Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Climate Bill's Energy Efficiency Provisions Could Create 569,000 Jobs

September 11, 2009 | 3 Comments

Do you like this research & reports?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] Energy efficiency provisions in the American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES — H.R. 2454) with improvements could create more than 569,000 new jobs nationwide in the next ten years and provide US $283 in annual savings for every household in America, according to a new study released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

By 2030, these benefits could increase to more than one million jobs and $832 in annual savings per household — all while reducing government-projected levels of nationwide carbon emissions by 15 percent, or 959 million metric tons.

The new report, Energy Efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009: Impacts of Current Provisions and Opportunities to Enhance the Legislation, underscores the energy efficiency potential — and accompanying benefits — still available as the Senate considers energy and climate legislation.

In fact, the examined improvements would result in 48 percent more jobs and 32 percent more consumer savings than the 383,800 jobs and $215 in annual household savings in 2020 than the energy efficiency provisions of ACES, the original House bill, would provide.

Click here to see what the ACES could save in your state.

“Energy efficiency may not be as hot a topic as cap-and-trade, but it certainly gets the job done when it comes to saving consumers money and creating jobs,” stated Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s Executive Director and co-author of the report. “As our report shows, the Senate can boost those benefits by improving the energy efficiency provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill.”

Improvements to ACES considered in ACEEE’s analysis are:

Strengthening the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) that sets a 10% energy savings goal for electric utility companies. (ACES includes a 5% EERS with an optional 3% increase.)
Requiring one-third of the electric utility allowances to be used for energy efficiency improvements as are the natural gas allowances in ACES.
Extending the allocation of 9.5% of carbon allowance revenue to the State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) fund to 2030. (ACES ramps down SEED fund spending beginning in 2016.)

Energy Efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009: Impacts of Current Provisions and Opportunities to Enhance the Legislation is available for free download or a hard copy can be purchased for $25.

Energy Efficiency

3 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 3

Panthael

September 11, 2009

I'm personally all for going after the low-hanging fruit that is energy efficiency.

However, I think the jobs created metric used here is a bit misleading. The study bases jobs created/lost on spending in different sectors (such as construction, auto, gasoline and diesel, heating oil, etc.). What the study does not quantify is the duration of employment for any of the jobs created.

The same construction worker employed sporadically over the course of projected study years can be counted multiple times, as multiple jobs created in this way.

The study does sight that conventional energy industry losses are not as great, due to the relatively low labor intensity of operating existing facilities and organizations. However, the heating oil transport worker only loses his job once in this study. There may be fewer workers in these types of industry, but they are likely to be employed for longer periods of time than the average construction worker.

Comment
2 of 3

paul-tousignant-111847

September 16, 2009

What is ignored is the jobs lost in the rest of the economy. Spain experienced a loss of 2.2 jobs for every 'green' job created. The study conveniently omits these possibilities...

Comment
3 of 3

Anonymous

September 29, 2009

How do you spur energy efficiency, with incentives? Note the appetite for efficient cars with the clunker program, the high rollers in wind energy with a 2-cent credit. People want a low cost daily commute, which EV's will provide. But they also want to ride long distances in comfort and with efficiency, which diesel engine cars can provide. The Europeans get this metric. Both without streamlining, no incentives. No EV, no benefit. No diesel, no benefit. Lease the side of the interstate for elevated light rail and watch it take off. Incentivize new jets if high efficient and watch out. Bullet trucks can cut fuel use in half and increase trucking productivity 20% while increasing safety, incentivize that. Biomass can make oil. Wind can be a dominant electricity source with big dc grids. Incentives, not carbon trading will do the trick on efficiency to lower carbon footprints. Finally, there is absolutely no link between CO2 and climate, so world leaders aught to get that point straight and change the name of their legislation. Kerry has the right idea, effiicency, but calling it a climate bill and trading CO2 is a total waste and just plain wrong. Focus on the low hanging fruit and get on with incentive legislation only. We don't want nor do we need the complexity and gross inefficiency of the House and Senate bills to lower carbon footprint, i.e. less materials used. These bills deserve no hearing by the America people whatsoever and typify the gross incompetence of our government.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!