Environment Service “Green” Fees
Talking points in response to anticipated opposition
Average per student per semester fee: $6 – 7
States where fees have been approved: 27+
Campuses with fees or that have just approved them: at least 70 since 2000
Only campus with a fee in Texas: Texas State, San Marcos
Why should the legislature vote to raise student fees even as we’re debating legislation to cap the cost of education?
This bill has no immediate effect on the cost of education at any institution. Only students and the Board of Regents may increase student fees under this bill.
This bill only permits an institution’s governing body to implement and collect a fee for environmental services IF and WHEN a student body approves such a fee by vote.
Many of the projects that student environmental fees would promote are likely to actually REDUCE the cost of education in the long run by making campuses more energy efficient or less wasteful.
Student-funded environmental service funds can reduce the pressure on administrative budgets by providing a new revenue stream that is recurring and “free” to the institution and the state.
How is this fair to students who enter the university after the implementation of the fee? They didn’t have a chance to vote on it, so they’re basically being taxed by today’s students.
Just as any student can run a campaign to IMPLEMENT a fee, students can run a campaign to REVOKE a fee at any time as well. This bill would only enhance students’ ability to decide how their money is spent on campus, whether in favor or in opposition to an environmental fund.
At least one campus somewhere in the US has approved such a fee in every year since 2000. In fact, the number of fees passed each year has been increasing. This is strong evidence that support for these fees is likely to continue in future classes.
At Texas State the Environmental Service Fee was voted on multiple times between 2000 and 2004 and was approved each time.
Why should this fee be mandatory? Why isn’t an optional fee adequate?
Sustainable projects need sustainable funding
While some sustainability projects, like upgrading a campus’s light bulbs are one-time events, most sustainability improvements require continuing support over multiple years to achieve results. A mandatory fee is needed so that programs have a reliable source of funding for the entire project.
There are many ongoing sustainability initiatives that student environmental fees might go to pay for such as recycling or composting programs that would require funding every year to be effective. An optional fee would lead to disruptive fluctuations in revenue that would either lead to cancellation of services or increased pressure on remaining administrative funds.
At some schools, extra staff may be hired to administer the fund projects paid for by the fund. An optional fee would make job security for any of these positions impossible.
What kinds of things would these funds go toward? Why will this money pay for?
ANYTHING that is intended to decrease the negative environmental impact of a campus or enhance the campus’s ability to use resources more efficiently
Projects funded at other institutions include:
Recycling for plastic, aluminum, batteries, ink, etc…that most campuses do not recycle as it ist
Composting programs to reduce solid waste from campus dining halls and decrease the cost of local food production
Funding for student research into potential sustainability projects. These grants not only enhance the educational experience, they reduce consulting fees paid by administrations
Behavioral change programs like competitions to reduce energy use or carry re-usable mugs
Purchasing renewable energy or renewable energy credits to provide power to the campus
Creating student employment opportunities in a variety of jobs relating to sustainability
Most campuses create a committee of some kind to receive applications from faculty, students, or staff for funding a wide variety of sustainability projects. These committees ensure that funds are administered in a transparent and collaborative fashion
One of the greatest advantages of these fees is their flexibility. They can fund anything that the review committee or other authority approves, while many new projects can struggle to find funding in already tight administrative budgets.
Why don’t we wait until students have actually approved these fees to consider them? Why should we give blanket approval before the student support has been proven?
There is strong evidence that these fees are very popular with students across the country and continue to be so:
Environmental service fees have been implemented at campuses in over half the states in the US and at least 4 Canadian Provinces since 2000.
These fees have been consistently approved by students by large margins.
Concordia University students in Austin approved an increase in their tuition to switch the campus over to 100% wind power
5000 A & M students signed a petition last year saying they would pay $5 per semester for a Green Fee
Texas State students voted over 70% in favor of their Environmental Service Fee on multiple occasions between 2000 and 2004.
Forcing students to wait on legislative approval each time they vote to implement a fee is overly cumbersome. This bill simply seeks to change the process so that when students vote, the institution’s governing body can implement the fee without waiting for legislative approval. In other words, this bill does NOT grant pre-emptive approval to ANY fee, it only stream-lines the process once students have voted in favor of a fee.
The students from over 20 college campuses in Texas have joined the ReEnergize Texas Coalition, and are collectively calling for the passage of HB 3353.
Other kinds of student fees have to be approved by the legislature. Why should environmental fees be considered separately? Why should these fees get “special treatment”?
Unlike athletic fees or entertainment fees, the environmental service fee will benefit all students and the general community by providing campus-wide services such as recycling or bike-share programs that are available to everyone.
While health service fees or campus safety fees also benefit everyone on campus, environmental services fees also have a high likelihood of DECREASING the cost of education by making campus operations more efficient.
There are few other fees which have the potential to both benefit the entire campus and greater community while also saving the institution money in the long run.
No other types of fees have attracted the active support and organization of hundreds of students from across the state. The environmental issue is obviously of a different caliber than most other types of student fees and has undeniable widespread support.
How can we be sure that these fees won’t interfere/disrupt administrations’ plans for dealing with sustainability issues or other funding priorities?
The bill calls for the Board of Regents to review all fees once they’ve been approved by students, so there is little chance of any fee being implemented that does not consider the prerogatives of the administration to begin with.
-