Unless Congress acts soon, taxpayers across the Mountain States will face an automatic tax increase next year. This is because lawmakers have not stopped the sunset of major federal tax relief enacted seven years ago. The Federal Tax Cuts and Job Act (TCJA) is a law that was passed in December of 2017 by Congress, aimed at reducing tax rates on individual and business income, as well as boosting incentives for investment . Despite incredibly positive economic outcomes from its enactment, most of the tax law is set to expire at the end of 2025. If not renewed, taxes are projected to increase by roughly $400 billion , significantly impacting families and businesses in the Mountain States. For example, the average tax increase in Idaho is expected to be $2,554, in Montana $2,599, in Washington $4,429 and in Wyoming $4,312.   A major highlight of this tax cut law is decreasing the top income tax bracket rate from 39.6% to 37%. The Tax Policy Center estimated that 80% of taxpayers  received a tax cut, 15% experienced no change, and 5% paid more in 2018 than in 2017 when it was enacted. They also estimated that the average taxpayer received a $2,100 tax cut.   Along with widening the tax brackets, the TCJA also reduced the corporate tax rate, doubled the child tax credit to $2,000, doubled the standard deduction, and zeroed out dependent and personal exemptions. In April and July of 2024, Congress attempted to pass bipartisan legislation that would extend parts of the TCJA including corporate incentives and keeping the child tax credit at $2,000, but it stalled and eventually failed in the Senate . Senate Republicans argued that a better solution would come up in about a year, closer to the expiration of the TCJA.   This pioneering law changed the corporate tax rate from one of the steepest in the world at 38.91% to a more moderate 25.77% . Data shows that this tax cut does not just benefit corporations, but the average laborer benefits also. Corporations generally use extra funds for capital investment , making workers more productive and leading to raises.  It also incentives corporations to do business in the U.S., and not resort to cheap labor in other countries.  A study by economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Treasury Department found that the TCJA corporate reforms substantially raised U.S. capital investment and boosted economic growth. The Tax Foundation also found, “ The current consensus among economists and researchers is that the corporate income tax restricts capital formation, and seriously hampers productivity growth, employment levels, wages, and economic output.” It’s not just corporations that see positive benefits, but small business owners from all over the country are urging Congress to renew the TCJA as well. Mother Earth Brewing Company out of Nampa, Idaho was able to almost double their production, buy new equipment, and hire new employees. They credited this to the enacting of the TCJA. Melaleuca, based out of Idaho Falls, was able to provide a $100 bonus to its 2,000 employees for every year they’ve worked at the company. CEO Frank Vandersloot commented, “We’re going to be able to have quite a few substantial dollars after taxes. I suspect we’re one of the largest taxpayers in the state, so we’re going to have some more dollars to spread around. That money should go to the people who built the company.”   With this important tax cut expiring, personal income tax rates will revert to their previous higher levels. This will impact state taxes also as shown by this Tax Foundation Map of the expected tax increases if the law expires. Tax Foundation Map   It is estimated by the Tax Foundation that a $2,554 tax increase per person will occur in Idaho after the TCJA expires. There are also expected to be 4,260 long-run jobs forgone.   Montana is expected to see a $2,599 tax increase per filer, and 2,628 jobs forgone if the TCJA expires. On average, Washington would see a $4,429 tax increase if the TCJA expires in 2026. There would also be 27,810 long-run jobs forgone. Wyoming is expected to have the second highest tax increase per filer in the country if TCJA were to expire. It is estimated to be a $4,312 increase per tax person, with a projected 1,900 jobs forgone.     The research shows taxpayers cannot afford to have the TCJA expire. For the Mountain States, the average expected tax increase is $3,474 per taxpayer. With Americans already feeling the effects of rampant inflation, this would put the average working-class family in a financially impossible spot. Congress should continue to work on reducing the tax burden for employers and families. Hopefully, the House and Senate will soon agree to maintain this important tax relief that benefits all.

The Oxford dictionary defines a fad as an “intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one … without basis in the object’s qualities.” A perfect description, it turns out, for what is currently happening in the environmental community.   Cities, counties and states are considering or adopting various policies in the name of protecting the environment. The cities of Missoula and Bozeman, for example, were considering a plastic bag ban, but recently discovered they didn’t have enough signatures for a citizen petition.   Washington state has moved to ban just about everything on the ecofad list, including plastic straws, bags, food containers and more. The wilting, paper straws are becoming a fixture at restaurant tables around the Evergreen state.   It would be one thing if these policies had a true environmental impact. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to show the laws are helping – and even more evidence they could be doing more harm than good.   Researchers at the University of Antwerp in Belgium have discovered paper straws may be toxic. Why? They contain the most perfluoroalkylated and polyfluoroalkylated substances, or PFAS. They are substances considered harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.   The team of scientists looked at 39 different brands of straws, including plastic, paper, glass, stainless steel and bamboo. Incredibly, 27 of the 39 tested straw brands had PFASs. But when researchers specifically studied paper straws, they discovered higher chemicals in 90% of them (18/20). Perfluoroalkylated and polyfluoroalkylated substances can lead to major health problems including liver damage, thyroid disease, obesity, fertility complications and even cancer.   The banning of plastic straws has also disproportionally impacted the disabled community. “Our needs matter,” the Center for Disability Rights proclaims on its website , pointing out that plastic straws are “a tool disabled people rely on, rather than a frivolous, planet-killing item that can be easily done away with.”   Much of the research also points to the ineffectiveness and negative impact of plastic bag bans.   The school of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia released a study that shows California communities with plastic bag bans saw sales of 4-gallon trash bags increase by 55% to 75%, and sales of 8-gallon trash bags increase 87% to 110%. These results echo earlier studies that also showed increases in sales of smaller plastic trash bags.   The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times to have an impact on the environment. Danish researchers had similar findings. A trio of examples on health, effectiveness and the reaction of the consumer.   Adopting an ecofad may make policymakers feel good, but the research shows they are incredibly ineffective. Even worse, they can be dangerous to public health.

