Idaho was among 17 states that successfully sought a repeal of California’s harmful electric truck mandates, called the “Advanced Clean Fleet.” The original rule from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would have placed onerous burdens on trucking companies to “phase out” internal combustion engines in favor of electric vehicles – introducing higher costs and uncertainty into the supply chain. Because California’s rule would have applied to out-of-state companies, its effect would have extended far beyond California’s borders. The California Globe reports that 30% of vehicle imports come through California, meaning that the mandates “would be imposed on the entire country as well.” As a result of the Idaho-backed legal challenge, California recently agreed to repeal its costly mandates . Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador praised the settlement, as his office played a key part in getting these rules eliminated instead of just letting them take effect. Labrador said the settlement “is a major win for state sovereignty, economic freedom, and the constitutional limits on unilateral regulation.” He also noted in his weekly newsletter update : “California is free to pursue its own environmental goals within its own borders. What it cannot do is transform the nation’s trucking standards by threatening exclusion from its markets. Idaho joined this litigation to defend the principle that policy decisions with nationwide consequences must be made through constitutional processes—not dictated by a single state’s regulatory agency.” Electric vehicles, along with electric trucks, will continue to be a growing share of the vehicle fleet, but mandating a transition while the technology is still in its relative infancy is problematic. Range continues to plague electric trucks  as they carry heavy payloads, and a lack of electrification infrastructure requires massive upgrades from power and utility companies to supply vehicles. Finally, those incorporating electric trucks today cite costly infrastructure, like “behind-the-fence charging,” as the main hurdle to feasibility. State officials and lawmakers should avoid mandating costly and burdensome EV requirements. As prices fall via competition and innovation, freight movers will adopt these technologies voluntarily. Mandating trucks to be EVs may work against the intended purpose and make matters worse. Thankfully, this successful legal challenge provides more time for market solutions to work. The full settlement can be found here .

The State of Idaho and the Trump Administration have taken another step towards advancing nuclear energy research. The two parties agreed to waive the previously established mandate that put restrictions on Idaho’s role in storing spent nuclear fuel. Energy demands are rapidly rising nationwide, and studies have shown that the popular renewable sources of wind and solar can’t reliably bear the load. Idaho and the federal government understand just how important clean nuclear advancement is to American energy independence and dominance.   The original 1995 settlement agreement was initially due to rapid nuclear research around the Cold War. There were lots of advancements happening within Idaho, but after the Cold War ended, there was a national discussion on what should happen with the toxic waste and spent fuel. This agreement set some ground rules for nuclear activity in Idaho and originally aimed to make sure Idaho didn’t become a dumping ground. The agreement made between Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the federal government prevented the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) from being a permanent storage place for spent nuclear fuel. Stakeholders thought that this struck a good balance between nuclear advancements and environmental stewardship.   This initial agreement was not made with the possibilities of the future of the energy sector in mind. Now, there is a push to transition away from coal and fossil fuels to more “green” forms of energy, but wind and solar are far too intermittent and not reliable. A recent example of this was the massive power outage in Spain  a couple of weeks ago. That country transitioned over the last 15 years from powering 31% of the grid with renewable sources to 57% in 2025. The result left a huge strain on the intermittent "green” sources, and eventually, a collapse of the grid. Multiple regions have also found that during extreme weather events such as hail and wind, solar and wind power simply can’t hold up. Not only does the initial production decrease, but studies have shown  that it has lasting impacts. This leaves nuclear and hydro as possible alternatives to boost baseload power.   This new agreement specifically allows North Anna Power Plant, a Virginia-based operation, to send its spent nuclear fuel to INL for further research. INL is the leading lab in the country when it comes to nuclear research. Its 6,400 employees work in Twin Falls to diligently perform groundbreaking research in fission power. The INL will look at the nuclear fuel cycle, electrochemistry, and fueling options to better serve the 93 plants around the country that produce roughly 50% of the nation’s carbon-free electricity.   Idaho Governor Brad Little celebrated the waiver saying,  “ The collaborative effort between the State of Idaho, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Idaho National Laboratory showcases our commitment to advancing nuclear energy research while upholding the goals of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. We are proud to support innovation in nuclear energy that will support national security and energy independence into the future.”    Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy said,   “Idaho National Laboratory is DOE’s lead lab for nuclear energy research and development, and it is critical that we continue to grow this research capacity and maintain American competitiveness. This agreement between the State of Idaho and DOE ensures the lab can continue its cutting-edge research to advance nuclear technology, helping to meet President Trump’s commitment to unleash American energy dominance.”   The director for the INL, John Wagner, commented ,   “As the nation’s center for nuclear energy research and development, we look forward to utilizing our unique facilities and expertise to support this critical national need. We are thankful to the Department of Energy and the state of Idaho for entrusting us with the safe and secure execution of our vital mission.”    This waiver comes right after Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming teamed up to collaborate in advancing nuclear energy infrastructure in late April. The recent memorandum of understanding between the states takes multiple angles at progressing nuclear energy. It links up all of the states’ universities, labs, and industry partners together, along with the INL, to advance this baseload clean power source of the future. It also focuses on working on advocating for private investment and innovation, successfully navigating the regulatory system, and ensuring that the environment stays protected.   Utah Governor Spencer Cox said,   “The West will lead the next chapter of energy abundance and American prosperity. Today, we brought together industry leaders, investors, and policymakers to chart the course for nuclear energy. Our new compact strengthens our shared commitment to aggressively pursue more affordable, reliable energy across state lines.”   In Kuna, Idaho alone, Meta is building a nearly 1 million square foot data center , and Diode Ventures is expected to invest at least $1 billion in their data center complex . Idaho has proven to be a fantastic location for these centers. The Gem State has affordable energy and wants to make sure these new companies don’t run into problems straining the local energy grid. A prudent way to accommodate this new business is by investing in nuclear advancements, which is exactly what this new waiver agreement does.   This research will help support the existing U.S. nuclear reactors, which make up nearly 20% of the nation’s overall electricity base. Idaho’s collaboration with neighboring states and the federal government should prove to be effective. The country is searching for power sources to meet the energy and environmental demands of the future. Idaho and the federal government believe that they have found the answer and will continue to invest in nuclear energy.

Idaho’s housing policy is getting a much-needed renovation, and some of the first demo days occurred during the session. With the approval of Senate Bill 1164  requiring a 10-day notice of completed applications, the Idaho legislature made it clear it is focused on removing unwanted obstacles to increasing the housing supply. The legislature is also working on a building plan to increase the housing supply with the Senate’s Concurrent Resolution 103 , which formed a committee focused on housing policies.   Senate Bill 1164 delivered the first demolition to unwanted bureaucratic features of the construction industry. All housing plans must go through a permitting process to ensure the work meets minimum safety standards for construction. Unfortunately, in many localities across the nation, the permitting times are slow and expensive, leading to work delays and increased housing costs. SB 1164 requires local governments processing residential building permits to increase transparency of the permitting process and provide notice if an application is incomplete in a timely 10-day manner.   Removing some of the construction-industry-related red tape is a noteworthy effort and SB 1164  takes some initial steps in removing this unwanted façade. However, more steps should be taken to completely demolish the unhelpful and encumber some bureaucratic maze facing builders. Florida is an excellent example of the next steps Idaho could take to ensure that local governments have an interest in being held accountable to these laws. Florida enacted a fiscal consequence on local jurisdictions not processing permits in a timely manner, and the permitting delays were resolved in some counties within months of enactment.   This is a possible solution that the legislature’s interim committee  can look at as part of Concurrent Resolution 103. The charge of the committee is to undertake and complete a study of state and local land use regulations and their impact on housing supply. The members of the 2025 Land Use and Housing Study Committee include: Sen James W. Woodward (Co-Chair), Sen. Todd M. Lakey, Sen. Alison Rabe (bill sponsor), Rep. Jordan Redman (Co-Chair), Rep. Kyle Harris, and Rep. Theodore B. Achilles.   The committee’s initiative is apparent with the first scheduled meeting announced for Wednesday, May 14, 2025. This urgency is needed because the committee has a lot to accomplish if they are to model the Montana working group that addressed similar housing affordability and regulatory concerns, as stated by bill sponsor Senator Rabe during the committee hearing.   The Montana Governor’s Housing Task Force  was a multi-year effort initiated by Governor Gianforte’s executive orders No. 5-2022 and 3-2023. The final report was presented in June 2024. The taskforce was formed on July 14, 2022 and consisted of members appointed by the governor, including state and local elected officials, state agencies, state boards, councils, and commissions, housing-related professional associations, advisory groups, and researchers, among others.   The first report was submitted in October 2022 and focused on actions the legislature could consider and the governor could sign into law (Phase 1). The second report in December was focused on regulatory changes that could be adopted by state agencies and local governments (Phase 2). The executive order was extended in 2023 in order to “have the Task Force expand upon its work” and was referred to as Phase 3.   As part of Phase 3, committee members distributed various “projects” and determined what was working and what was not working. The evidence was asked to include specific case studies of successful and challenging projects. Through it all, the public was encouraged to attend and participate in the meetings. The task force met 10 times between October 2023 and June 2024, as part of phase 3. The final report consisted of 23 final recommendations.   Any remodeling will start with a plan and a demo day, and that is exactly what the Idaho legislature accomplished this year by addressing this rising concern among Idahoans (now the fourth most concerning issue). Idaho needs changes offering solutions to the ongoing housing affordability crisis by increasing supply and thereby decreasing cost. SB 1164 began the much-needed demolition and hopefully the interim committee will be able to add a solution-based plan for the rest of the process.

