Contra Costa Times: Repeal Prop. 39, return business". Monterey Herald. August 14, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
41. Jump up ^ "Democrat endorsements: Propositions". Daily Democrat. October 14, 2012. Retrieved October
16, 2012.
42. Jump up ^ "EDITORIAL: Proposition 39 would close tax loophole". The Fresno Bee. October 1, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
43. Jump up ^ "Yes on Proposition 39". Los Angeles Times. September 27, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
44. Jump up ^ "Editorial: IJ endorsements for state Propositions 38-40". Marin Independent Journal. October
13, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
45. Jump up ^ "Our View: Proposition 39 shows how direct democracy should work". Merced Sun-Star.
September 27, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
46. Jump up ^ "Proposition 39 would fix big tax loopholes". The Modesto Bee. September 27, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
47. Jump up ^ "Prop. 39 will help keep businesses here". The Oakland Tribune. August 13, 2012. Retrieved
October 2, 2012.
48. Jump up ^ "Yes on 39". Press-Enterprise. October 4, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
49. Jump up ^ "Editorial: Close senseless tax loophole — 'Yes' on Prop. 39". The Redding Record
Searchlight. October 1, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
50. Jump up ^ "Sacramento Bee Backs Prop 39". California Majority Report. September 24, 2012. Retrieved
October 2, 2012.
51. Jump up ^ "Proposition 39 – Why You Should Vote Yes on the Most Boring Proposition on the 2012
Ballot". San Diego Free Press. September 6, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
52. Jump up ^ "California's Prop. 39 will help keep businesses here". Mercury News. August 9, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
53. Jump up ^ "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures". San Francisco Bay Guardian. October 3, 2012.
Retrieved October 16, 2012.
54. Jump up ^ "Editorial: Yes on 39; close tax loophole for multistate firms". Santa Cruz Sentinel. October 3,
2012. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
55. Jump up ^ "Editorial: No on Prop. 39". San Francisco Chronicle. September 21, 2012. Retrieved October
2, 2012.
56. Jump up ^ "No on Prop. 39: Fix needed, but not this one". Union Tribune San Diego. September 30, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
57. Jump up ^ "Editorial: No on Prop. 39, a $2.75 billion tax grab on Nov. 6". The Ventura County Star.
September 19, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
58. Jump up ^ "Our View: No on Prop. 39's ballot-box budget". Pasadena Star-News. September 30, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
59. Jump up ^ "No more ballot-box budgeting; no on Prop. 39". San Bernardino Sun. September 30, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
60. Jump up ^ "Our View: California businesses facing new tax hikes". Appeal-Democrat. May 10, 2012.
Retrieved October 2, 2012.
61. Jump up ^ "Editorial: No on Proposition 39". Los Angeles Daily News. October 1, 2012. Retrieved
October 2, 2012.
62. Jump up ^ "Our View: No on Prop. 39's ballot-box budget". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. September 30,
2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
[hide]



v
t
e
(2011 ←) California elections, 2012 (→ 2013)
June primary election
November general election



Democratic presidential primary
Republican presidential primary
Propositions: 29





Presidential
United States House of Representatives
State Senate
State Assembly
Propositions: 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39