Jack For Assembly

[JackNino]

I recently completed the Nevada Conservation League questionnaire and they gave me permission to post the questions and answers here. I've already written some on energy issues but this covers a wider range of issues.

I have posted the questions and answers here in their entirety with changes only for formatting more appropriate to the web and to remove the contact information for the conservation league contact as I'm not sure he would want it on a general forum like this.
___________________________________________________________
2008 Nevada Conservation League
Endorsement Questionnaire for Legislative Candidates

Thank you for taking the time to fill out the NCL Questionnaire. Any candidate seeking the endorsement of NCL must fill out this questionnaire. Our endorsement committees and Board of Directors will use the responses when making endorsement decisions. The endorsement process is conducted confidentially. All responses to questionnaires and any information given during an interview about issue positions or about specific campaign plans are held in confidence.

Please return this questionnaire via email to [e-mail].

Please be thorough with your answers, as you may not have a chance to explain all of your answers during the interview process. All answers are considered of equal importance.

If you need further information about any of the items covered in the questionnaire, please call [contact] at [phone number].

Candidate Name: Jack Nino Seat/District: Assembly District 16

Campaign Contact: Jack Nino

Phone # to schedule interview: 702-250-2214

Email: jack@jackforassembly.com

Candidate Signature: Signature here


General Questions

What experience do you have working on conservation issues that will be relevant to your legislative voting record?

[A] I do not have any direct experience working on conservation issues.

What conservation issues do you plan to emphasize in your campaign?

[A] I personally would like to see this State attempt to use more solar and geothermal power, especially because of the large amount of sun and open space in this State, along with the large quantity of potential geothermal sites.

If elected or re-elected, will you take leadership in the legislature specifically by working to educate and persuade other legislators to vote pro-conservation? If yes, are there particular issues you would like to advance? Are there any conservation issues for which you find the conservation position problematic?

[A] As mentioned above, I would like to see Nevada's inherent capacity for renewable energy be put to greater use, through a calculated long term plan, so that improvements in technology and price can be taken advantage of when they become available.

One area where I take issue with the "conservation position" is in regards to issues such as the one below related to traffic. I am very much against creating artificial methods that make it difficult for people to perform some activity of their choosing in order to force them to use a different option. I believe that preventing an increase in road capacity due to a desire to make people drive less in an effort to decrease emissions falls under this category. I believe it is too far removed from the actual issue. If the desire is to reduce emissions, effort should be put into actually reducing the emissions that vehicles output and attempt to find alternatives that would be more appealing on their own merits. I feel the same way about proposals to increase gas taxes to make fuel more expensive so that people are economically forced to drive less.

What is your view on the proper role of state government when it comes to environmental protection? Do you feel that government ought to play a role?

[A] As a general theory, I think the government should be as uninvolved as possible. However, as an example, without the government's intervention there would be no incentive for auto manufacturers to make cars cleaner burning and smog would probably be worse than it was 30 or 40 years ago instead of better. So some government intervention ends up being required. Therefore, I think the government's role should be to make sure that it is not overly burdensome and its requirements are as cost effective as possible.

An example where I think the government could do a better job in this area is in regards to auto emissions. I think it is very unlikely that a two year old car is going to be having emission problems and that there are very few that fail the emissions inspection every year, yet everyone has to get their two year old cards inspected every year anyways. If the failure rate is extremely low, then people would benefit by not having to have their car inspected until it is three or four years old and then maybe every two years until the car is eight years old. Those are basically randomly selected lengths of time but you can see the sentiment and the need to examine how the taxpayers can be saved money while still meeting the intended goal.


Issue Questions

Air Quality & Global Warming
Conservation leaders in Nevada believe that Nevada’s next step in fighting global warming is establishing caps on global warming pollution with reductions in the future. This could be accomplished by different mechanisms. One is through a cap and trade system, an approach that institutes a declining cap in overall carbon emissions and then allows the trading of credits under that cap between companies, encouraging those entities to reduce their individual emissions by being able to sell those credits. Another could be establishing a price that companies must pay for each pound of carbon dioxide emitted. Will you support legislation that would institute a cap and reduction of global warming pollution?

[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

My concern is less with global warming and more with general health. I am one of those people that is not totally convinced that global warming is a real, long term phenomenon. However, I do believe that the pollution (from car smog, electricity production and other industrial pollutants) is a health concern and I think our dependence on oil (and not just foreign oil) is an economic concern, so I think my views are not that far from those who are completely sold on global warming. I think the biggest difference is that I probably am willing to allow for a longer timetable for change than others might be.

