New report counters ‘jobs-killer’ rap on Waxman-Markey climate change bill
A new report on the employment benefits of House-passed climate change legislation provides some useful ammo for conservationists looking to shoot holes in the Republican – and conservative Democrat – mantra that the so-called Waxman-Markey bill is a jobs killer.
Produced by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and released earlier this week by Denver-based Environment Colorado and the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, the report is a bit laboriously entitled “Energy Efficiency in the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009: Impacts of Current Provisions and Opportunities to Enhance the Legislation.”
It found that in Colorado alone, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) would create 7,100 new jobs by 2020 by improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings and spending $90 billion on renewable energy projects nationwide by 2025.
With the Senate back in session and about to take up deliberations on its own version, the report suggests changes to the legislation could increase the number of new jobs created in Colorado to 11,000 by 2020.
Those numbers would seem to run counter to the justifications of Colorado Republican lawmakers and blue-dog Democrat John Salazar, who voted against the narrowly passed (219-212) House bill in June. Although it remains to be seen where the majority of new jobs would be created.
“While I strongly agree the issue of climate change must be addressed, this specific bill would have placed a disproportionate financial impact on individual households in Colorado’s Third Congressional District and, for that reason, I could not support it,” Salazar told the Colorado Independent last week. Salazar’s 3rd Congressional District is largely rural, with heavy oil and gas production in the northwest and parts of the southwest. The San Luis Valley has seen considerable renewable energy development.
Salazar was responding to a League of Conservation Voters television ad campaign blasting him for his no vote.
The report also looks at potential consumer savings, concluding the House version would save Colorado households an average of $158 per household in 2020, with that number jumping to $218 per year by 2020 if the Senate version strengthens energy efficiency provisions.
“Energy savings is a key component of our New Energy Economy,” Tom Plant, director of the Governor’s Energy Office, said in a release accompanying the report. “Efforts to make our buildings and homes more energy efficient are creating green jobs in Colorado. Increased investment in efficiency would put more Coloradans to work building an energy smart state while saving them money on energy costs.”
The report suggests Congress strengthen the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) in the bill to a 10-percent requirement from the current House version of 5 percent with an option 3-percent increase. EERS provides incentives and financial assistance to utility customers to make homes and businesses more energy efficient.
The report also recommends modeling electric utility allocation on the natural gas utility allocation in the House bill, which requires one-third be used for energy efficiency improvements, and extending the allocation of carbon allowance revenue to the State Energy and Environmental Development provision.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
Like this story? Steal it! Feel free to republish it in part or in full, just please give credit to The Colorado Independent and add a link to the original.
Dr. Daniel Ellsberg is known as the whistleblower who published the Pentagon Papers. While working as a high-level defense analyst at the military think-tank the […]Read More
By now you’ve likely heard about The Denver Post’s multi-page editorial broadside at its hedge-fund owner. This week’s newsletter seeks to explain the local and national repercussions of […]Read More