The debate about open primaries may soon occur in the halls of Congress. A group of bipartisan lawmakers last month introduced the “ Let America Vote Act of 2024 ” to require open primaries for state and federal elections across the country. According to the bill: “It is the sense of Congress that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote in any taxpayer-funded election for public office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on the grounds of political party affiliation or lack thereof.” Here is what the sponsors said about why they introduced the national open primaries bill: “This commonsense reform is not political or controversial. It ensures every US citizen, regardless of political affiliation, has the unequivocal right to vote while reinforcing election integrity by strictly prohibiting non-citizens from participating in tax-payer funded elections.” - Rep. Fitzpatrick (PA-1) “Participating in our democracy is a central right of citizens, and voters unaffiliated with any political party deserve to have their voices heard throughout the entire political process.” - Rep. Golden (ME-2) “The right to vote is reserved solely for American citizens. I am pleased to co-lead this legislation to codify this commonsense principle and safeguard our elections from unconstitutional non-citizen voting.” - Rep. Garbarino (NY-2) “Good ideas come from both sides of the aisle, so Americans shouldn’t be denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choosing because they aren’t affiliated with a political party.” - Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-3) Sponsors of the “Let America Vote Act of 2024” described the bill’s features this way: “The right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any taxpayer-funded election for public office shall not be denied or abridged on the grounds of political party affiliation or lack thereof. Requires States to permit access to unaffiliated voters to vote in primary elections for Federal Office Withholds Federal Funds if a State does not permit access to unaffiliated voters to vote in primary elections for State and Local Office Provides additional Federal Funds for States to transition to access to primary elections for unaffiliated voters Protects the information and independence of unaffiliated voters by restricting the use of their voter data No person who is not a citizen shall be permitted or granted the right to vote in any taxpayer-funded election for public office held by or in the United States or any State. Prohibits States from permitting non-citizens to vote in elections for Federal office Withholds Federal funds if a State permits non-citizens to vote in elections for State and local office” Notably, this federal bill does not require the controversial use of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Open primaries and RCV are two very different things . According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), “primaries can be categorized as closed, partially closed, partially open, open to unaffiliated voters, open or multi-party.” Here is how NCSL classifies  each state’s primary system. Multi-Party Primaries (Including Top-Two and Similar Systems) – 5 states “A small but growing number of states hold a single primary in which all candidates, regardless of party, are listed on a single ballot.” Open Primaries – 15 states “In an open primary, voters choose which party’s ballot to vote, but this decision is private and does not register the voter with that party.” Open to Unaffiliated Voters – 7 states “Many states allow unaffiliated voters to participate in any party primary they choose, but do not allow voters who are registered with one party to vote in another party’s primary.”   Partially Open – 4 states “This system permits voters to cross party lines, but their ballot choice may be regarded as a form of registration with the corresponding party.” Partially Closed – 9 states “In this system, state law permits political parties to choose whether to allow unaffiliated voters or voters not registered with the party to participate in their nominating contests before each election cycle.” Closed Primaries – 10 states “In general, a voter seeking to vote in a closed primary must be a registered party member.” While there are many examples of states with open primaries, currently only Alaska and Maine use Ranked Choice Voting for statewide elections. Alaska voters narrowly adopted RCV in 2020 by 50.55% , but its use has been so controversial that Alaskans this fall will have the opportunity to repeal it with the certification of a new ballot measure . Both Washington's Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and Montana's Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen  have spoken out against ranked choice voting, with Hobbs saying " ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process." As expressed by the sponsors of the “Let America Vote Act of 2024,” it is important to remember that taxpayer-funded elections don’t belong to private political groups. Moving our election systems to a clean open primary is a debate worth having. Adopting open primaries, however, should not be limited to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition tied to the controversy of Ranked Choice Voting.

When it comes to finding regulatory freedom, head West, at least until you get to the coast. According to the latest rankings from the Mercatus Center, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming made the top ten for the least regulated states in the country. Idaho won the top spot for regulatory freedom. California, Oregon and Washington, however, are all in the bottom ten states for regulatory burden.   According to Mercatus : “The Canadian province of British Columbia has been a pioneer in reducing red tape. Its economic growth rate increased by one percentage point because it cut regulations by nearly 40 percent. Several US states have attempted to follow suit, including Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia.” Least Regulated States (Rankings out of 48 states – incomplete data for Arkansas and West Virginia) On August 9, Idaho Governor Little issued a press release  touting the Gem State's top regulatory ranking. The press release noted:   “Governor Brad Little announced today that his administration reached another milestone achievement in his ongoing efforts to reduce bureaucratic red tape and streamline government while ensuring the health and safety of Idahoans. Regulatory reform efforts under the Little Administration ripped another 466 pages of regulations out of state administrative code in Fiscal Year 2024, which ended in June. In total, Governor Little has cut or simplified more than 95 percent of regulations since he took office in 2019, and Idaho administrative code shrunk from 8,553 to 5,318 pages. Meanwhile, the federal government’s code of rules and regulations has grown to over 188,000 pages.” Describing how Idaho achieved these amazing results, the press release continued: “Idaho became the  least regulated state in the nation  in December 2019 and has proudly maintained the title. In 2020, Governor Little signed Executive Order 2020-01: Zero-Based Regulation , creating a rigorous process requiring agencies to review and justify the retention of each regulation line-by-line. The initiative was so successful that in 2023, the Legislature made Governor Little’s ‘Zero-Based Regulation’ permanent, mandating that agencies review their rule chapters every eight years. Moving forward, the Governor will continue working with his legislative partners to further reduce government regulation and improve government efficiency.” Governor Little explained the importance of reducing the regulatory burden on citizens and employers by saying: “If left unchecked, government tends to grow, increase regulation, and encroach on our lives. My administration has been laser-focused on keeping government in check and preventing the proliferation of costly, ineffective, and outdated regulations. The proof is in the numbers. Here in Idaho, we continue to show that with determination, focus, and effective collaboration, we can achieve great things. When we reduce regulatory friction, good jobs follow.” Montana Governor Gianforte has also made regulatory reform a top priority for the Treasure State. When signing a package of regulatory reform bills in 2023, Gianforte said : “Together, we're making government more efficient and responsive. Together, we're opening the doors of greater opportunity that have been shut by red tape.” Whether they be at the local, state, or federal level, all laws and regulations have a cost. In fact, a study by the Journal of Economic Growth concluded that regulations have slowed economic growth by as much as two percent per year. As we noted in our new Policy Manual , Idaho and Montana deserve credit for advancing reforms of the regulatory state. Policymakers in other states should also consider the rules that govern rules and regulations and they should take care to ensure they are always simple, predictable, and reviewable.

