Kammen et al 2004 Jobs and Renewable Energy

Review of 13 studies – 8 analytical models (usually only calculate direct employment impact); 5 I-O models. Analytical models generally ignore these multiplier effects, and are more likely to under-report overall employment impacts. Opacity and specificity of IO models: Further, all of the studies model only one “idealized” scenario. This makes it is impossible to gauge the effects of alternative policy scenarios (short of actually getting hold of the model itself), or the impact of even slight deviations from the reported scenario. For example, in the WWF study1, while all states are net winners under the scenario they present, some states are projected to gain as few as 2,600 jobs (in North Dakota) by 2020 (despite being a state with a tremendous wind-energy resource). Transparency of analytical models: In comparison, the analytical models are much more transparent. The assumptions are clear, and it is possible for the reader to conduct sensitivity analyses (like changing the nature and types of policy support to see how impacts may change) on their results. Type of jobs: short-term (manufacturing) v. permanent (O&M): It is important to know therefore what type of jobs are being lost, and what type created, to determine what sorts of retraining and retooling programs one would need to make sure that jobs remain in the state. Difference between peak and average power production: 1 MW of installed coal capacity running 80% of the time produces 19.2 MWh in one day. 1 MW of installed PV capacity, with sun shining 5 hours a day, will produce 5 MWh in one day. This studies uses average daily production for comparison. Construction, manufacturing and installation: renewable generates more jobs per avg megawatt of power O&M: Not as clear. Less for wind (than coal, oil). More for PV systems, and for biomass depending on the way collection is organized Report uses 5 scenarios with different energy mixes by 2020. 1-3 get to 20% RPS (renewable portfolio standard) by 2020. 4 and 5 use fossil fuels. Jobs per $1 mil: The REPP study6 calculates that the solar PV industry generates 5.65 person-yrs of employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years) and the wind energy industry generates 5.7 person-yrs of employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years). In contrast, every million dollars invested in the coal industry generates only 3.96 person-yrs of employment, over the same time period. Production for export: The study by the Research and Policy Center of Environment California8 shows that for California alone, a renewable energy industry servicing the export market can generate up to 16 times more employment than an industry that only manufactures for domestic consumption (see Table 5). Of course, manufacturing for export means producing at an internationally competitive cost, which can be achieved all the easier if the domestic market creates sufficient demand to bring renewables rapidly down the cost curve. Regional study – Midwest: It is not just states suffering from high unemployment in manufacturing that stand to benefit. The Midwest, for instance, is particularly well suited for wind energy development, with the best wind power resources in the United States. According to Greenpeace-USA, North Dakota alone has enough wind power to produce 1.2 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each year9, which amounts to 32 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 2002. The Environmental Law and Policy Center estimates that a renewable energy portfolio standard of 22 percent can generate 36,800 jobs by 2020 in the ten mid-western states, of which over 52 percent will be in the wind energy industry. 14 Fossil fuel industries losing workers, not mainly due to environmental regulations. Still have huge env externalities. Mining companies released 48% of TRI reported emissions. Employment impacts of transition to renewable energy will vary by region, and of course, by sector. Transition assistance needed. Notes that two of three largest solar energy companies owned by BP and Shell – apparently thinks this is positive. Need for complementary policies. Uses Apollo Jobs report as example - For example, the Apollo Jobs study18 models a comprehensive scenario of policy and program support in which federal investment of $300 billion is made over 10 years in four categories: increasing energy diversity, investing in industries of the future, promoting high performance buildings, and rebuilding public infrastructure. In this scenario, supporting renewables alone is projected to create 459,189 jobs, while the total investment is projected to yield over 3.3 million jobs. 19 Table with summary of 13 studies reviewed. Who is conducting the studies? Few examples: Apollo Alliance (Perryman Group) WWF (Tellus and MRG Associates) ELPC (Regional Economics Applications Laboratory) Skip Laitner Several used IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) for I-O. European Commission (1999) “Meeting the targets and putting renewables to work” used something called the RIOT (renewables-enhanced input output tables) to calculate employment impact. 24 Outline of policy recommendations: - R&D funding - Tax incentives for companies to use renewables (extend existing tax credits for wind and closed loop biomass; expanded for geothermal, open-loop biomass, and landfill gas) - Higher CAFÉ stds (40mpg – what is it now?) - Renewable portfolio std of 20% by 2020 - Federal stds and credits to support small-scale energy gen and CHP: We support at least a 10 percent investment tax credit and seven-year depreciation period for renewable energy systems or combined heat and power systems with an overall efficiency of at least 60-70 percent depending on system size. - Efficiency standards for buildings, equipment, appliances - National public benefits fund financed by $0.002/kWh charge on all electricity sales Carbon Tax