That being said, I am very much against the idea of a trading system on emissions. If there is a legitimate cap that can be put on an industry, then one company being able to trade its credits to another company doesn't seem to me that it would reduce emissions, it would just move them someplace else. If there is a valid cap, then I would expect businesses to be able to follow it without having to trade. I am also against a system of charging for all emissions. While I think that charging for emissions would provide an economic incentive for companies to reduce their emissions, I also believe that the pricing for the emissions would tend to be arbitrary and the government would end up becoming dependent on the very emissions it is trying to reduce because of the increased revenue. I think a much better goal would be to make sure that industries are using the most efficient and clean systems that are available and ensuring that they are working correctly, along with encouraging companies to invest in research to make things even cleaner and more efficient.

Transportation
According to the Center for Climate Strategies, 32% of Nevada's greenhouse gas emissions are related to transportation, and transportation emissions are projected to grow 53% between 2005 and 2020. We can't meet Nevada's greenhouse gas reduction goals if we focus our spending on widening highways, or building new highways, to serve new low-density car-dependent development.

Do you support a requirement that transportation programs reduce greenhouse gas emissions and new transportation projects must be designed to reduce our need to drive and to result in fewer miles driven by Nevada households?

[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

As I mentioned in the preliminary questions, I don't believe in legislating behavior and trying to force people to change their habits through artificial means. For better or worse, the cities in the Western part of the United States were not laid out in a matter that is very conducive to public transportation. Instead of very dense cities surrounding a center area, the cities in the West tend to be very spread out. In addition, as Nevada is for the most part rather empty, this particular issue is mainly confined to Las Vegas and Reno.

I believe that if the desire is to reduce emissions the method to reach that goal should not be to inconvenience people by making it cost prohibitive or inconvenient to drive in the hope that they will drive less and that alternative transportation methods might be found. There is no proof that this method would decrease emissions as it is too far removed from the actual issue. People could still drive but sit idling in traffic and actually make emissions worse. I believe that the actual goal should be to get individual emissions reduced. I have a lot of faith in science to solve issues such as these when enough effort is put towards them.

I believe that you are going to see emissions reduced in the next few years without any limits on road building just because the price of gas is going to force auto makers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, whether it is through hybrids, making conventional cars more fuel efficient or through some new technology.


Under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, states may adopt national air standards or they may adopt the air standards of California. In 2002, California adopted standards to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide from auto tailpipes. At the end of 2007, 16 states have passed laws to change their standards to match California. Despite this, the federal government is denying the waiver required for California to implement these standards. Would you support legislation to join these 17 states in adopting California’s tailpipe standards?

[X] Yes [ ] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

My most serious concern here is that the federal government is somehow able to tell a State that it can't have stricter emission requirements. I'm not sure which part of the Constitution covers that area.

Water Policy
The manner and use of water in Nevada is an important and ongoing issue, especially in light of the continuing drought in the Colorado River basin. Many municipalities in the state are seeking to meet their water needs through water importation projects, which can have devastating impacts on the environment, despite the fact that more can be done to increase water conservation. Do you support a law that would require local water purveyors and the agencies they support to fully implement all possible water conservation strategies, including conservation pricing and water audits, before seeking to import water from outside the area?

[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

This issue is obviously mostly concerned with the Las Vegas area rather than the rest of the State. I believe that regardless of what water conservation measures are in place it is imperative that the Southern Nevada Water Authority do its best to find as many sources of water as it can. The Las Vegas area has grown a tremendous amount in the last twenty years and is expected to continue growing. There has also been an ongoing drought for a number of years. Because of these reasons I don't believe the fact that further conservation could be done should prevent the search for further sources of water. There is too much risk that without advance planning a situation could occur where there truly wasn't enough water.


Land Use Issues
The use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) has increased significantly in Nevada in recent years. Users that operate these vehicles outside of designated trail systems cause significant damage to public lands and wildlife habitats. Currently, our state lacks a system of titling and registration for OHVs, and as a result, there is no system in place to monitor and report irresponsible users. Would you support a law that would create a system of titling and registration for off-highway vehicles in Nevada?

[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

I think it is very unlikely that requiring titling and registration of OHVs would do much to limit people who misuse public lands. Instead, I believe that it would just create another layer of government hassle for the majority of people who do respect the lands that they are using.

Department of Wildlife Budget
The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) receives over 95% of their funding from user fees charged primarily to hunters and anglers. The small amount of general funds that they do receive is primarily used to obtain matching federal funding. Therefore, every cut to the NDOW budget has a duplicative effect, resulting in the loss of more than twice as much funding. Would you support an increase in the amount of general fund money allocated to NDOW to increase the amount of federal money that the state can utilize to protect all wildlife species and decrease the cost borne by Nevada’s hunters and anglers?


[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

I do not have a problem with the NDOW being mainly funded by hunters and anglers as they are the ones who make use of its services the most.

Energy Initiative Funding
Most Nevadans recognize that renewable energy will play an important role in the future of Nevada’s economy. Despite this, there is not an advocate for renewable energy in our utility regulation structure, Would you support an increase in the budget for the State Office of Energy to create a renewable/efficiency advocacy position?

[X] Yes [ ] No

Additionally, the Task Force for Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation was not funded by the 2007 Legislature, despite the work that they do to advance the industry in the state. Would you support an allocation from the General Fund to support their work?