When Lander resident Tina Clifford sent a public records request in August 2024 to Fremont County seeking more detailed election information than that had been reported publicly, she wasn’t sure to whom she should send it, what it would cost or how long it would take. Nothing on the Fremont County website even mentions public records requests. Ms. Clifford decided to send it to County Clerk Julie Freese. For over three weeks she didn’t hear anything and emailed her again seeking an update. County Attorney Nathan Maxon returned her email and told her that two employees had thus far spent eighteen hours on her request. That time would not cost Ms. Clifford, he wrote, but the remaining work would be billed to her at $70 per hour with an estimated cost of $560. He requested that she let him know if she wanted the remaining work done. Clifford’s experience is just one of many examples of the arbitrary response times, lack of transparency and clear instructions on how or where to send a public records request in Wyoming. It’s also why the Public Records Act should be overhauled during next year’s legislative session. The current Public Records Act  does require the government to respond promptly showing receipt of the request and to release requested records no later than 30 days after sending the receipt unless good cause exists to extend the time frame. But a court ruling found that government entities may charge a “reasonable fee” for reproducing records – leaving open the possibility that different people could be charged different amounts and that counties within the state could set vastly different fees for the same type of request. That’s why Rep. Pepper Ottman (R-Riverton) would like to see consistency across the state with specifics on how to submit requests, what can be released and fees that are consistent across the state. She’d also like the law to clearly state who is responsible for handling public records requests. Ottman is hopeful reform will be debated in next year’s shortened budget legislative session. Here are some of Mountain States Policy Center’s ideas to strengthen the Public Records Act: Don’t distinguish between requesters. Bad actors exist everywhere and there should be equal treatment for everyone. Have a set fee schedule detailed in statute for everyone. Process large record requests in installments, and cancel requests if the fee is not paid for the first installment. Allow requestors to narrow or refine requests if the time estimate is too long and/or fees are too large. Use the federal definition from the National Freedom of Information Coalition research for burdensome requests. The state’s Public Records Ombudsman could then be empowered to hear concerns from a government entity if that definition has been met. Provide Wyoming’s Public Records Ombudsman with more authority to assist and mediate disputes. Some requests can’t be fulfilled by statute, including an individual’s income tax forms, school and medical records and government personnel files, among others. And some requests require a large amount of time to complete and may not be able to be finished within a 30-day time frame. But both government employees and those requesting information should have a clear understanding of their obligations, fees, timing and how the process is supposed to work.   Having easily understood regulations is no guarantee that the government will comply as the thousands of lawsuits against the federal government for not fulfilling public records requests can attest to. But passing an enhanced Public Records Act would build trust in state and local government. In addition, state and local government agencies would do themselves a big favor by proactively posting as much information online as possible so that they can avoid public records requests through transparency.   Strengthening the Public Records Act should not be a partisan issue. Every resident deserves a government accountable to the people it serves. Legislators should prioritize it in 2026.

President Trump joined with miners, legislators, and stakeholders to announce his Executive Orders on April 18th aimed at revitalizing the coal industry and unleashing the American energy sector. Trump’s action will direct the National Energy Dominance Council to designate coal as a mineral and require agencies to lift all anti-coal policies that add unnecessary restrictions. Additionally, it streamlines the leasing and permitting processes to promote an environment of efficiency and dominance around the mineral arena. Among the reopened leasing programs is Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon were present for the signing of these energy orders. Both of these governors are major supporters of getting the government out of the private sector’s way and letting the free market pave the way in the energy industry.   The President noted , “Already under our leadership, the Department of Interior has already approved the expansion of the Spring Creek Mine in Montana, supporting 280 coal mining jobs, unlocking over 40 million tons of coal. There is more to come.”    Governor Gianforte said,  “I’ll continue to work with the President and his administration to ensure Montanans have access to affordable and reliable energy for their homes, schools, and small businesses.”   Montana has a wealth of energy operations, including coal, wind, solar, and small hydroelectric plants. Its production of coal is the 6th highest  in the country, and accounts for roughly 30% of recoverable coal reserves in the country. Exporting this energy source to other states and Western Canada makes the local economy dependent upon coal mining and production. Governor Gianforte has balanced both lowering emissions and being environmentally conscious, with growing and supporting the local energy economy. He’s launching the “Unleashing Energy Task Force,” focused on continuing to develop a long-term vision and action points for Montana to generationally provide quality energy for states and nearby countries, in turn, ensuring the economy sustainably grows and offers a great way of life to miners and other industry workers. Governor Gordon commented  at the signing ceremony, “This is a great day for Wyoming coal. We produce more coal than any other state in the nation. These Executive Orders will be impactful for our state’s coal industry and will help ensure Wyoming coal is available to help meet our nation’s growing energy demand. I thank President Trump for his work in freeing our country from the unnecessarily burdensome regulations imposed on the coal industry by the Biden Administration.” Wyoming has been the leader of coal mining  in the country since 1986. It supplies approximately 40% of U.S. energy through its top 10 coal plants. The 15 operational coal mines in Wyoming provide employment and compensation to over 5,000 workers and their families. Wyoming also funds its K-12 education through royalties on mineral extraction and power production. As these Biden-era restrictions are lifted on emission standards, Wyoming can take a sigh of relief as its education funding model won’t immediately need to be redrawn. Biden’s orders over his presidency continually added more regulations and restrictions to the coal industry that left many wondering if their way of life was going to become extinct. This batch of Executive Orders also encourages the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources (SER) to continue its endeavors to develop new technologies that focus on carbon capture and conversion. As the government lets academic and free market entrepreneurs lead, innovations will reduce the environmental and carbon impact of coal production. While some have a false assumption that less red tape equals outrageous CO2 emissions, it’s becoming apparent that it isn’t the case. Governor Gordon supports less regulation but is also the Chair of the “Decarbonizing the West”  initiative within the Western Governors’ Association. He puts his energy into carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies as well as natural sequestration processes to reduce the effects of carbon emissions. Governmental officials, consumers and producers are increasingly paying more attention to the effects of carbonization, and the best path to work on this issue is to let leading experts and businesspeople free to innovate without massive governmental interference.   Coal numbers have been consistently trending downwards  in the U.S. In 2000, coal plants made up almost 50% of U.S energy, while today the statistic is much closer to 20%. The recent measures taken by Trump are incredibly timely because U.S. energy demand is rising  due to data centers that are hungry for cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. The “Unleashing American Energy” agenda aims to meet these increasing energy demands, improve the local economy, and allow the government to generate revenue through these sectors if necessary.   Numerous coal plants around the country that were uncertain due to previous executive action will now have an opportunity to expand and renew their lease thanks to President Trump’s Executive Orders. State leaders such as Governor Gordon and Gianforte are demonstrating how officials can promote their state-specific legislation, work with the mining community, and partner with the federal government to unleash American energy.