The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit to declare the Universal Service Fund (USF) fee unconstitutional marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over how best to ensure widespread access to telecommunications and broadband services. This ruling, which creates a split among the federal circuits, signals a potential Supreme Court review and opens the door for a much-needed reevaluation of how we fund and expand our nation’s digital infrastructure. The Universal Service Fund was initially established to provide telephone service to remote areas, but its scope later expanded to include internet access. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 empowered the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set the USF rate, which was subsequently delegated to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The Fifth Circuit's ruling in Consumers Research v. Federal Communications Commission deemed this "double delegation" unconstitutional, asserting that such power should not rest with a private entity. This decision underscores a fundamental principle: the power to tax and set rates must remain transparent and accountable, adhering strictly to the constitutional framework. MSPC echoes the sentiments of the Fifth Circuit's majority, advocating for a market-driven approach where efficiency, innovation, and growth are prioritized over bureaucratic control. The majority opinion clearly stated that allowing the Universal Fee Setting to stand would mean "American telecommunications consumers are subject to a multibillion-dollar tax nobody voted for." One powerful analogy from the majority decision noted: "Congress could not say: 'The defense budget is whatever Lockheed Martin wants it to be, unless Congress intervenes to revise it. ' To make law, Congress must affirmatively adopt the statutory text, pass it bicamerally, and present it to the President for signature." As the Supreme Court prepares to potentially review the constitutionality of the USF fee, there is an opportunity to reinforce the principles of limited government and free market economics. The Court’s recent trend of reining in agency powers suggests a move towards greater accountability and a reduction in unwarranted delegation of authority. This aligns with our belief that the market, rather than bureaucratic entities, should drive these decisions.

Access to reliable, high-speed internet isn’t just a convenience in today’s interconnected world – it’s a necessity, particularly in states like Idaho where vast stretches of rural landscape can face isolation. Internet connectivity is fundamental to opportunities of all varieties, whether economic, educational, health, or social. These opportunities, however, remain out of reach for far too many Idahoans. Despite the significant progress that we have made as a state thanks to the cooperation between our public and private leaders, hundreds of thousands of Idahoans still lack the internet access they need to build the futures they deserve for themselves and their families. Fortunately, we are on the precipice of closing these final rural broadband gaps. More than $583 million in federal funds are slated to come to Idaho this year through the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. This represents a phenomenal opportunity to move closer to the goal of connecting every home, school, ranch, and small business across our state to the online world. This significant sum of federal grants, however, does not automatically equate to connectivity success. That will depend on the choices our state leaders and the Idaho Office of Broadband make with these investments. It will depend on whether our state leaders are laser-focused on prioritizing funds to unserved areas with the greatest needs, rather than overbuilding or upgrading networks in communities that already have internet access. It will depend on how our state leaders address the various regulatory barriers that stand in the way of deploying broadband infrastructure to our unserved communities. Internet service providers (ISPs) already face enormous barriers on the ground, whether geographic or terrain-related, regulatory, or otherwise. They will need cooperation from our state leaders to break down barriers to deployment, rather than standing up more. It will depend on whether our state leaders leverage the know-how and expertise of internet providers that have already proven their deep-rooted commitments to connecting all Idahoans. Earlier this year, the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board (IBAB) allocated $120 million to a mixture of 18 different providers, including leading cable providers in the state. However, of these 18 projects, seven were awarded to counties with little to no experience in the broadband space. Government-owned networks (GONs) have a poor history of performance, which raises concerns about the potential for waste and project failures. By partnering with industry leaders that have the expertise of not only building, but operating, maintaining, and upgrading these broadband networks, Idaho will ensure the long-term success of community connectivity. To avoid waste and project failures, Idaho should focus on working with experienced providers with a proven track record of success in the broadband space. Access to the Internet is so much more than just making sure our friends and families can browse their favorite websites or purchase new items online – it’s the engine that spurs 21st century economic growth; it empowers our state’s small businesses, farms, and ranches; it unlocks educational opportunities for students regardless of where they live. Idaho cannot waste this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

In today's interconnected world, technology is the keystone of nearly every aspect of our daily lives. The recent CrowdStrike outage has highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in relying on a single entity for crucial technological services, reinforcing the importance of competition to provide different service options. CrowdStrike, a leading cybersecurity provider, experienced a significant outage due to an engineering and configuration problem, not malicious activity. This incident resulted in the shutdown of critical IT systems across various sectors, including transportation. The ripple effects were profound and widespread: transportation networks ground to a halt, businesses lost access to vital data protection services, and the general public experienced disruptions in essential services—all due to the failure of a single company. This vividly illustrates how too much technological consolidation can wield excessive influence and pose severe risks to our economic and social stability. Recovery from such an incident has been a significant undertaking. Cities like Philadelphia and New York faced monumental tasks to restore thousands of computer systems. Philadelphia restored more than 6,000 systems, while New York had to tackle issues with roughly 300,000 machines. Recovery initially required staff to work on each of the thousands of downed machines individually. This labor-intensive process highlights the critical need for better preparation and more resilient systems. CrowdStrike's response included developing a method to help organizations in government or commercial cloud environments. This approach involved manually rebooting downed devices, which would then automatically identify and quarantine the flawed update before it could crash the system. Such measures, while effective, emphasize the importance of careful planning and rigorous testing before deploying updates. An issue that we find ourselves facing even in our region and state systems. The question isn't just about short-term recovery—it's also about how organizations can plan to better withstand future incidents . Carefully deciding when to accept software updates is crucial. Real-time cybersecurity updates are intended to keep up with rapidly evolving threats, but quickly accepting a vendor’s update without first testing runs the risk of system failures. Organizations need to discuss with their vendors how quickly to update different kinds of systems, based on their operations' criticality and likelihood of being targeted. CrowdStrike itself is now making changes to how it approaches updates. The company plans to use more types of testing, add more validation checks, and give customers more control over when and where content updates are deployed. Introducing updates to a small user base first before rolling them out to all customers is expected to make problems easier to catch before they affect everyone. In the future, organizations should consider whether outside factors make a potential software acquisition riskier. A product widely used by Fortune 100 companies, for example, has the added risk of being an attractive target to attackers hoping to hit many such victims in a single attack. Identifying any single points of failure in their environments, where reliance on an IT solution's disruption could disrupt their entire organization, is also crucial. While some resiliency measures may be too expensive for most organizations to adopt, awareness of these issues can help them adjust to and react to events like this in the future.

