The global warming and clean energy bill that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last will create new green jobs in energy efficiency and renewable energy, at least according to one energy company. Today, Puget Sound Energy issued a statement to the press expressing it’s the support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
“Our customers have told us they support renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, and their elected representatives in the House have heard that message,” according to Stephen Reynolds, the companies CEO and President.
PSE has had first hand experience in creating green jobs. The company owns and operates two wind farms in the state of Washington. Construction of the two wind facilities created about 175 temporary green jobs, and they currently employ 50 permanent full time employees.
PSE also offers incentives, including grants and rebates, designed to help customers pay for services that save energy and conserve natural gas. For example, it offers customers a rebate for up to $1,600 for home insulation. The company estimates that these measures have created 450 new jobs working directly with the utility or with local businesses that provide related services.
“Combining both renewable energy and energy efficiency is the right step for both the climate and our customers,” Reynolds also said. “We’ve seen first hand that both areas can create new, green jobs and other benefits from renewable energy credits, as well as help our customers better manage their energy costs through using natural gas and electricity wisely.”
PSE isn’t just another renewable energy company hoping that government support will trigger new investments in clean energy. The company's diverse energy portfolio includes shared ownership of several coal-fired power plants in Montana, and also owns several natural gas-powered plants. Hydropower makes up the bulk of the company’s power portfolio.
This article was contributed by David Anderson, author of The Green Jobs Report
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
Wow, 175 temporary jobs and 50 permanent. That ought to put the economy right back on its feet.
How many government dollars went into this one ... and how deeply will the PSE execs and upper-level managers drop into their overseas bank accounts?
Dan,
I guess you think that one company based out of the State of Washington is somehow responsible for turning around the entire economy. I am sure those 225 people who got jobs thanks to PSE's wind farm projects and energy efficiency were glad to have the work.
The federal government has a long history of providing financial incentives to the energy industry. In the past a lot of tax payer money has gone to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industry. Much less has gone towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, although that seems to be changing to some extent. Still, I don't see anything in my article that has to do with stimulus spending or government spending.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for wind energy. But the fact is that these windmills would likely have been built anyway ... most likely by another entrepreneur ... without government money.
At least from the article, the government doesn't seem to have given any money to the company. They already built them prior to the government give-aways.
My point exactly.
So what you're saying is that the Economic Stimulus Package had nothing to do with this? Thank you.
Precisely. The wind farms were built prior to the stimulus.
This is great. So what does this have to do with the title of the article? This project is the result of a forward-thinking entreprenuer taking the initiative to invest his time, energy and money and will likely see a nice profit -- without the government needing to kick in anything.
By the way, this doesn't mean that we can throw away the oil, coal and natural gas solutions, either. Technology has enabled cleaner burning of all of these fuels and simply the mention that drilling and/or mining could be expanded ALWAYS prompts the other oil-producing countries to lower their price.
Well Dan, the article is about an energy company that has come out in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The company has experience creating green jobs, which in my view makes it a good judge of the kind of impact the bill will have on the nation's economy.
The federal government and state governments have been offering incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for some time. Unfortunately, these incentives have been small in comparison to the amount of taxpayer dollars being forked over to the fossil fuel industry on an annual basis.
It is quite likely that either the federal or state government of Washington provided some sort of financial incentives to PSE to build wind farms and invest in energy efficiency programs. Either way, taxpayers pay for any energy project in the end - be it through their tax dollars or the money they pay out to utility companies as ratepayers. If you can find an energy project that does not involve some type of government involvement, let me know. Government is heavily involved in the energy industry.
Naturally, fossil fuels like the ones you mentioned are not going to disappear over night. I am all for technologies that can make these fuels burn cleaner, however we must acknowledge that these technologies will likely come with their own set of costs that taxpayers and rate payers will have to pay. In the end, it makes sense to transition to renewable energy - environmentally and economically.
There is technology in place to make coal burn cleaner in terms of mercury and some other emissions. However, these technologies do not eliminate all pollutants being emitted by coal burning power plants. Nor do they help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions they emit. So called "clean coal technology" is not yet available on the market - a fact regularly acknowledged by the industry. When it is it will cost money to retrofit existing plants to make them clean. Why not just invest that money in renewable energy?
Yes the clean energy will probably create some jobs but from my understanding they just about gutted the bill buying votes.
The logic was to just get the thing passes so a second try will be easier.
