A group of Ohio business leaders released a new economic analysis that says a strong federal clean energy policy could create up to 61,000 jobs in Ohio, while increasing annual incomes by $992 and growing the state economy by $3.7 billion.

The new study was released the day before US Senate deliberations begin on clean energy and climate legislation. The research — co-released with E2, the national investor coalition Ceres and the Clean Economy Network — was conducted by the University of California in collaboration with the University of Illinois and Yale University. It examined of the impacts of three pillars of federal legislation: energy efficiency, renewable energy and limits on carbon pollution.

“This report shows that the stronger the federal energy and climate policies, the more Ohio stands to gain economically,” Eric Zimmer, CEO & founder of Tipping Point Renewable Energy, said in a statement. “Those who say we cannot afford to take action now do not understand the opportunity we stand to lose by not acting. There is an emerging multi-billion dollar global clean energy market and Ohio is poised to capture its leading edge.”

Nationally, the analysis concluded that full adoption of the American Clean Energy and Security Act’s package of pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would create between 918,000 and 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income by $487-$1,175 per year, and boost GDP by $39 billion-$111 billion. These economic gains are over and above the growth the U.S. would see in the absence of such a bill.

Using a new forecasting model called the Environmental Assessment in General Equilibrium (EAGLE), the study conducted detailed economic assessments of climate and energy policies currently under consideration in Congress. The study modeled both moderate and aggressive implementation of policies that create a market-based program to reduce carbon emissions, as well as set strong standards for and investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The Ohio findings include:

• Aggressive policy implementation results in greater economic and job growth in Ohio by 2020 than moderate or no implementation.
• The strongest policies could generate up to 61,000 additional jobs in Ohio, increase Ohio real Gross Domestic Product by $3.7 billion and real household income by $992 per year (as measured in 2008 dollars) by 2020.
• Even moderate implementation drives economic growth in Ohio, generating $1.6 billion in GDP, and $452 in annual household income growth.
• More carbon dependent state economies have more to gain from climate action, assuming they adopt balanced policies that combine all three pillars (energy efficiency, renewable energy and carbon pollution limits).

The Ohio Business Council for a Clean Economy, which released the report, said results from the EAGLE study are consistent with projections by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of Energy – all of which show substantial economic benefits from more efficient energy use.

“Improving energy efficiency cuts costs for transportation, heating, cooling and other energy demands,” David Roland-Holst, the study’s author, said in a statement. “Money saved on energy puts dollars back in household bank accounts, and gives consumers the freedom to spend on things they want. This spending represents 70 percent of Gross State Product, so it represents potent growth and job stimulus for the Ohio economy.”

Health reform has gripped your attention and dominated your computer and TV screens for weeks now.

In case you’ve got little time to spare to study up on climate legislation coming down the pike soon after this huge debate, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change has boiled it down to a summary report.

Get up to snuff on what the Kerry-Boxer bill, called the The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, by reading the Pew synopsis.

Willing to dig deeper? See Sen. John Kerry’s website for summaries by section of the bill. It’s written in even plainer English and makes it clear what’s in (natural gas and nuclear power) and what’s out (it does not raise the federal deficit by one single dime).

The bill developed as the Senate counterpart to the House’s Waxman-Markey climate bill, but it differs in key ways, for instance, focusing mainly on how to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Most notable, given the origins of the bill in the more conservative Senate, it aims higher, shooting for a 20 percent reduction in GHG from 2005 levels by 2020 compared with the Waxman-Markey goal of  a 17 percent reduction for the same time frame.

The ultimate goal: An 83 percent reduction in GHG’s by 2050, just inching past the standard 80 percent reduction that scientists argue for.

After setting that critical threshold, the bill, like Waxman-Markey, aims to create clean energy jobs and promote energy security by underwriting local, renewable energy sources and installing a cap-and-trade system that puts a price on pollution.

(The authors are Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

A majority of Americans – about 75 percent – support regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and manufacturing that would reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But only a bare majority – 52 percent – support a cap-and-trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 42 percent oppose such a program, which is the type of approach taken in the Waxman-Markey climate legislation expected to be voted on in the US House of Representations, possibly Friday.

Support for controls on emissions wavered even more as those polled were asked whether they’d pay higher electricity prices to help bring about reduced greenhouse gases.