To help address concerns about increasing property taxes, Montana policymakers are actively considering adopting “Truth in Taxation.” Mountain States Policy Center had the opportunity to meet with Governor Gianforte last year and recommended to him that Truth in Taxation would be a good property tax reform for the Treasure State to adopt. Based on the agenda for the August 16 meeting of the Montana Revenue Interim Committee, it looks like Montana policymakers agree. According to the draft report for the Governor's Property Tax Advisory Committee: Property taxes are an important part of the tax base for school districts, local governments, and many states. Though based on a relatively straightforward calculation, they are among the least understood taxes by taxpayers. Although there are variations in each state, the general formula for property taxes is the value of the property multiplied by the tax rate. Too often taxpayers focus on assessed values instead of the spending decisions made by government officials when considering their property tax burden. With record property tax assessment increases occurring in states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, homeowners are concerned about the potential impact on their property tax bills. First, taxpayers need to know that assessments are just a part of the calculation. The main driver of property taxes is spending increases approved by policymakers and voters themselves through levies. This is why efforts to restrict property assessments are often misplaced and lead to other problems. The better way to control property tax increases is on the spending side and/or with levy restrictions. One way to help bring greater transparency to the fact spending is the main cause of property tax increases is with a reform called Truth in Taxation. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes the tax transparency process: “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase. To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” Utah’s Property Tax Division further explains: “Property Tax increases require a Truth in Taxation process of public disclosure. Taxing entities are required to follow a series of date specific steps, including notification to the county, newspaper advertisements, parcel specific notices, and a public hearing, before adopting a property tax rate above a calculated certified tax rate. The timeline is different for a fiscal year taxing entity (budget cycle July 1 to June 30) and a calendar year entity (budget cycle Jan 1 to Dec 31).” Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “Tax Increase Checklist” and comply with the “Tax Increase Requirements” details under Truth in Taxation. It is very encouraging to see that Truth in Taxation is now one of the formal recommendations in the Governor's Property Tax Advisory Committee’s draft report. Hopefully, this property tax reform will make it across the finish line in Montana. States like Idaho and Wyoming should also consider Truth in Taxation to help improve transparency and voter engagement on property taxes.

Governor Gordon recently announced that he re-appointed Darlena Potter as the Cowboy state’s official Public Records Ombudsman. According to a release by Governor Gordon: “The Ombudsman position was created with the passage of Senate File 57 in 2019. The Public Records Ombudsman serves as a resource for the public to resolve issues regarding public records requests submitted to state and local government agencies. In addition, the position provides aid to state and local governments to understand their obligations in response to such requests. The Ombudsman is also charged with mediating disputes relating to the timeliness of a records production, an agency's claim of privilege or confidentiality, and fees.” Authorizing a state Open Government Ombudsman is one of MSPC’s recommendations in our new Policy Manual: “To ensure public accountability and maintain control over the actions of government officials, state laws across the country authorize access to public records and require open public meetings. Though these rights exist on paper, they are not self-executing and often can result in costly litigation as the people attempt to enforce open government laws. One reform that could help serve as an advocate for the people’s right to know would be the authorization of an official open government ombudsman. This type of citizen-focused open government expert would help reduce the possibility of litigation when a public records dispute occurs.” Other states should follow Wyoming’s example and create a formal Open Government Ombudsman to help citizens resolve public records and open meeting disputes.

