Abstract
In an environment of high unemployment and deep budget deficits for the state, California passed the Clean Jobs Act – also known as Proposition 39 – in November 2012. Proposition 39 changed the corporate tax structure for multi-state businesses from a choice between a double-weighted sales formula and a single-sales formula to just a single-sales formula. The change in tax structure is projected to generate $1.1 billion annually in tax revenue for California. Proposition 39 dedicates half the revenue for the first five years to the creation of clean energy jobs in California. This paper examined four funding alternatives for how the state could spend the money to meet the policy goals of Proposition 39. In this thesis, I examined four allocation proposals, which are Governor Jerry Brown’s, Senate Bill 39, Assembly Bill 39, and Assembly Bill 239. Schools are the primary recipient in all four proposals. I analyzed each of these proposals using a qualitative criteria alternative matrix. The criteria in the analysis were Job Creation, Energy Demand Reduction, Administration, and Equity. The analysis criteria were weighted equally. Assembly Bill 39 was the best scoring alternative for how to allocate Proposition 39 revenue. Assembly Bill 39 allocates money to projects at K-12 schools based on the number of jobs created and the amount of energy demand reduction, which most closely matches the policy goals of Proposition 39. Ultimately, the responsibility of government is to the people of California, and Assembly Bill 39 creates the most public value for all Californians.