I have already counciled my Democratic liberal Senators to not vote in favor of this bill and will do so again soon.
But really, how could management of PSE even know what was included in the bill? Even the politicians who passed it didn't know, the morning (3:30 A.M. I heard) before the vote they added 300 pages of amendments.
David,
To many people like yourself support these things just because people tell you it will help the environment, when you really don't know.
I'd imagine that they simply viewed the bill in its entirety online. This type of information is freely available to the public and to lawmakers. :
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.02454:
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held several days worth of hearings on this bill:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=130&Itemid=71
There was also a hearty debate in the House prior to its passage. Not to mention that this issue has been on the table for about twenty years now. Lawmakers have had ample opportunity to weigh the costs and benefits of this bill.
As you can see, passage of this bill was hardly "last minute". The fact that 300 pages of amendments were added is not at all surprising. This is a common - and disturbing - practice in Congress. Many bills are also not read in their entirety by the members of Congress who vote on them. This fact has been documented by the media for many years. For example, the fact that many lawmakers never read the entire Patriot Act raised a lot of hackles during the Bush years. Of course, it may not even be possible for members to read every bill in its entirety. That is why they have staff and researchers to aid them in these tasks.
Naturally, which ever side is out of power is going to use these facts to its advantage - even though they participate in these same practices. It is a bit hypocritical for Republican lawmakers to challenge this legislation on the grounds that some amendments were added last moment and that parts of the bill may have not been read. After all, they did the same thing when they were in the majority.
My point is that these problems are ever present, and have little to do with the climate bill itself.
I never support something because people tell me to.
But here lies the problem with the bill, it would cut 1.5 million jobs, or more, and replace them with at max 25,000 jobs. That does not help the economy, that hinders it more.
Where did you get that figure? I believe there is ample evidence to show that building a clean energy economy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels - one of the key goals of this bill - actually creates jobs.
According to recent findings by the Pew Charitable Trust:
"The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts."
Pew placed the total number of workers employed by the clean energy sector at 770,000, compared to 1.7 million for the fossil fuel sector. Not bad considering how long the fossil fuel industry has been dominating the energy industry.
In addition:
"Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. There was a similar pattern at the state level, where job growth in the clean energy economy outperformed overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia during the same period. The report also found that this promising sector is poised to expand significantly, driven by increasing consumer demand, venture capital infusions, and federal and state policy reforms."
"
Lost Jobs
The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015.[9] Some of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm
Is one of five sources I used.
David Anderson Jul 3, 2009, 7:41am EDT
The link you provided is to an article about S. 2191, The American Climate Security Act of 2007. That bill, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Warner, is history. The article was written in 2007 and is not about the climate legislation about to before the Senate, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
In addition, you may want to take a look at the missions statement of the Heritage Foundation:
"To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and is hardly objective in its approach. I wouldn't consider the work they do to be very credible.
Last month, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts published a report that found that growth in the clean energy sector generated by the American Relief and Recovery Act and the American Clean Energy will create a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs in the U.S.
I would put them a lot closer to truth than any Liberal group that totally bases their ideas on fantacy to mislead the masses in a pre-disclosed direction.
Many of the Conservatives that develop information from research are often on the right tract. It is the Politicians that misuse it for their own goals. This is unlike Liberal groups that manipulate information to fit what the politicians want.
David, your own article shows how valid the Heritage statement is. A Electricity plant will employ somewhere around 500 workers, plus staff. Your use to do as the Government states shows that using wind power only would reduce the labor force to 50 people, meaning that there would be much more people out of work (estamated 450 per plant).
That is a 9 to 1 ratio of unemployed to employed, which is not good. This is also in lione with what the Heritage Foundation has stated, so again it holds ground.
Now I am in favor of wind technology, do not misunderstand me, but I choose to not loose working people in the process. I agree that using them to reduce the amount of other types of power stations being built is a good idea, and in this way, would create a small number of jobs.
The Heritage Org is a think tank that thinks up stuff to derail progress. They are funded by Korean and Taiwan governments.
They were a main source of propaganda to get us into war in Iraq over WMD's.
Less then 20 miles away, a wind farm is poping up. There is already a home whose electricy is produced exclusively by windturbines.
We can see the jobs produced by going green with windturbines. They usually pay for themselves after 10 years and have a life expentancy of 30 years. renewable jobs. I am looking into buying a turbine for my home.