[X] Yes [ ] No

Please briefly explain your answers:

I believe that Nevada is uniquely poised to take advantage of renewable energy, especially in the area of solar, due to the large amount of sun and large amount of government owned and empty land in the State. There is also the potential for a lot of geothermal production in Nevada. Finding more ways to take advantage of this potential can't help but be beneficial.


Energy
Nevada is one of the largest consumers of electricity per capita in the nation, and the resulting demand often puts a strain on our natural resources and the environment. Our state is also one of the fastest growing in the country, and many new homes are constructed every day. Would you support legislation to implement aspects of the American Institute of Architects 2030 challenge, by making new homes more energy efficient today and moving toward energy independent homes by 2030?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

I am not familiar enough at this time with the AIA's blueprint to give an answer that I will feel confident in. On first glance the AIA's ideas seem very reasonable. They discuss moving to more renewable forms of power generation that I have already stated I am in favor of. They also discuss using smart methods of construction that would reduce power consumption with little additional costs to builders. This second idea sounds good on the surface, but if it really requires little extra cost it seems unlikely that legislation would be required to get builders to follow it as the energy savings should make up for the increased cost.

As Nevada's energy needs increase and our budgets are tightened, our state will have to take further steps to decrease demand from public building. The best way to look out for the long range energy use and associated costs is to perform a Life Cycle Costs Analysis prior to construction or major renovation of any public building, and to construct these buildings to maximum energy efficiency. Until 2007, there was a requirement for the Public Works Board to perform this analysis, although it was rarely followed. In the 2007 legislative session, the process of life cycle analysis along with the directive to construct our public buildings in a sustainable manner was removed in a budget bill without hearing or discussion. Would you support legislation to again require public buildings to perform a Life Cycle Cost Analysis and build according to “green building standards?”

[X] Yes [ ] No

Would you support extending this requirement to local governments?

[X] Yes [ ] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

I think the key here is that the building is having a cost analysis done that takes into account future costs that might be saved by spending more now. However, this analysis may not determine that building to "maximum energy efficiency" is the most cost effective solution as is implied above.


Due to the fact that most of Nevada’s population lives in the southern part of the state, we face very high peak demand for energy due to air conditioner use in the summer months. Unfortunately, purchasing electricity from the grid during these peak times is often the most expensive type of power. Many states have instituted time-of-use metering to reduce peak demand and increase customer awareness of the demands on the energy infrastructure. Would you support legislation to require electricity providers to establish time-of-use metering?


[X] Yes [ ] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

I'm not a big fan of the word require, as I would not want to mandate that the electrical company put time of use meters on every home. However, I would like to see it be an option.


As Nevada’s energy needs increase, our state will have to take further steps to decrease demand from the residential, commercial and industrial sector. An excellent way to make progress in this area is to increase the amount of small renewable systems in use at homes and businesses. Currently, state law states that local governments cannot unreasonably restrict the installation of solar or wind energy systems at homes and businesses, but only a handful of jurisdictions have complied. Would you support legislation to force compliance by applying sanctions or fines?


[ ] Yes [X] No

Please briefly explain your answer:

The way this question is phrased implies that the State would be fining local jurisdictions. This would basically move government money around from one agency to another while siphoning off money to lawyers that the taxpayers would have to pay for. I think a more efficient solution can be found without fines.


Wildfire:
Due to historical forest management and the growing effects of global warming, the threat of wildfire has become a very significant issue for Nevada. Large wildfires have impacts on wildlife habitat and scenic treasures, not to mention the impact on private property. The threat of wildfire can be reduced through effective fuels management, which can be used to create low-carbon biomass energy. Would you support further funding for projects such as the Nevada Fire Safe Council and biomass projects within the Nevada Division of State Parks?


[X] Support [ ] Oppose

Please briefly explain your answer:

While I do believe that the forests need to be effectively managed, I also believe that the people that live in the areas that are most affected by forest fires should be the ones shouldering the majority of the cost required to protect their property since they are the ones receiving the benefit. I am also bothered about the mismanagement of the forested areas over the years that have caused the problems in the first place.


State Operations:
As Nevada continues to grow, the demands on our infrastructure and natural resources increase. Nowhere is this more apparent than on our roads, where traffic gets more and more congested. Many states such as Idaho and Utah have turned to telecommuting for state workers as a solution to decrease traffic, decrease tailpipe pollution and save money. Would you support legislation to require state agencies to develop regulations to allow any job-eligible employee to telecommute?


[X] Support [ ] Oppose

Please briefly explain your answer:

I do support telecommuting. I think the Internet, Virtual Private Networks and Remote Desktop are some of the greatest inventions ever as I can reach computers anywhere in the world while sitting at home at my desk. I'm a little concerned about the words "require" and "any" in the above statement as I think individual agencies should be allowed to decide what is best for them.