Only 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it meant monthly electricity bills would be $25 higher. Support was stronger, at 56 percent, if the proposed monthly electricity increase was just $10 a month, according to the randomized poll of 1,001 adults.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that regulating greenhouse gases would cost the typical household about $175 a year in 2020, when the shift to clean energy and emissions controls would be in high gear.

But opponents of the pending climate legislation, especially conservative Republicans, argue that costs will be much higher.

The poll found that people living in households making less than $50,000 a year were the most concerned about the costs of the climate regulation.

Young people were the most supportive of federal regulation to control climate-related emissions (about 60 percent said they supported cap-and-trade) and senior citizens the least supportive (about 40 percent said they favored cap-and-trade).

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach to controlling GHG emissions. It sets caps on the amount of pollution companies are allowed and lets them bid for extra credits if they go over their emissions allowance or sell credits if they keep under pollution limits. Limits for everyone are lowered over time to reduce carbon emissions.

Talk about a hot and windy debate as Washington grapples with the first big bill to try to power up a new clean energy economy. Studies and accusations are whipping around like wind propellers as the constituencies of fossil fuels and new energy square off.

While this seems like a flurry of much ado — is it possible that the American Clean Energy and Security Act wouldn’t pass?

Still, there’s much at stake. As we know from last year’s blockbuster stimulus bill, no one really reads all the copy, so there could be a lot of caveats, crumbs and sneaky insertions embedded into the 1,000-plus page act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

One hot button issue (funny how the political cliches fit this climate change topic) has been whether the bill will drive up electricity costs. Stands to reason that re-jiggering how we get power and the sort of power we use will come with costs. It also seems reasonable to expect that over time, clean energy, coming as it does from ongoing natural phenomena like the wind and the sun, would have cost efficiencies compared with crude oil, which must be siphoned from the earth and shipped around.

In my earlier blog, I asked who really knows how much these changes will affect household electrical bills; I mean really, how can we tell? It’s such a tar pit of variables.

Apparently, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change does think it has a handle on this issue. At least they’re trying harder than most to decipher the variables and forecast the future. For their take see their “Eight Myths About the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill.”

Myth #2 deals with energy costs and Pew seems to conclude that this switch to clean energy might (maybe) cost US households somewhere around $100 a year over the next few decades.

They also agree with our “who knows” thesis, saying essentially that: “Given the limitations of economic modeling, no analysis should be assumed to give a correct answer.”

They also note, a bit illogically, that even though we can’t count on any given economic analysis, if a group does undertake such an analysis (which might not be worth much) they definitely should “faithfully represent what is actually required by the bill”.

Right. Let the wrangling recommence.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We’ve been told that the switch to green energy will cost us a lot or a little, depending on who’s putting out the information.

Now, the Natural Resources Defense Council is telling us that switching to clean energy, as supported in the pending American Clean Energy and Security Act in Congress, would save us money on our electricity bills — at least by 2020.

It does make intuitive sense. Green, local(ish) energy harvested directly from the wind, solar and geothermal powers already in abundant supply in various U.S. locations – minus expensive wars to nail down rights to the world’s last drops of oil – should come at a fair price, at some point.

The NRDC’s model projects “modest” savings per household over “business-as-usual” — ranging from a few states where there’s no savings predicted up to savings of $8 or even $11 a month, with the average being $5.99 a month. (See the map above — click to view it larger.)

We’re sure this is a respectable analysis. Still, we have to say, who really knows? There are so many variables. Who will control these new energy sources? What will their front end costs be, and how much will they want to extract from consumers? Will we build sensible new buildings to help keep costs in line (efficient buildings can help ease peak demand; net zero buildings can even feed the grid)? Will the population projections (which the NRDC used for this model) remain stable? How hot will it get out there?

What if there are missteps? Remember the frenzy over biofuel from corn?

We do appreciate that the NRDC has stepped in with what appears to be a rational assessment of where we might end up in 2020, cost-wise, especially with others trumpeting less analytical assessments, stoking fears about the costs of change.

The NRDC’s view is simpatico with the EPA’s, which projects American will save some seven percent on household energy costs by 2020.

The bottomline: We hope so.

Americans are ready for action on clean energy jobs, energy independence and reducing carbon pollution, according to two Pew Environment Group-commissioned polls, one by the Mellman Group and another by Public Opinion Strategies.