The 2025 Legislative Session is officially over in Montana. Lawmakers in the Treasure State focused on several priorities during their time in Helena, including record income tax relief, reducing business costs with unemployment insurance reform, and clarifying environmental laws in response to court rulings. There were a couple of missed opportunities as well, and although property tax relief bills were approved, more work needs to be done to avoid further cost shifting and to bring greater transparency to why property taxes are increasing. Although not as large as originally proposed by Governor Gianforte , record income tax relief was adopted  with the approval of HB 337 . The various income tax changes are expected to save taxpayers more than $750 million over the next four years. Even with this record tax cut, there is more work to be done in Montana. As noted by the Governor: “The reality is, even after our historic tax cuts in 2021 and 2023, we still have the highest income tax rate in the region and one of the highest in the nation.” Continuing the tax cut theme, lawmakers also adopted HB 210  to reduce the state’s unemployment insurance burden for businesses. These changes are expected to save employers approximately $250 million over the next decade. Secretary of State Jacobsen said: “We’ve had record business growth in the state of Montana under Republican leadership in the last four years. In 2024, we had over 64,000 new businesses in the state. This is just a continued move to have historic tax cuts for Montana businesses and getting government out of the way so Montana businesses can thrive.” Property tax reform was a big focus of the 2025 Legislative Session, but structural changes may need to wait for the next time lawmakers meet in 2027. SB 542  essentially freezes property tax values for the next two years, while HB 231  did reduce property taxes, but did it by shifting the burden to other taxpayers. Not acted on was the proposal for Truth in Taxation  to bring greater transparency to what drives the property tax burden – spending. As noted by  Senate Taxation Committee Chair Greg Hertz: “Unfortunately, all we did was just rearrange who is paying property taxes in Montana.” Along with reforming taxes, lawmakers spent time addressing the state Supreme Court’s controversial environmental rulings . Discussing these bills, Governor Gianforte said: “Last year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that if left unchecked would have impacted Montana’s energy sector at time when Americans have seen electricity costs soar nearly 30 percent in the last four years. This package of legislation reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.” According to the Governor’s press release , the five reform bills are: HB 285  - Reaffirms that the purpose of environmental reviews is procedural in nature and is to share information with policymakers and the public. HB 270  - Clarifies that courts may not vacate permits without properly considering a number of factors in law, including impacts to Montana’s economy and the public interest. HB 291  - Makes it clear that the State of Montana cannot adopt air quality standards that are stricter than the federal government’s, except in specific circumstances. HB 466  - Outlines that projects that are exempt from National Environmental Policy Act are also exempt from MEPA, reducing burdensome red tape and potentially duplicative processes. SB 221  - Clearly states what impacts are required to be included in MEPA assessments and directs DEQ to develop guidance for use by state agencies. While Montana's 2025 Legislative Session saw mostly positive outcomes for supporters of the free market and limited government policies, there were a couple of curious decisions. One was the approval of HB 477 to ban Styrofoam products . Another was the failure to advance SB 94 to end taxpayer subsidies of government union activities . When all was said and done during the 85 days of session, Montana lawmakers debated a record 1,759 bills , sending 803 of those to the Governor’s desk. Realizing these are part-time lawmakers who have sacrificed time away from their families and regular jobs, Mountain States Policy Center sends our thanks for their service and commitment to the people of the Treasure State.

School district budgets are a maze of numbers and jargon that most citizens cannot understand. Even some lawmakers have difficulty concluding if a school district is spending money properly. Idaho’s largest school district, the West Ada School District, has a budget that can be found online, but it is hundreds of pages long and includes six different funds and 36 different programs. In Montana, the Billings Public School district is the state’s largest. Finding its budget on the district’s website is nearly impossible. That's why Mountain States Policy Center is proud to release the nation's first Public School Transparency Index . This tool - available online, via download or even print on Amazon - will allow citizens, taxpayers, elected officials and more the opportunity to compare and contrast key data from school districts in the state of Idaho. Other versions featuring data from school districts in Montana, Wyoming and Washington will also be released. "Transparency doesn’t mean much if it’s not understandable," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. "Parents and taxpayers may see this data and conclude their school districts need more resources. Others may see it and believe that not enough is being done to spend money in the classroom. Regardless, the community will have a broader sense of the results being achieved, and what – if any – changes need to be made." One of Mountain States Policy Center's key recommendations is for lawmakers to adopt a Public School Transparency Act - a law that would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, report key financial data, including: Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year Amount and percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom Average administrator salary and benefits Average teacher salary and benefits Ratio of administrators to teachers to students Education leaders including Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield have told MSPC they support the concept of a Public School Transparency Act. “It’s a positive for our schools if the communities they serve understand how tax dollars are being spent," Critchfield said. "Let’s face it, school budgets tend to be complex and this is a step that helps simplify the way they’re communicated publicly.” MSPC's Public School Transparency Index can be found online here.

Washington state lawmakers this year increased the cost to both buy a vehicle and fill the gas tank, adding an additional 0.2% sales tax to car purchases and a $0.06 per gallon tax increase on fuel. They argue the new taxes are needed to maintain highway and ferry infrastructure, yet politicians furthered their efforts to tax drivers and divert a large share of those taxes to other purposes. While an attempt was also made again to tax drivers by the mile to divert money, lawmakers “[waved] the white flag”  on the issue this legislative session. This mileage tax will likely resurface again. The transportation tax bill currently sits on Governor Ferguson's desk for signature. The new transportation spending can be found in Senate Bill 5161 , a nearly $16 billion tax package based on increases in the fuel tax, license fees, and other taxes. The most notable, and controversial, project is funding the Columbia River Crossing, an estimated $5.4 billion bridge connecting Vancouver, WA to Portland, OR. Light rail has been a controversy on the proposal, comprising nearly 40% of the project cost, yet it is estimated to carry just 2.4% of trip demand across the bridge . The Seattle area is facing a similar position, as many officials there support an expensive West Seattle connection that would only increase transit mode share across the bridge by one percent . At a time when DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) is in full swing at the federal level, state and local lawmakers are still eyeing big projects that promise to do little. Should the Governor sign the bill, Washington state will continue to be less business and family-friendly than its Mountain States neighbors. Since 1980, Washington state has raised the gas tax in 13 of 44 years, and the state tax on gasoline will now reach 55.4 cents per gallon, keeping it among the highest in the country, even without the added cap and trade tax. This higher gas tax will also be indexed to inflation, ensuring year-over-year increases in taxes are built into the price of gas. For comparison, Idaho's gas tax is 32 cents and Montana's is 33 cents per gallon. Lawmakers also raised the sales tax on cars and recreational vehicles. Even though the state sales tax is currently 6.5% on retail sales, the state also imposes a special 0.3% sales tax rate on car sales for non-highway purposes. Lawmakers increased that special sales tax to 0.5%. Heavier vehicles will also see increases in annual registration fees – for cars 4,000-6,000 pounds, for example, annual fees will increase 36%, from $55 per year to $75. Even if you don’t own a vehicle and use ridesharing services or rent a car, expect your trip to get more expensive. Lawmakers increased the rideshare tax to 11.9%. Other fees, like tire disposal fees, driver’s license fees, title and registration fees, and filing fees, also increased. In sum, expect driving to cost even more time and money in the Evergreen State. While Washington does have immense transportation needs, diverting driver fees to other modes or to subsidize light rail across the Columbia River opens the opportunity for road projects to continue to languish. A recent Reason Foundation report showed Washington state highways ranked 47th  in cost-effectiveness and performance in the country, receiving poor ranks in spending per mile and pavement condition in urban and rural areas. Traffic congestion also continues to build across the state, with Seattle ranking 10th  in the country in time lost due to traffic in 2024.