As the world becomes more digitized almost every consumer participates in online shopping. Forbes estimates in the U.S. that 20.1% of all retail purchases in 2024 will be online, and around 34% of consumers shop online at least once a week. All around the country, lawmakers have been attempting to take advantage of that revenue by imposing some form of new tax. Colorado was the first to implement a Retail Delivery Fee in 2022, and Minnesota quickly followed, implementing its policy in July of 2024. Washington State is now considering the possibility of a similar retail delivery fee. Put simply, a Retail Delivery Fee (RDF) is a fee imposed on the delivery of retail items delivered by motor vehicles in a state. Washington state wants these fees to help fund transportation projects such as potholes and traffic mitigation. Senate Transportation Chair Marko Liias commented, “clearly our cities, our counties and our state have transportation challenges with too many potholes and too much traffic.” He went on to say, “This is one of a number of things we’re looking at to come up with the resources to make the needed investments.” While Colorado’s model charges roughly 28 cents on every delivery, and Minnesota charges 50 cents on deliveries $100 or more, Washington has been investigating rates from 25 to 75 cents. Colorado’s Revised Statute (C.R.S) S43-4-218 was adopted in 2022 and “imposes a Retail Delivery Fee on deliveries by motor vehicle to a location in Colorado with at least one item of tangible personal property subject to state Sales or Use Tax. The retailer or marketplace facilitator that collects the Sales or Use Tax on the tangible personal property sold and delivered, including delivery by a third party, is liable to remit the Retail Delivery Fee. Deliveries include when any taxable goods are mailed, shipped, or otherwise delivered by motor vehicle to a purchaser in Colorado.” According to the Colorado law, the state must publish the data every year of the rates charged. This can be found below. The new law almost immediately impacted small business in Colorado. In 2023, the state responded by creating a small business exemption. This exempts businesses with retail sales of $500,000 or less in Colorado sales tax from the fee. The reactionary legislation also gave businesses the choice to either charge the 27-cent fee to the customer or cover the cost itself. As Minnesota followed Colorado’s example, it was met with pushback from across the country. A notable response was from the Council on State Taxation: “A delivery fee mandated on nearly every Minnesota consumer is regressive and will negatively impact all families, as well as place an undue burden on businesses . . . As the state looks for thoughtful solutions to solve transportation challenges, the consumer delivery fee has undeniable impacts and insurmountable challenges.” While the implementation and charge may vary, research clearly shows a negative impact, particularly among those who are mobility-challenged, elderly, and low-income. In fact, those categories make up the largest consumer base of those who order retail items online – particularly in the food service delivery sector. As recently as 2019, it was estimated that 52% of the population making less than $10,000 used a restaurant delivery website or app at least once in the last 90 days. Source: Washington State Department of Revenue A retail delivery fee has consequences for both the retailer and the consumer. On the one hand, legislation that assigns the fee to the business may hurt the ability of the company to hire more employees, expand or even make a profit. On the other, allowing the fee to be passed on to the consumer raises prices, thereby hurting both the customer and the business. In Colorado, exemptions were adopted for some small businesses below $500,000 in annual sales, providing a perverse incentive for businesses to stay below the threshold. In most cases, the fee is pushed onto the consumer, regardless of the fact the vehicle delivery method was likely already subject to the state’s gas tax. In essence, policymakers would be charging a double tax – one on the product delivery, the other on the gas to deliver it. This fee also indirectly adds to the bureaucratic burden for small business, and the bureaucratic implementation for government. In Colorado, the vendor must somehow indicate the retail delivery fee on each invoice, which can add hours to the accounting for a business. Colorado did attempt to fix this problem by giving the business an option to incorporate the fee into the price of the product. Creating new processes and procedures, however, can be a costly addition to any operation. Similarly, the state government would have to create a separate account for impacted retailers and would have to ensure compliance with the passed measures. This would involve additional taxpayer supplied staff needed to oversee the already costly program. Retail delivery fees are becoming more popular for policymakers attempting to make up for the loss of gas tax-related revenue due to electric vehicles. But the benefit for any government will come at the expense of businesses and consumers. In Washington state, delivery drivers already pay almost 50 cents per gallon in state fuel tax. This does not include the cost of the federal gas tax – $.184 per gallon – or the impact of the state’s cap and trade policies, estimated at roughly $.50 per gallon. In total, consumers pay about one dollar per gallon in taxes and fees in Washington. In Idaho and Montana, the state gas tax alone exceeds 30 cents per gallon. While some lawmakers may want to use a retail delivery tax as a clever and inconspicuous way to raise revenues for transportation projects, they would be wise to respond to these proposals by marking “return to sender.”

In June, we helped thousands of Idaho parents understand whether their local school district has the resources it needs to be successful. In our publication Idaho's 10 largest school districts: what the data shows, we dug into the numbers to show the staffing of each district, the average salaries of administrators, principals and teachers, and key ratios. All data contained in the publication came directly from the school district’s posted budget, as well as the Idaho Department of Education, using the most recent year available. Today, we're releasing Part II, which highlights the data from more districts around the state. Reading a school district budget can be the equivalent of learning another language.  Budget documents are a maze of numbers and legal jargon – if you can even find them. Depending on the district, they can be hidden on websites, and only accessible if you know where to look. When you finally do track down the document, it can be very difficult to read and understand. It is a good thing that budget documents are posted online. Unfortunately, transparency doesn’t mean much if it’s not understandable. In 2021, Idaho legislators passed House Bill 73, which tasks the state Controller to create a uniform accounting, budgeting, and financial reporting procedure. It is expected to be completed by January of 2025, and it will be another tool available to track results and demand accountability. In the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers introduced legislation to adopt the Public School Transparency Act – a Mountain States Policy Center idea to require districts on the first page of their budgets as well as on their website, clearly report key data including spending, student to teacher ratios and more. The idea had more than 80% support in MSPC’s 2022 Idaho Poll. While the legislation did not pass, lawmakers should continue to make it easier for parents and the community to understand budgets and compare and contrast districts across the state. Below is the data from additional school districts. We'll release even more in the coming months, and won't stop until all districts in our state, and in other states, have been highlighted in an easy to understand format. The release of all public data is paramount, but for working families and concerned citizens, certain data points are most important and should be easily found and understood – without a calculator or a degree in accounting.

