Support for Prop. 7

The Union of Concerned Scientists is disappointed in The Times’ Oct. 15 editorial in opposition to Prop. 7. By virtue of the annual $218-million commitment to clean air written into the initiative, you call Prop. 7 a “blunt instrument.”

Prop. 7 is a well-thought-out plan--a steady course to clean California’s air. Carefully drafted over a yearlong period, Prop. 7 requires strict cost-effectiveness standards and substantial air emissions reductions to qualify for tax credits. The smaller legislative effort that you prefer is a one-time expenditure and doesn’t provide sufficient market incentive for major advances in clean air technologies. Rather than dangle piecemeal funding “carrots,” Prop. 7 would create a 10-year program of long-term secure financing in the form of tax breaks. If there aren’t enough good ideas to warrant the award of tax credits, then the cost to the general fund will be below $218 million a year. Prop. 7 provides that no tax credits are available unless California’s general fund is growing; a recession would halt the program. It was drafted so as not to affect K-14 education funding.

By 2010 every air district in the state must meet federal Clean Air Act requirements. Failure to meet these pollution limits could cost California millions--potentially even billions--of highway dollars. Prop. 7 will help California meet our clean air obligations by, for example, encouraging owners of perfectly legal heavy-duty diesel engines to voluntarily clean up their emissions. Californians will breathe easier if Prop. 7 succeeds on Nov. 3.

JANE KELLY

California Policy Coordinator

Union of Concerned Scientists

Berkeley