The Montana legislature has passed a controversial bill that would ban the use of styrofoam containers by the food industry within five years. The measure - House Bill 477 - is now before Governor Greg Gianforte awaiting his signature. It's an admirable effort, but not one that will make a difference. In fact, it could do more harm than good. Proponents have argued that styrofoam is not only bad for health but also bad for the environment. But banning styrofoam has consequences. First, the legislation would force restaurants and other businesses to switch to more expensive packaging alternatives. This cost increase would be passed onto consumers at time when many are already struggling to make ends meet. A paper cup, for example, costs about 2.5 times more than a styrofoam cup. Second, the impact on the environment. A paper cup requires 12 times the amount of water and 36 times the amount of electricity to produce. A Dutch study also found sourcing material for foam cups and shipping "uses 22 percent less petroleum than is needed for paper cups, and producing foam cups doesn’t require the use of harsh chemicals such as chlorine dioxide." Third, there's little evidence to show the bans in other cities have actually helped protect the environment. In fact, more than 100 cities and a dozen states have passed laws that restrict or ban the use of styrofoam, many of them in California. However, the California State Water Resources Control Board concluded that “mere substitution would not result in reduced trash generation if such product substitution would be discarded in the same manner as the banned item.” Going after businesses in the state for using styrofoam also seems particularly unfair. After all, they are not the ones throwing the product into the litter stream. Consumers and law-abiding businesses shouldn't be penalized simply because others may not be responsible. Simply banning a product is an easy way to address a potential problem. Real solutions, however, take hard work and often don't involve the government at all.

If there was a theme for the 2025 Legislative Sessions in our region, it was major tax changes. On the negative side of the ledger are the “historic” tax increases  rammed through in Washington state. On the positive side are the “record” tax cuts enacted in Idaho and Montana. Consider these regional headlines from the past month: “ Idaho delivers largest income tax cut in state history, sending another $253 million back to Idahoans ” “ Governor Gianforte Celebrates Largest Income Tax Cut in State History ” “[WA] Legislature passes largest tax increase in state history ” As for Montana, House Bill 337  lowers the current 5.9% income tax rate to 5.65% in 2026 and then 5.4% in 2027. The new law also increases the number of Montanans eligible for the lower tax bracket of 4.7% and doubles the state’s earned income tax credit. Capital gains will also now be taxed at 4.1%. The total four-year savings for taxpayers are expected to be around $756 million . Discussing this record tax relief in Montana, Governor Gianforte said: “As leaders elected to serve Montanans who sent us to Helena, we all want the same thing: to open the doors of greater opportunity so more Montanans can thrive, prosper, and achieve the American dream. Today, we’re doing just that. Today, we’re delivering the largest tax cut in Montana’s history – once again.” Montana House Speaker Brandon Ler noted: “This is a historic day for the people of Montana. Standing here on the steps of the Capitol, I’m proud to say we are delivering on the largest income tax cut in the history of the state. This bill is a firm commitment to the conservative principles we all stand for. We said from the beginning that we wanted to build a tax system that was fairer, flatter, and more focused on growth and that’s what we’ve done.” Even with this record tax cut, there is more work to be done in Montana. As noted by the Governor: “The reality is, even after our historic tax cuts in 2021 and 2023, we still have the highest income tax rate in the region and one of the highest in the nation.” For comparison, here are some of the current top regional income tax rates: Montana – 5.9% reducing to 5.65% in 2026 and then 5.4% in 2027 Idaho - 5.3% ( reduced this year ) Utah – 4.55% Colorado – 4.25% (temporary – capped at 4.40%) North Dakota – 2.5% Nevada/South Dakota/Washington/Wyoming – No personal income tax (though Washington does have a standalone 7%-9.9% capital gains income tax) While this tax relief is fantastic news for the Treasure and Gem States, things didn’t turn out so well for taxpayers in the Evergreen State. Here is the joint statement  from the Association of Washington Business, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Washington Roundtable in strong opposition to the passage of the largest tax increase in Washington state history: “We are deeply disappointed by the legislature’s decision to approve nearly $9.4 billion in state and $3 billion local, for a total of over $12 billion in tax increases — an unprecedented move that comes at the worst possible time for working families and local employers. As Washingtonians struggle with rising inflation, affordability challenges, and economic uncertainty, these massive tax hikes — as much as 400% in some sectors — will hit hard on small businesses and the communities they serve. Childcare providers, assisted living centers, repair shops, wholesale groceries, and other local retailers already operating on thin margins will now be faced with the choice to raise prices, cut jobs or close their doors.” Thanks to the drastically different tax approaches of these three states, we’ll have a natural case study to see how the economic outlook of each one changes as a result of these tax decisions. If history is any guide, Idaho and Montana may soon be bestowing Washington lawmakers with their “Realtor of the Year” awards.

Even Mark Twain, the king of idioms, would have trouble understanding the phrases in the Clean Water Act’s  (CWA) waters of the US (WOTUS) definition and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation. Years have been wasted in fruitlessly hoping the government agency would spill the beans  on the regulatory definition of ‘WOTUS’, and its related terms of ‘navigable water,’ ‘surface connection, ’‘adjacent,’ and ‘significant nexus.’ Those citizens who have dealt with the EPA on any of these interpretations know to take the agency’s word as a grain of salt .       In 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote  “the reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” and faulted Congress for “not defin[ ing ] what it meant by ‘the waters of the United States’,” as, he says, “the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate” [ Sackett v. EPA  2012]. The Sacketts are a North Idaho couple who endured a 15-year legal battle. Their first round at the Supreme Court in 2012 decided if the couple even had standing to bring the case against the EPA.   In 2023 , the Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, agreeing that building a home on a piece of property separated from Priest Lake by a row of homes and a dirt road should not be considered a WOTUS under the CWA. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling , brought clarity to many of the terms used in the Clean Water Act, but the EPA still needed to engage stakeholders in order to clarify interpretations for agency staff. A preliminary amended rule in September 2023 reflected the decision of the court but it circumvented much needed public commentary.   On March 24, 2025, the EPA, in combination with the Army Corps of Engineers, issued a notice in the Federal Register  announcing listening sessions and requesting feedback. The announcement is related to the implementation of the definition of the “waters of the United States (WOTUS)” based on the 2023 SCOTUS opinion. The listening sessions are seeking feedback on the scope of the following terms and their associated features: “Relatively permanent” waters “Continuous Surface Connection" What it means to “abut” a jurisdictional water “Temporary interruptions in surface connection” Interpreting “jurisdictional ditches”   The Clean Water Act of 1972 created significant improvements in water quality in the United States, but the advancements were weaponized into a manipulative tool for environmental groups and biased bureaucrats to make law-abiding citizens abide by unlegislated ideologies. Environmental activists used the term ‘pollution’ to create fear and control communities, and these groups continue to oppose any clarification of the WOTUS definitions.   But the 2023 Sackett decision made it clear that citizens deserve well-defined laws, not flexible definitions allowing bureaucratic overreach. After decades of victimizing citizens through ambiguous rulemaking, this once in a blue moon  clarification effort by regulators is receiving well-deserved applause. Lawmakers across the country are praising the EPA’s announcement, and Idaho’s leaders were no exception.     Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID):  “The Trump Administration continues to deliver on promises to reduce the size and scope of the federal government in places where it does not belong--like momentary puddles and groundwater ditches. I thank Administrator Zeldin for his quick actions to revise WOTUS decisions within the law and under the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on navigable waters. It’s time to give water management policies back to state and local on-the-ground experts once and for all.”    Senator Jim Risch (R-ID):  “Idaho’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners have been forced to comply with federal overreach for too long. Thank you President Trump and Administrator Zeldin for rolling back unreasonable WOTUS regulations.”    House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID-02):  “The Biden administration created a regulatory nightmare by trying to expand federal authority over WOTUS. EPA Administrator Zeldin's announcement ensures that the government's role in WOTUS complies with the Supreme Court's Sackett decision, which reined in expansive overreach of executive power. From the Obama to the Biden administrations, I have long fought against the EPA weaponizing WOTUS. The Trump administration is committed to reducing regulatory burdens and providing certainty to farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Idaho and across the country, and that's a win!”   Governor Brad Little (R-ID):  “For too long, the federal government has weaponized WOTUS to stonewall farming, ranching & American industry. While D.C. bureaucrats have been dragging their feet on  Sackett , President Trump is taking action in the first 100 days. A huge win for rural America!”      Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke (R-ID):  “This is great news for farmers, businesses, and the Gem State. The bureaucratic blunders on WOTUS will soon be coming to an end, while cutting costs and protecting our nation’s waters.”    Free markets rely on regulatory clarity. Vague definitions hinder a person’s ability to build a home, start a business, or continue a multi-generational operation. Providing regulatory clarity to the Clean Water Act is not about ending environmental protection, but about allowing citizens to make informed plans based on predictable rules, without the subjective threat of regulators enjoying the ambiguity of rules as muddy as the Mississippi River.