Mountain State Policy Center (MSPC) joined a coalition amicus brief today in the case of Felchle v. Montana. The case concerns a law passed in 2023 by the Montana Legislature authorizing charter schools as an option for Montana families. The Montana Frontier Institute, Montana Family Foundation, and Ed Choice are the other coalition signers of the legal brief defending the new law. Until recently, Montana was one of the only states in the nation that didn’t allow for the creation of public charter schools. Overwhelming evidence, including research from Stanford University, has demonstrated the tremendous success charter schools are achieving. The Montana Legislature in 2023 passed two charter school bills - HB 562 and HB 549. As we previously reported, HB 562 was the stronger bill. As they have done in nearly every state that has voted to launch public charter schools, teachers’ union leaders and the League of Women Voters, among others, sued to prevent implementation of HB 562. Discussing our coalition effort, Kendall Cotton, President & CEO of Frontier Institute said: “It’s abundantly clear that Montana’s Community Choice Schools Act is constitutional, consistent with charter school programs in other states, and will enable free, high quality public education options open to all students. We and our co-signers are asking the court to uphold the Community Choice Schools Act and preserve this opportunity for Montana communities to expand the local public education system with student-centered Choice Schools.” Union activists behind the lawsuit to overturn HB 562 contend money spent on public charter schools diverts money from traditional public schools. Montana officials rightfully maintain that "no improper diversion occurs because choice schools are public entities and part of the public school system." A lower court previously confirmed the state is "likely correct." Charter schools are tuition-free schools that are publicly funded but independently run. Most charter schools are exempt from many state laws and regulations but are subject to a contract that includes goals, fiscal oversight, and accountability. If charter schools don't perform, they can be closed. We told Montana judges in our coalition brief (citations omitted): "Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, these positive academic results occurred in states where charter schools have broad exemptions from state laws and regulations affecting public schools. For example, Idaho charter schools experienced strong academic growth in reading compared to traditional public schools. In last year’s data, the ten best schools in Idaho for reading growth were all charter schools. Based on this success, Idaho has continued advancing laws that make charter schools easier to operate. Like Idaho, Missouri also had positive academic outcomes with charter schools, as it experienced overwhelmingly strong results in both reading and math in its charter schools compared to its traditional public schools. Perhaps broad exemptions afforded to charter schools help promote a quality education for students. For over three decades, children across the country have attended public charter schools and became more successful students as a result. Charter schools demonstrate positive effects on their students. Montana’s Choice Schools provide quality education because they follow the model that has led to success in other states." Idaho has more than 70 charter schools and a new law was passed this year that makes them easier to operate. Discussing Idaho’s charter schools, Kimberly School District Superintendent Luke Schroeder recently said: “You have to look at education for your entire community, not just your district. It’s human nature to be competitive, but we’ve got to put our egos aside and see what’s best for kids … At the end of the day, we just can’t be territorial about education.” MSPC believes that education choice means an all of the above approach – traditional public schools, public charter schools, magnet schools, micro-schools, homeschooling, and more. Allowing families more education options shouldn't be a controversial idea. Montanans have waited long enough. We’re hopeful that Montana judges will agree.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have joined in an agreement to award their Electoral College votes in a U.S. election to the winner of the national popular vote. The National Popular Vote compact (NPV), as it is called, has gained steam over the past 25 years, lead mostly by liberal leaning states eager to work around the Electoral College. The legislation, which is identical in each state, requires the state to award its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide. This could mean a candidate who doesn’t win a particular state could still receive the state’s electoral votes. It is not unusual for a state to decide to allocate electoral votes differently. Two states, for example, allocate electoral votes based on the winner of their Congressional districts. Other states have a winner-take-all system. But the NPV is problematic for several reasons. First, arguments about who won a close election would never end. Instead of being confined to one state or another based on the number of electoral votes a candidate may need, disputes would go national and parties could pick and choose areas to contest based on how many supporters they have. Second, there are serious constitutional questions, specifically regarding whether states can create a compact such as this without Congressional approval, and perhaps more importantly, whether the NPV violates the 14th Amendment, which says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The NPV compact specifically nullifies a citizen’s vote if the state’s electoral votes are simply transferred to the winner of the national popular vote. Analysts at the Cato Institute have noticed another trend now appearing in more conservative states to counteract any implementation of the NPV compact: “In North Dakota, the Republican‐​controlled state senate passed a bill saying their state will withhold its popular vote totals for president until after the Electoral College has voted in December. Instead, the state would only publish the rough percentages. This is deliberately aimed at making it impossible to properly calculate the national popular vote total in time to award electors on that basis. Similar bills have been introduced in other states.” As of 2024, Washington state has joined the NPV compact, but Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have not. To protect the legitimacy of elections and to preserve a voice in the Electoral College, they should avoid doing so.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers (PBMs) have a poorly understood role in the U.S. health care system. In general, drug manufacturers sell to wholesalers who then sell to pharmacies. In addition, most, if not all, insurance companies use PBMs to negotiate the best pricing from manufacturers. Drug wholesalers and PBMs provide a service, but this comes at an added cost to the consumer. The three largest PBMs control 80 percent of the retail drug market in the United States. Some of them, for example CVS, actually own pharmacies and direct their contracted insurance patients to their specific drug stores. PBMs will argue that they obtain better prices from manufacturers, but these contracts and the supposed benefits are not transparent. Actual contract pricing and rebates are usually closely guarded and not readily available to the public. What is known is that PBM companies, in general, have higher profit margins than drug manufacturers. Setting the retail price of pharmaceuticals is difficult enough without the added expense of PBMs. On average, it takes a drug manufacturer 10 to 15 years to bring a new drug to market at a cost of $2.5 to $5 billion. Drug wholesalers and pharmaceutical benefit managers may have a role in the drug market, but only if they add value for patients. Their contracts and pricing should be transparent, so consumers can decide the amount of value added. Because of the opaque nature of PBMs pricing and profit margins, federal officials of both political parties have become very concerned about their contribution to high drug costs. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability recently released a report that found that PBMs construct formularies of preferred medicines that direct patients to higher-priced drugs and to their PBM-owned pharmacies. Congress controls taxpayer spending in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare insurance programs and will undoubtedly look closely at the added benefit of PBMs, especially the Medicare plan. Congress also has the ability to legislate against PBMs in the private insurance market. With bipartisan support, this legislation may very well be forthcoming.

The ballot measure that could bring open primaries and ranked choice voting to Idaho may be shot down before it appears before voters. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador has filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court asking for the measure to be disqualified for two reasons: (1) because it promotes the measure as the "open primary initiative" despite the court ruling the measure “does not describe an ‘open primary’ system" and (2) the initiative makes "distinct changes to the primary election and separately to the voting system used in general election, which violates the single-subject rule for legislation and initiatives." Activists submitted more than 97,000 signatures to qualify the measure. Idaho state law requires valid signatures from six percent of voters in half of the state's 35 legislative districts. In addition to opening the primaries to all voters (instead of just parties choosing their candidates), the measure would implement ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election. The controversial voting system would require voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. Votes would be counted in rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to the second choice. If voters only chose one candidate, their vote could be tossed out. As we previously reported, coupling the issues (open primaries and RCV) together in the same measure raises serious constitutional concerns. Moving to a clean open primary is a debate worth having (preferably a Top Two). But Article 3, Section 16 of the Idaho State Constitution makes it clear that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Several years ago, lawmakers amended state law to require ballot initiatives only address a single subject. The reasoning here is simple: to ensure that it is easy to interpret voter intent. If a measure has multiple subjects, it is difficult to know what voters may have been approving or rejecting. A single subject rule is not unusual. Of the states that allow for a citizen-initiated ballot measure, more than half have single-subject rules. Single subject rules also exist to clarify actions of legislatures. In fact, 43 state constitutions contain single subject requirements for legislation. Mississippi and Arkansas apply the requirement to just spending bills. As it currently stands, are voters supporting open primaries or ranked choice voting with the ballot measure? They are two very different things. By linking the subjects together, voters are being denied the opportunity to support one or the other - something single subject restrictions are designed to prevent. In 2024, Princeton University professor Nolan McCarty conducted a study of ranked-choice elections in New York City and Alaska and found that minority voters are disproportionately impacted by this type of election process. Professor McCarty noted: “In recent years, ranked-choice voting has been hyped as a solution to many perceived problems in American elections. Unfortunately, the hype has often outpaced the evidence. My research raises major concerns about whether RCV may work to further reduce the electoral influence of racial and ethnic minority communities.” As we point out in our 2024 Policy Manual, adopting open primaries need not be limited to a take-it-or-leave- it proposition tied to the controversy of ranked-choice voting.