The national survey of Americans contacted in late March by the Mellman Group, found that:

• 77% of voters favor action to reduce global warming emissions

• 50% of voters say they would view their Member of Congress more favorably if they support a comprehensive plan to create clean energy jobs and fight global warming, only 22% say they would view their Member of Congress less favorably.

• 44% of voters prefer proceeds from a polluters fund be divided equally between funding research and development and being returned to taxpayers in a tax cut or energy tax credit, 26% want to fund R & D only, 19% want to fund tax cut/energy tax credit only. (The fund would be created under the bill as industrial polluters are compelled to pay for their emissions.)

“Public support for action on global warming is overwhelming. Voters clearly understand that reducing the carbon pollution that causes global warming will improve our economy by creating clean energy jobs and enhance our security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” concluded Mark Mellman, President of The Mellman Group, a Democratic polling firm, in a news release.

Research and surveying in early April by Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican polling group, also found support for global warming legislation among all Americans.

• 74% of Republicans, 70% Independents and 74% Democrats believe jobs that reduce our dependence on foreign oil are “very important” for helping the economy over the next five to ten years.

• 63% of Republicans, 70% of Independents and 73% of Democrats believe jobs that are improving energy efficiency are “very important” to helping the economy over the next five to ten years.

• 59% of voters believe efforts to tackle global warming will create new American jobs.

The polls were designed to tap public opinion across the political spectrum as Congress prepares to debate and vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act next week. The Act would set a variety of goals and incentives for the development of renewable energy and conservation measures.

Mellman based its findings on phone interviews with likely voters in late March; Public Strategies polled 800 registered voters by phone and contacted 1,200 adults online in early April. The Pew Environment Group is a conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-government organization oriented to improving public policy.

The first full day of hearings on that proposed law known as Waxman-Markey, which would promote clean energy, foster green jobs and set up a system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, began — fittingly — on Earth Day.

But how do we make sense of this sweeping piece of legislation that affects everything from the air you breathe to the refrigerator you use? You could watch the hearings on C-Span over the next few weeks. (If you are unemployed, have all day long to plop in front of the tube and can remain alert for extended periods while people discuss abstractions like “carbon allowances” and “international offsets” this might be for you!)

Or you could read the bill. It is 648 pages. But as we learned from the recent stimulus escapades, even people in Congress don’t read these things.

So let’s stick to the executive summary of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is five pages long. For serious climate watchers, politicos, green collar workers and would-be Earth advocates, scanning this document is not a bad idea.

Fortunately we’re not the only ones trying to find ways to make this incredibly complex matter digestible. The EPA is on the job. The agency that would regulate and guide many of the directives in Waxman-Markey, should it pass, has put out an analysis of how it would help grow the economy and boost personal income while transforming the U.S. energy landscape and curtailing carbon emissions. (Though we’re back up to nine pages on this one.)

The EPA review — done at the request of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — looked mainly at how emissions reductions and cap-and-trade guidelines would affect the economy (Title III in the Act.). It found that the W-M bill would:

• Make it more economical to invest in energy efficient manufacturing, housing and transportation, which would reduce energy consumption, delaying until mid-century the consumption levels we’d otherwise reach by 2015.

• Grow renewable energy; push forward new technology for coal production, bringing coal carbon capture and storage online in 2015.

• Its cap-and-trade provisions would result in carbon costs of about $13-$17 per metric ton in 2015, rising to $17-$22 by 2020 – propelling the development of cleaner alternatives.

• More clean energy would offset the need for increased petroleum use (a major security issue), keeping it nearly static through 2050. (Which tells you a bit about where the opposition to W-M will come from.)

The EPA report says a lot more. But it’s as thick as Ulysses. It needs deciphering. The Natural Resources Defense Council is trying, having asked its chief economist to analyze the EPA’s analysis (only in Washington).

Laurie Johnson, chief economist for the NRDC, looked at what the EPA was (trying) to say about household income under Waxman-Markey and found that:

• Households will become 18-19 percent richer between 2010 and 2020, and 36-40 percent by 2030. By contrast, the investment of the average household in the bill would only be $98 to $140 a year.

Takeaway: The Congressional prescription for global warming and our ailing economy won’t cost us too much net-net, and could even make us better off. If all goes well.

Take it with a grain of salt. And stay tuned.

(The NRDC has other decipherers. See David Doniger’s blog “First Read” of the Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Discussion Draft. This excellent piece breaks the Act down into its significant parts.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media