They couldn't convince legislators. They couldn't scare the public. They couldn't pressure the governor. Three strikes, and you're out. In the weeks since Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 93 - an education choice program that provides a simple tax credit for needy families - opponents have only ramped up the criticism. They now claim to have new momentum from a dubious and already-appealed lower court ruling in Utah regarding the Beehive State's education choice program. To keep up the baseball analogies, they're guilty of a balk. Idaho's new ed choice program is not a voucher. It's not an Education Savings Account or a program that takes money away from public schools. In fact, the state's K-12 education budget isn't touched. It's a simple tax credit, and it goes directly to families. In reality, it is no different than any other tax credit provided by the state. Setting tax policy is the prerogative of the legislative branch. It would be absurd to suggest that policymakers couldn't adopt a higher grocery tax credit, for example, simply because families may buy their groceries at one store or another. A ruling against the education choice tax credit would be folly, calling into question the constitutional authority of the legislature to set tax policy. As we previously highlighted in our study " Answering the legal questions on expanding education choice ," every state constitution has an education provision, with some containing language that calls for a “uniform system of free public education,” or something similar. Education choice opponents have argued that such language not only requires the government to establish traditional public schools, but also prevents the government from doing anything else. Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor. For example, Idaho’s constitution says: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Nothing in House Bill 93 changes or takes away from that requirement. In fact, the legislature has once again increased the amount of money going to the state's "uniform and thorough system." Throughout the nation, many state cases have determined the constitutionality of education choice expansion. In March 2021, West Virginia launched its Hope Scholarship program, offering Education Savings Accounts to students. Predictably, public school advocates sued to block implementation. But in Beaver, et al. v. Moore et al. , the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ESA’s and said there was no conflict: “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.” It is important to note West Virginia’s Hope Scholarship is funded by a separate, annual appropriation by the legislature. The Georgia Supreme Court has also dismissed a case challenging the state’s popular tax credit scholarship program. In Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue , plaintiffs took aim at the program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, were hurt by the tax credit. Justices wrote: “A tax credit that funds a program that encourages attendance at private schools might, in fact, create a tax savings by relieving public schools of the burden of educating the students who chose to attend private school.” Numerous other cases are instructive: Kotterman v. Killian , Arizona The Arizona Supreme Court determined that tuition tax credits are in line with both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. The court said the credits form part of a government program that remains neutral with regard to religion and is accessible to a wide range of citizens. The primary effect of the program was not deemed to either advance or inhibit religion. The Court emphasized that the scholarships primarily benefit children rather than schools. Oliver v. Hofmeister, Oklahoma The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program did not violate the Blaine Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution because the program is neutral with respect to religion. Because the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and receives the aid in consideration for their not attending the public schools, the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian school. Magee v. Boyd, Alabama The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's two tax credit programs, rejecting several claims made by the plaintiffs under the Alabama Constitution. The court ruled that the tax credit programs do not violate Alabama's Blaine Amendments, as the credits are given to parents or taxpayers, not religious institutions, and do not constitute government appropriations. Additionally, the court found the programs to be neutral toward religion, with any benefits to religious institutions resulting from individual choices, not government action. The overwhelming consensus of cases at the federal and state level shows education choice programs are constitutional. Idaho lawmakers were very careful to design a program that is constitutional. It puts tax credit funds in the hands of students and families, not any religious institution or private school. In fact, the legislation makes clear that families can use the dollars for a variety of educational purposes. To further cement its constitutionality, lawmakers chose to make an appropriation to fund the program outside of the state's K-12 budget. Opponents claim that the cash should have been spent on public schools. That may be a valid debate for the legislative branch as part of its budget-setting process. It in no way calls into question the constitutionality of the credit. As Governor Brad Little said in his signing statement , "Idaho can have it all - strong public schools AND education freedom." Citizens, lawmakers and the media must understand and expect any new program to face legal challenges, especially when it is perceived to threaten special interest groups including unions. In this case, we would all be wise to ignore the noise.

A bill hoping to deliver on the long-overdue climate tax fuel exemptions promised to agricultural producers has passed the Washington House and is awaiting action by the Senate. Sponsored by Washington State Rep. Tom Dent (R-Moses Lake), HB 1912 addresses the taxes for farmers added by the Climate  Commitment Act (CCA) . When the CCA was enacted, farmers were promised a fuel exemption until 2027. However, the required exemption for agricultural producers and transporters was never enacted. Rep. Dent’s bill will build a long-term plan for how Washington’s agricultural sector interacts with the demands of the CCA. The CCA was passed in 2021, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. It works through a cap and invest program that creates market mechanisms to create a financial incentive for companies to reduce their emissions.  It originally stated fuel used for agricultural purposes by a farm fuel user is exempt,  and so is fuel used for agricultural transportation on public highways until 2027. Currently, an agricultural producer can apply for a rebate run by the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL), known as the Agriculture Support Program (ASP). The rebate available is up to $4,500, but it doesn’t fully repay what producers have lost from the surcharge. Transporters currently can’t enjoy the same rebate benefit as producers.   Producers have a deadline of June 30, 2025, to drain this ASP account. All of this is funded by the 2024 Supplemental Budget , but it is essentially giving the money back to farmers who should’ve never had to pay the tax to begin with. There has been a lot of costs and confusion surrounding this section, so this new legislation clarifies a few things. First, there is an existing exemption that applies to red dye diesel from the CCA, but not other fuel used on a farm, such as gasoline. This oversight will be closed, and the exemptions will be extended to all farm-used fuel, including natural gas, marine fuel, jet fuel, and propane. It also extends the exemption set to expire in 2027 to expire in 2029. Retailers are encouraged to sell exempt fuel at the pump, so farmers can purchase it without the surcharge. The Department of Ecology (DOE), who was originally tasked with implementing this exemption when the CCA was created, is now involved to make sure that farmers know where the exempt fuel is in their local area. DOE will do this by working with stations that voluntarily agree to map out where all these stations are and make this information available to farmers and ranchers. If passed, an incentive structure will be created to help the retailers who have decided to engage with this new program. For example, it suggests a new card system for retailers to provide financial benefits to both the seller and purchaser. Rep. Dent commented : "This could be one of the most challenging times for agriculture we've ever seen, our farmers and ranchers feed us--it's that simple. We need to support them, and we need to fix this. This bill will help every agricultural producer in the state. There's something in it for everybody. Is this perfect? No. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. We started working on this in November, and I'm honored to have been part of it. I'm hopeful we can keep this moving through the process because our farmers and ranchers deserve it." There have been multiple efforts in prior years that failed to fix this problem. Rep. Dent attributes the success of this year’s legislation to his working relationship with newly elected Gov. Bob Ferguson and serving as an agricultural advisor for his transition team . Rep. Dent stated that this has been a priority for him and his constituents since the CCA was enacted, especially with roughly 32,000 farms across the state, 94%  of which are family owned. HB 1912 passed the House 93-4 on March 12 and is currently waiting for Senate action. Lawmakers should take this measure seriously. Inaction has already resulted in a significant financial burden for Washington’s farmers. Continuing to ignore the problem continues to break the promise made by legislators to those very farmers. As Gov. Ferguson said on March 3 : “We must keep the promise our state made to our farmers.”