Raising the minimum wage is a policy discussion ripe with tradeoffs. On the one hand, a hike in hourly pay could help some low-income workers. On the other, small business owners would be hurt and, as a result, would likely employ fewer workers. The tradeoff is highlighted in the Mountain States. Washington state, for example, has hiked its minimum wage to $16.28 per hour. Wyoming and Idaho have kept the minimum wage at the federal minimum of $7.25, while Montana’s minimum wage sits at $10.30. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows Washington’s unemployment rate is 71% higher than Wyoming’s, 55% higher than Montana’s and 45% higher than Idaho’s. Economists across the political spectrum agree there are tradeoffs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says: “In general, increasing the federal minimum wage would raise the earnings and family income of most low-wage workers and thus lift some families out of poverty—but doing so would cause other low-wage workers to become jobless, and their family income would fall.” The CBO’s online tool allows users to plug in a minimum wage target and experience the consequences. For example, if the minimum wage were increased to $12 per hour, CBO data shows a decline in average weekly U.S. employment, as well as a drop in real family income. Research from the Harvard Business Review had similar findings. It concluded: “For every $1 increase in the minimum wage, we found that the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7%, while the average number of hours each worker worked per week decrease by 20.8%. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week — which meant that the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker in a California store actually fell by 13.6%. This decrease in the average number of hours worked not only reduced total wages, but also impacted eligibility for benefits." Government estimates seem to track with real-life data in cities and states that have raised their minimum wage. The University of Washington conducted a review of Seattle's increase of the minimum wage to $15, phased in over several years. Researchers wrote, "those earning less than $19 an hour saw wages rise by 3.4% once the city’s minimum wage was $13, while experiencing a 7.0% decrease in hours worked." In other words, the hike was costing jobs. In fact, the research showed there would be 5,000 more jobs in Seattle if the hike had not been adopted. Any minimum wage increase is particularly harmful to young people. In Indiana, a $2.10 wage increase was followed by a nearly eight percent decline in the number of 16- to 19-year-old workers. The Wall Street Journal recently summed up the problem: "Higher minimum wages often price teens out of the job market because they have the least skills and experience. Teens then miss out on valuable training and don’t learn important life lessons, such as showing up on time and being courteous to customers." While some businesses might be able to afford the hit of a minimum wage hike, others will not. Restaurants, retail and hospitality, for example, run on very low profit margins. The impact there is likely to be much more severe.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote this week on several bills related to online safety for children. A review of the legislation shows good intentions, but not necessarily good policy. The Kids Online Safety Act - or KOSA - aims at blocking online content that is harmful to children – including content that may cause anxiety or depression. While well-intentioned, the bill defines ‘harmful content’ vaguely, leaving a lot of room for interpretation for whoever is enforcing the legislation – in this case, the Federal Trade Commission. Giving this kind of blank check power to a large federal agency opens the door for government censorship since it will be up to their discretion to determine what content is allowed. The bill faces broad opposition from many groups across the ideological spectrum due to the cybersecurity, data privacy and constitutional issues it would create. The National Taxpayers Union writes: "However, the overly broad definition of harm—which includes more commonplace issues like social anxiety—means that a significant part of online activity could be subject to surveillance. As a result, the surveillance risks associated with KOSA are much higher than they would have been if harms were more narrowly defined." Mountain States Policy Center believes the concerns are well-justified. There are better policy proposals that would put parents – not the government - in the driver's seat. One alternative is the Invest in Child Safety Act. This legislation would "direct more than $5 billion in mandatory funding to investigate and target the predators and abusers who create and share child sexual abuse material online. It also directs substantial new funding for community-based efforts to prevent children from becoming victims in the first place." Our friends at NetChoice also have ideas on how to SHIELD children from online danger. Policies aimed at giving parents better tools to oversee their kids’ online activity should be a top priority for Congress. But bills such as KOSA raise too many privacy and constitutionality questions to be effective policy.

Idaho is one of only 13 states that still taxes groceries, and the Gem State has one of the highest rates at a full 6% (the state’s current sales tax). Montana doesn’t have a sales tax, while Wyoming exempts food and Washington does not attach its sales tax to most grocery items. In Utah, residents are currently charged 3% on groceries statewide, but lawmakers have proposed eliminating the state portion of the tax (currently 1.75%) via a ballot measure in November of 2024. Taxing food is controversial. Idaho offers a yearly rebate of $100-$120 to residents – a number that appears smaller as inflation roars. In 2017, then Idaho Lt. Governor Brad Little urged Governor Butch Otter to sign a proposed repeal of the state’s grocery tax. Other candidates and political leaders have called for a similar reduction or repeal, assuming that it would have a progressive effect. Instead of repealing or exempting the tax for all, grocery tax credits or rebates offer low income households better savings. Research from the Tax Foundation concludes: “Grocery exemptions are a middle -income, not a low -income, benefit—and middle earners can be more efficiently made whole through grocery tax credits. Higher earning households purchase not only more, but higher qualities of, groceries. Low-income households, in fact, are more likely to purchase taxable substitutes to what states classify as groceries, a category that traditionally only covers unprepared foods. The result is that a household in the fifth decile spends almost 70 percent more than a household in the first decile, and a household in the top decile spends over three times as much as a household in the lowest. The distributional effects of grocery taxation diverge sharply from most policymakers’ expectations, which has dramatic ramifications for this ongoing debate and suggests better ways to achieve policymakers’ desired aims.” Sales taxes are more stable and pro-growth than other forms of taxation – especially income taxes. Policymakers can better serve citizens by adopting higher yearly grocery tax rebates and focusing additional tax relief on reducing income taxes.