The recent test score results showing dismal reading scores for America’s 4th and 8th graders  should not be a surprise.  Organizational design expert Arthur W. Jones noted that “all organizations are perfectly structured to obtain the results they get .” Applied to our public schools, rather than being surprised by the mediocre results  we’re seeing throughout the country, it’s what we should expect. If we want to improve the performance of our schools, which is crucial to both the economic health and security of our nation, we need to change the structure of the educational system.   All successful systems have several key elements:   Leadership . Successful organizations are led by effective leaders. If we want better schools, we need better leadership, namely “change agent” leadership. Our education system is the only system in our society where promotion is done by self-selection (teachers self-select for principal jobs, and principals self-select for superintendencies).  As a consequence, we obtain leadership by accident, not by design. We’ll never improve schools if we don’t change the way we select and train educational leaders.      Employees . Successful organizations have very stringent criteria for personnel selection and training. They hire the best people they can find and rid themselves of poor performers. Our schools do neither. First, they limit hires to only “certified” staff who have graduated from an education college, many of whom have minimal entry requirements and no performance criteria for graduation. This restriction drastically reduces the pool of qualified candidates that can be considered. And teacher unions prevent poor performers from being dismissed, to the detriment of students. If we want to improve student academic outcomes, we need to change the way we select and train teachers and we must be able to remove poor performers.   Money . Successful organizations manage their funds carefully. Being results oriented, they work to maximize revenue and minimize costs. Quality performance is expected, and efficiency is stressed. That is not the case with our schools. There is no accountability for either performance or the effective use of funds.  Though evaluations are regularly done, failing schools continue to operate and poor teachers and principals continue to be employed. Consequently, performance fails to improve, and costs continue to rise. We see this scenario in virtually every urban system in the country. If we want better schools, we need accountability for how funds are spent.    Innovation . Successful organizations constantly innovate. They work to improve efficiency, quality, and performance. Our schools don’t do that. The 50-minute period, the six-period day, the 180-day year, graduation requirements, and evaluation systems are all legacies of a system created over a century ago. In short, we have a time-based, rather than an achievement-based, system. This “one size fits all” structure guarantees mediocrity. If we want our students to achieve, we need a system that meets students where they are in their   learning, rather than their age.  State laws and rules will have to be changed to allow innovation to occur.   Customer focus .   Successful organizations are laser focused on the customer. They make sure they understand customer needs and desires, and then they aggressively set out to meet them. Our schools don’t do that. In fact, one wonders if they even understand who the customer is. Private schools figured out decades ago that parents are the customers of schools, but public schools still don’t recognize this. Again, unions have not helped.  Despite their claims, teacher unions, who control a great deal of our education system, focus on adults (teachers) rather than children. As long as our schools remain adult-focused rather than student-focused, we should not be surprised that children don’t learn and customer (parents) expectations are not met.   Measure performance .   Successful companies constantly measure their own performance based on customer evaluations. Complaints are quickly answered and remedied. Our schools don’t do that. Granted, they conduct evaluations — but there is no consequence for poor ratings. No schools are closed, no personnel are released, and no funds are withdrawn. When ratings and evaluations have no consequence for the personnel involved, they have no meaning. If we want better schools, we must demand better performance from the personnel involved and the removal of personnel if needed. Meaningful measures of performance with consequences, and a demand for constant improvement, will yield improved student learning.     Our public schools are one of, if not the most, important institutions in our society. Today, they are failing our children and our country. If we want to effectively educate our children, we need to restructure our public education system.   Donald P. Nielsen is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and Chairman of the Institute’s American Center for Transforming Education. He was also President of the Seattle School Board and is the author of Every School: One Citizen’s Guide to Transforming Education.

As Idahoans take victory laps on the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project ,  proclaiming that President Trump’s executive order was “the weapon that killed Lava Ridge,” some hesitancy is needed. As any fan of Princess Bride  will recall, “There is a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.” Opponents of Lava Ridge need to remember that executive orders mean the change is permanent, until  the next administration. President Obama’s suggestion to Trump in 2016 was, “going through the legislative process is always better, in part because it’s harder to undo.” Real lasting change comes through legislative means, and Idahoans deserve the long-lasting, hard-to-change protection that comes from congressional legislation.   The Biden Administration’s last-ditch effort to ram through the Lava Ridge proposal, post-election in December 2024, was a desperate and pointless act. But it does signal that some faithfully believe that green energy deals are so essential they defy logic, because logically, everyone knew that the deal was DOA with the new Trump Administration. But this DOA for the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project is only mostly dead for Idahoans. Some efforts still need to be taken to ensure that Lava Ridge, and its related ilk of unwanted federal projects, are given almost insurmountable hurdles in the future.   Why almost insurmountable hurdles? Because the western states have very little say in their own backyard, due to the high percentage of federal lands. Congress needs to empower states with a larger say in what the federal government can and cannot do within their borders. Current policies subject states to the whims of the current administration, ignoring the communities, businesses, and individuals that live nearby and will be forced to shoulder the consequences of federal pet projects.   To ensure Lava Ridge moves from “mostly dead” to “all dead,” federal and state-level action needs to be taken. The Trump Administration’s original executive order  from January 20, 2025, was step one in killing the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project, but the order only stopped its progression and referred the review to the Secretary of the Interior. The order reads:   “ In light of criticism that the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Bureau of Land Management on December 5, 2024, with respect to the Lava Ridge Wind Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as approved by the Department of the Interior, is allegedly contrary to the public interest and suffers from legal deficiencies, the Secretary of the Interior shall, as appropriate, place a temporary moratorium on all activities and rights of Magic Valley Energy, LLC, or any other party under the ROD, including, but not limited to, any rights-of-way or rights of development or operation of any projects contemplated in the ROD.  The Secretary of the Interior shall review the ROD and, as appropriate, conduct a new, comprehensive analysis of the various interests implicated by the Lava Ridge Wind Project and the potential environmental impacts.”   Idaho U.S. Senator Jim Risch, the lead voice in opposing Lava Ridge and bringing it to the attention of the Trump Administration, said :   “Lava Ridge has been the embodiment of liberals’ disregard for the voices of Idahoans and rural America. Despite intense and widespread opposition from Idaho and the Japanese American community, the previous administration remained dead set on pushing this unwanted project across the finish line. Finally, our nation has a leader who recognizes that people on the ground should have a say in how our natural resources are managed.”   Next steps require Congress to pass legislation protecting states from unwanted federal projects. The effort of western delegates sponsoring the bill that would remove the Bureau of Land Management’s new “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule would be a step in the right direction to ensure western states have laws in place protecting them from federal agency political views and preferences.   More targeted legislation like the “Don’t Develop Obstructive Infrastructure on our Terrain Act” or the “ Don’t DO IT Act ” from 2023 would stop federal projects from continuing when the state’s Governor provides notice that the state’s Legislature disapproves of the project through enacted legislation. States with large portions of federal lands, like most of the west, deserve long-lasting protection against unwanted projects.   Idaho’s Legislature has already taken the necessary steps to formally oppose Lava Ridge by passing House Concurrent Resolution 8 . A previous Lava Ridge resolution was adopted in 2023 . The current version reads: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature requests that Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Governor Brad Little work to ensure that the Lava Ridge project does not proceed and formally protest and appeal the decision to move forward with the project, if necessary.”   The victory laps around Lava Ridge are understandable, but to ensure they are not premature, additional legislative steps need to be taken. Congress must act to ensure that Lava Ridge and similar unwanted federal projects are not pushed on states that have no desire or need for their presence. Policies need to be adopted to guarantee local voices are respected, even if federal political preferences and ideologies change from administration to administration. If these policy changes don’t happen, Idahoans will find that Lava Ridge (or a similar project) is still very much alive when a new administration has differing ideologies. Only Congress can put Miracle Max out of business to keep a future president from reviving unwanted projects like Lava Ridge.

Years of increasing taxes and regulations are leaving Washington employers facing the dreaded blue screen of death when it comes to their economic outlook. For example, Microsoft President Brad Smith did not mince his words about Washington recently, stating, “Frankly, I have never been more concerned about the future of the tech sector in Washington state than I am today, and part of that has to do with the [tax] proposal.” That’s not from some no-name startup or a disgruntled former employee. These words come from one of the most powerful tech executives in the country, sending a warning flare that the economic climate in Washington is becoming unsustainable for innovation. Continuing on this theme of discontent, GeekWire warn ed : " The ultra-wealthy from Seattle and Washington state may not exactly be looking to gamble away their riches in Las Vegas, but they are willing to take a bet on Nevada as a more welcoming environment when it comes to avoiding taxes on their fortunes. A new report from Bloomberg details how some wealthy former residents of Washington are fleeing to the desert to escape new tax proposals from state lawmakers. These potential taxes, on the heels of a 7% capital gains tax passed in 2021, would include a new 5% payroll tax on large employers, and a new 'financial intangibles' tax on wealthy individuals." The latest tax increase ideas out of Olympia are just the newest reason in a long list as to why businesses are moving out of this state. Egregious Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes, a new stand-alone capital gains income tax (removing Washington from the list of no-income tax states), and burdensome regulations are suffocating the companies that serve as Washington’s economic backbone. When Microsoft’s president raises alarm bells, policymakers ought to start paying attention. Businesses shouldn't be punished for providing citizens with job opportunities or using their earnings to reinvest in their companies for future growth. With these massive tax increases, Washington lawmakers are going all in and betting that companies will grin and bear it. But smart companies know that they have choices, and fiscally conservative states are willing to answer the call and take the pot. Fifteen years ago former Idaho Governor Butch Otter wrote a "love letter" to Washington businesses telling them there are alternatives to the state's high tax and regulatory burden. The Seattle Times noted : "But just two years ago, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter easily lassoed a $3 billion plant that would have brought as many as 400 permanent jobs to the Tri-City area in Southeastern Washington — right out from under Gregoire’s nose. People close to the deal said the project was Washington’s to lose — and place the blame squarely on Gregoire. A former congressman, Otter wears a cowboy hat in his Web site’s official photo, looking every bit the rootin’-tootin’-business-recruitin’ champion he suggests in his 'Love letter to our neighbors: Idaho is open for your business.' He notes Oregon raised taxes on businesses and that the Washington Legislature is poised to do the same. Come to the Gem state, he invites, offering 'a business-friendly State government.'” The best love letters are timeless. Perhaps it's time again for Washington businesses to leave behind the "Employer Beware" signs flashing in Olympia for the "Open for Business" promise provided by the record tax and regulatory relief of the Gem State.

A recently adopted bill in Idaho has the potential to increase much needed housing supply. Senate Bill 1164 is a supply-focused proposal, recognizing that regulatory hurdles are one of the main obstacles to adequately meeting housing demand. SB 1164 will require local governments to notify applicants if an application is complete within 10 days of submission. Red tape and slow permit processing times are a huge obstacle for home builders and result in a large cost to future home buyers. A study by the National Association of Home Builders found that regulatory costs equaled 23.8% of the final cost of a home, or over $90,000 on average.   In the mountain west region, where home prices saw increases by over 40% from 2020 to 2024, policies offering pricing and supply relief are critical. Efforts, like Senate Bill 1164, are necessary to speed up housing applications, decrease regulatory costs, and speed up the building rate of new homes. SB 1164 states :   “If an application is deemed incomplete, the local government shall, within ten (10) business days of receipt of a residential building permit application and within twenty (20) business days of receipt of a commercial building permit application, provide written notice to the applicant specifying any missing information necessary to proceed.”   “A local government’s determination that an application is complete shall not constitute approval but shall authorize the application to proceed to formal plan review.”   The testimony on March 18th  introduced parties both in support and opposed to the proposal. Sponsor Senator Codi Galloway said,   “ Idahoans are frustrated at the shortage and high cost of housing, so today I bring you Senate Bill 1164. In essence, it asks for a timely review of building permit submissions so the process to build does not turn into a paperwork death spiral. It asks building permit boards to respond on completeness of an application within 10 days.”   Ken Burgess of the Idaho Home Builders Association testified in support of the bill:   “I will relay anecdotally that there are certainly instances where I know a number of our members have had development applications that have been submitted to cities and counties … in which they’ll wait a couple weeks, a month, sometimes as much as two months, and then when they’re trying to press the issue to try to get their development application reviewed then they will come back and say oh well by the way, we finally reviewed this and you’re missing X in your development application packet. Then you know you have to go back and redo the packet and end up getting stuck back into the bottom of the pile.”   Lance Sayers of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified in opposition to the bill:   “We had some cities concerned about what does it mean for completeness and that could be possible litigation issues… The shot clock could be problematic because the fact it’s a one-size-fits-all, that’s not the way our state is really set up.”   The testimonies highlighted the need for avoiding bureaucratic delays to paperwork, the need to fix housing, and the desire to work with the cities to ensure the process was collaborative, not punitive. Concerns were raised in defining completeness and if cities of varying sizes could possibly meet the stated timelines. To address some of these concerns, we should look towards other states and what has worked to expedite building permits.   Building permit delays  are estimated to be 6.5 months in Washington and cost homebuyers $35,000. The Wharton Index, which measures housing regulatory hurdles, ranks Idaho as slightly worse than Washington, so this is a problem that should not be ignored in Idaho. The best remedy for building permit delays is a recent policy change in Florida. In 2021, Florida adopted a bill that required local jurisdictions to post online their permitting process, the status of permit applications, and created a fiscal consequence for the local jurisdiction if the permits were not processed in a timely manner.   The new law is fixing the housing challenges in Florida. The Foundation for Government Accountability   found   that before the law was passed in October 2021, a suburb of Orlando processed less than half of the permit applications within 30 business days. After the law passed, about 80 percent of applications were processed in 30 days. In Santa Rosa County less than half were processed in 30 days before the law, but after the law the rate rose to 100 percent for 347 new homes. Housing permits have also grown by nearly half in some counties since October 2021.   The drafters of SB 1164 recognize that it will not do what Florida’s model has accomplished. However, SB 1164 has a chance to smooth out this process as solutions from Senate Concurrent Resolution 103  are forthcoming. SCR 103  forms a committee, modeled after Montana’s Housing Task Force, that will look at the policy options for improving housing supply in Idaho and will report back to the legislature next session. In closing comments during the hearing on SB 1164, Senator Galloway said,   “ We’re trying to use a free market approach to improve the cost and affordability of housing and make sure that it’s easier for builders to build. We know that when we have a restrained supply, it makes everything more expensive, so we are really trying to coordinate this process and this legislation has been brought intentionally not having an enforcement clause in an effort to be palatable to the cities… It’s an effort to work collaboratively and find ways that we can make this process more smooth for all partners involved.”   Senate Bill 1164 moves the needle towards fixing regulatory permit delays, but still needs additional measures included to create the full efficacy of what was accomplished in Florida. Additional steps should be addressed between sessions to strengthen permit application reform in Idaho and to look at other opportunities for improving Idaho’s housing supply.