Limiting options is not a way to reduce costs or improve care. Certificate of Need (CON) laws are a state regulatory tool that seeks to limit the number of health care resources in a specific area under the theory that excess facilities will lead to excess costs. In fact, the opposite is true. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that CON laws can restrict investments that would benefit consumers and are likely to increase, rather than constrain, healthcare costs. Idaho and Wyoming do not have a CON law. Montana’s CON requirement is limited to nursing homes. Washington state’s CON requirement, which has been in place since 1971, is much more restrictive. As of January 2020, health care services in Washington that needed a Certificate of Need included: Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) Assisted Living & Residential Care Facilities Burn Care Cardiac Catheterization Home Health Hospice Hospital Beds (Acute, General Licensed, Med-Surg, etc.) Neonatal Intensive Care New Hospitals or Hospital-Sized Investments Nursing Home Beds / Long-Term Care Beds Obstetrics Services Open-Heart Surgery Organ Transplants Psychiatric Services Rehabilitation Renal Failure/Dialysis Substance/Drug Abuse Swing Beds Analysts at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University have found that there would be more health care services, as well as savings in the cost of healthcare spending in Washington state, if there were no Certificate of Need requirement.

On May 16th, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a final environmental impact statement on the Powder River Basin, stating that it will no longer be coal leasing on that land. This basin, stretching from Northeast Wyoming to Southern Montana, is the largest coal supplier in the country, and has been the backbone of Wyoming’s economy. The Powder River Basin is made up of 12 plants that together, roughly produced 220 million short tons of federal coal in 2022. The BLM points out that these plants used to generate closer to 400 million short tons at their peak in 2008. As the data shows, these plants are still incredibly high-functioning and provide a substantial amount of energy for citizens across the country. These plants supply 43% of the nation’s coal production. This decision to end coal leasing was made due to a federal court order that directed the BLM to analyze the impacts of a land management plan after the original impact plan was supposedly not satisfactory due to lack of climate consideration. The public had a 30-day protest period before this measure takes effect which expired on June 17th. Existing coal leases will run through 2041. This order comes at a historic time, as the Biden administration continues to crack down on CO2 emissions. Recently in late April, the EPA confirmed a new rules package that gave Wyoming three very difficult options for its coal-fired units. They could either shut down by January 2032, convert to natural gas co-firing by 2030, with a forced shutdown on January 1st, 2039, or install Co2 capture facilities by 2032. Wyoming has been the nation’s top coal producer since 1986, and this Powder River basin supplied the top ten producing mines in America4. Unfortunately, in Wyoming, the BLM manages 42.9 million acres of federal mineral estate. Executive Director of the Wyoming Mining Association, Travis Deti, commented: “The Biden Administration continues its aggressive, ridiculous assault on our coal industry. The banning of further federal coal leasing will kill thousands of Wyoming jobs, put families in economic jeopardy, devastate the state’s revenue base and put the already rickety American electricity grid at greater risk of failure.” With all the pending lawsuits, the loss of baseload electricity has been a major point of concern during the shutdowns of these coal plants, and rightfully so. For more information on this, see our study on Wyoming’s power portfolio. But another aspect that is going to be drastically impacted is public services. Wyoming can fund a substantial amount of its services by royalties on mineral extraction and energy production. The state has been able to avoid raising taxes because of this model. But now, the Powder River Basin shutdown could threaten that. Senator John Barrasso also made a statement on the recent measure at Powder River Basin, "President Biden Continues to wage war on Wyoming’s coal communities and families. This will kill jobs and could cost Wyoming hundreds of millions of dollars used to pay for public schools, roads, and other essential services in our communities.” This mineral revenue is used for many critical functions in Wyoming, one of which is funding the K-12 system. Like most states, Wyoming funds its education system by property taxes. But what is unique is that minerals, including coal, pay 50% of its property taxes. This allows Wyoming to have the 5th lowest property taxes in the nation. As a result of declining coal and natural gas production and prices, as well as an increase in emission restrictions, in 2021 Wyoming found itself in a $300 million annual structural deficit. This forced Wyoming to tap into its “rainy day fund,” also known as its Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account (LSRA). But it cannot afford to continually take from that fund. There must be a long-term permanent fix. Wyoming currently has excellent results in K-12 education. It’s known as the “best in the west” in terms of K-12 education, ranking 4th in the country by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). I was recently able to get the perspective of Megan Degenfelder, Wyoming’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, on this matter. My questions are bolded below. Does Superintendent Degenfelder support the current funding model for K-12 education? What changes would she make? The response: “The superintendent supports equitable and adequate school funding as determined by school finance experts retained by the legislature. While she acknowledges the importance of the existing system, she believes there are areas needing improvement to better serve students and parents.” Does Superintendent Degenfelder see the EPA's restrictions on coal emissions as a potential harm to the K-12 system? The response: “It is an enormous threat to the K-12 system. The restrictions threaten crucial funding sources for public education, as Wyoming heavily relies on revenues from coal and other mineral extractions. These funds are vital for maintaining and improving the state's education system, and any decrease in revenue could lead to budget shortfalls and reduced educational services.” Does Superintendent Degenfelder see any legislative path to reconcile the EPA's guidelines with K-12 funding? The response: “She does not. The Biden Administration has not signaled it will make affordable, domestically produced energy a priority.” No matter what perspective an individual takes on this BLM ruling, it is evident that this will significantly harm Wyoming’s K-12 funding model if no substantial, permanent, long-term plan is achieved by 2041 when these plants are scheduled to be retired.