Voters in Wyoming and around the country have been clamoring for property tax relief as housing prices have risen almost 27 times faster than inflation  since 2020. Legislators answered the call this session—but in a way that’s unfair to many taxpayers, potentially unconstitutional and that will not stop higher assessments and taxes in the future.   First, the backstory. Rising property taxes have been a windfall for local governments around the state, which rely heavily on them to fund schools, pave roads and provide other essential services. According to a 2023 State of Wyoming Revenue Committee report , property tax levies in the state increased 80 percent ($977 million per year) from $1.2 billion in 2017 to $2.2 billion in 2023. Given that 84 percent  of total tax revenue collected in Wyoming is generated from property taxes, it’s been a good run for local government.   But long-term residents and those on fixed incomes especially have said they can’t afford to stay in their homes given the pace of their tax bill increases and have demanded legislative action. Last November, Cowboy State residents voted 146,336 to 100,392  to pass Constitutional Amendment A, which split residential property into a new class from other types of property and gave the legislature the power to change residential property taxes.   State legislators then passed earlier this year Enrolled Act 60 , which gives residents a 25 percent break on residential property and improved land on the first $1 million of fair market value. It has to be a single-family structure and residents must live at the property for eight months of the year to receive the discount.   For those people who meet the above criteria, the break will be appreciated. But what about renters? They generally have lower incomes than homeowners. Under the new law, rental property doesn’t make the cut, which means that owners will likely pass on the added expense via higher monthly leases. As Manish Bhatt, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said, “I worry that the recent legislation is going to have downstream effects that haven’t been considered yet.” He said one of the unintended consequences of non-owner occupied property being punished will be fewer rental properties available, which in turn will drive up prices, making it even worse for renters.   Second, Bhatt said the fact that second-home owners and those who do not live in homes for eight months of the year, as well as business and industrial property, are treated differently under the law, potentially triggers Equal Protection Clause questions under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also begs the question of how it’s fair for similar houses on the same street to be taxed at totally different rates.   Third, the new law doesn’t stop the elephant in the room – rising property values, which skyrocketed 62 percent  in Wyoming from 2014-2024. (Believe it or not, that is on the low side of the U.S. and particularly fellow Western states of Idaho, Utah and Washington, where home prices have risen over 125 percent during the same time frame.) And it certainly won’t stop the government from claiming the sky is falling from a small drop in revenue in the counties. In Fremont County, where I live, it will be about 2.4 percent loss in total revenue. And that is generous because it assumes all residential property and improved land has a market value of less than a million dollars, which is not the case. There are already rumblings in government circles about creating special taxing districts to make up for the lost revenue.   The better option would have been for legislators to pass a levy limit. A levy limit would set government costs at the prior year, plus inflation and new population growth. Rates would fluctuate based on this formula. The method would provide a stable planning mechanism for local governments and adequate revenue for core services. Just because housing values go up doesn’t mean government revenue must rise in tandem. Besides, does anyone think they’ve gotten 80 percent more services over the last 10 years of explosive tax growth?   Partnered with a reform known as “ Truth in Taxation ,” residents would achieve lasting and meaningful bounds on their property tax bills. Truth in Taxation laws build on levy limits by requiring local governments to publicize proposed tax increases with specific information about them in order to be as transparent as possible. Utah was the first state to adopt the reform in 1985 and Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Tennessee have since followed suit.   Wyoming legislators passed a band-aid this year. Next year, they should target the disease by passing levy limits and Truth in Taxation reform to rein in government growth and protect all residents and classes of property.

The long debate in Idaho surrounding Medicaid this year has concluded with lawmakers sending Governor Little an updated Medicaid budget ( SB 1201 ) that would increase spending on the program by $539 million. Under the cost-sharing agreement with the federal government, nearly $74 million of that increase is from state taxpayer funds. This brings total spending on Medicaid in Idaho to approximately $5.3 billion, of which $994 million is state tax resources.   Here are the details for SB 1201 from the Statement of Purpose : FY25 FTP (Full Time Positions): 237.50 FY25 GF: $920,383,700 FY25 Total: $4,710,390,700   FY26 FTP increase: 68.00 – 28.6% (305.50) FY26 GF increase: $73,665,600 - 8.0% ($994,049,300) FY26 Total increase: $539,406,400 - 11.5% ($5,249,797,100) Earlier this year, the legislature adopted  an MSPC recommendation to seek a waiver to add a work requirement to the program for able-bodied individuals. In our recent Idaho poll , 63 percent of Idaho residents favor some type of work or community service requirement for physically able adults as a condition to receive Medicaid. Congress passed the original Medicaid entitlement in 1965 as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable low-income people in the United States. These individuals include the poor, parents with children, the disabled, and those needing long-term care. Medicaid is a pure welfare plan financed by both state and federal taxpayers. Although Medicaid began with a very limited enrollment, the program has exploded and is financially one of the largest budget items for every state in the union. The original program was set up such that the federal government would match the financing with states in a 50/50 percent arrangement. The federal government gradually increased its spending percentage. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law in 2010, with most benefits beginning in 2014. After litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law was amended such that states could decide for themselves whether to expand Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied 18 to 64-year-old person. The incentive is that the federal government would pay 90 percent of the financing of the expanded program. Idaho is one of 40 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. The Medicaid program is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation-adjusted spending in the first year of Medicaid was $10 billion compared to $900 billion  for fiscal year 2023. In other words, Medicaid spending has dramatically increased far beyond inflation alone. As part of the current 2025 federal budget debate, members of Congress are considering several changes to Medicaid, including possibly adding a work requirement and adjusting the cost-sharing agreement with states.

We all have our favorite president. For me, it’s Ronald Reagan. My admiration of the Gipper began as a young child. You can imagine the impact that receiving a personalized letter from the President can have on a grade schooler. After watching the Challenger tragedy unfold live on TV in 1986, I wrote President Reagan to tell him I was sorry about the Space Shuttle. Reagan wrote back saying: “Thank you for your message and for thinking of me. Hearing from my young friends across the nation is always a source of encouragement . . . Perhaps the best way to honor Christa and the other crew members would be to work hard in school and in your community so that someday you will reach your goals and dreams as she wished you would. God bless you.” As I grew and learned more about the role of America in the world and the importance of a free market, low tax and regulatory burden, and a light touch of government on our lives, I came to appreciate the wit and wisdom of Reagan even more. While trying to absorb the news that the current President has unilaterally imposed one of the largest tax increase ( tariffs ) on U.S. consumers in history, I reached for the Reagan quote book on my desk and found this gem about the importance of avoiding protectionism from a radio address to the nation he gave in 1982 . President Reagan told Americans: “We're reminding the world that, yes, we all have serious problems. But our economic system—based on individual freedom, private initiative, and free trade—has produced more human progress than any other in history. It is in all of our interests to preserve it, protect it, and strengthen it. We are reminding our trading partners that preserving individual freedom and restoring prosperity also requires free and fair trade in the marketplace. The United States took the lead after World War II in creating an international trading and financial system that limited governments' ability to disrupt free trade across borders. We did this because history had taught us an important lesson: Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace. When governments get too involved in trade, economic costs increase and political disputes multiply. Peace is threatened. In the 1930s, the world experienced an ugly specter—protectionism and trade wars and, eventually, real wars and unprecedented suffering and loss of life.” Reagan continued: “I'm old enough and, hopefully, wise enough not to forget the lessons of those unhappy years. The world must never live through such a nightmare again. We're in the same boat with our trading partners. If one partner shoots a hole in the boat, does it make sense for the other one to shoot another hole in the boat? Some say, yes, and call that getting tough. Well, I call it stupid. We shouldn't be shooting holes; we should be working together to plug them up. We must strengthen the boat of free markets and fair trade so it can lead the world to economic recovery and greater political stability.” Noting the importance of free markets, President Reagan said: “That is the way of free markets and free trade. We must resist protectionism because it can only lead to fewer jobs for them and fewer jobs for us . . . Either free world countries go forward and sustain the drive toward more open markets, or they risk sliding back toward the mistakes of the 1930s and succumbing to the evils of more and more government intervention. And this is really no choice at all.” A good reminder for our current leaders. While President Reagan was addressing the global policy of trade and free markets, the current debate about the massive tariffs just imposed on consumers is also a good reminder about the use of emergency powers and the proper way to enact policy under our form of government. Whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy (I believe they aren't the right tool), the fact remains that policy, especially tax increases, should be introduced, debated and voted on by Congress. Major policies of any kind should not be imposed by one person unilaterally. This type of ruling by emergency order was wrong by governors during COVID, and it is wrong now. Let’s make America the “shining city upon a hill”   again, that is focused on free markets, individual liberty, limited government intervention in our lives and economy, and governed by the checks and balances wisely created by our founders.