Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Green Jobs--Not Just for Blue States

By Kristin Tracz, MACED
December 29, 2010 | 23 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

The Climate Bill is dead. Comprehensive action on energy and climate change issues is not likely to come from the federal government any time soon. One of the oft-repeated opposition mantras is that times are too tough to think about climate action – and the costs that curbing emissions might impose would heavily impact those who can afford additional costs the least.

But in fact, it is exactly because of the economic landscape and the massive shedding of jobs in historically significant sectors that makes now the ideal time to make strategic public investments in our shared clean energy future. Without leadership from the feds, states are taking matters into their own hands.

And it’s not just the usual suspects that are or can make progress in clean energy development.

Like many parts of the US, the Great Recession has not spared my state of Kentucky. The state has lost 101,000 jobs since the recession began—40,000 in the manufacturing sector and nearly 19,000 in construction. Just since December 2007, the state has lost 16% of its manufacturing jobs and 23% of its construction employment. The loss of these jobs has contributed to keeping Kentucky at or above 10% unemployment for much of the last two years.

This impact is especially devastating for Kentucky’s working families, who have relied heavily on factory and construction work to provide decent, family-sustaining incomes. Even as the economy recovers, the viability of these sectors is questionable—the housing market is likely to take a long time to unravel from the bubble of the last decade, and when manufacturing jobs do rebound many fear they will do so outside Kentucky.

Yet it is exactly the decline of manufacturing and construction opportunities that presents a real opening for the emerging clean energy sector. Research from the Renewable Energy Policy Project indicates that between 70 and 80% of new jobs in wind and solar will be in the manufacturing sector. Similar studies show that retrofitting existing buildings, as opposed to building new structures, can create 8 to 17% more jobs by ‘fixing it first’. This bodes well for making green jobs a reality in Kentucky.

In fact, even without taking significant state action to embrace a clean energy, Kentucky has enjoyed a jobs growth rate of 10% between 1998 and 2007 in the clean energy sector according to a study by Pew Charitable Trusts, while the overall jobs growth rate struggled at a mere 3.6% during the same period.

States have taken the leadership over a period of years to transition to clean energy opportunities and capture the jobs that go with it, including leaders like California, Massachusetts and Oregon. In fact, CleanEdge just released the first U.S. Clean Energy Leadership Index to rank states’ leadership in supporting the development of the clean energy sector and grow jobs.

So far this list – and others like it – is dominated by the usual suspect of progressive states, but there are stories worth telling in places you might not expect.

Ohio has made significant progress in developing a renewable energy industry – especially solar—after passing a alternative energy resource in 2008. AEP Ohio has committed to both wind and solar generation projects located within the state. In addition to passing an RPS in 2009, Pennsylvania has undertaken a study of the potential for green job development in the state and begun to analyze what supports would be necessary to strengthen the clean energy economy.

Tennessee, while lacking the overarching legislation required to really boost statewide growth, has also studied similar issues in a report, as well as drawn on the success of pilot programs put forward by the state’s biggest utility the Tennessee Valley Authority. Indeed TVA’s pilot programs, including the feed-in tariff-style Generation Partners and Renewable Standard Offer programs, have proven so popular that long-term options have to be re-evaluated to ensure commitments can still be met.

Serious momentum is building across the purple states. Lessons have been learned: states that are in a position to offer clear market and regulatory signals are snapping up project developments. The clean energy economy holds promise across the board—but policy must set the direction. States like Kentucky need to take the plunge and pass meaningful and comprehensive clean energy policies that will spur real investment in the sector to solidify their places in the new economy.

Details on how Kentucky can harness its clean energy potential have been fuzzy. To help shed light on Kentucky’s road to a clean energy future, the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED) released Building Clean Energy Careers in Kentucky; the report highlights the potential of the clean energy economy in Kentucky, assesses the role of workforce development in capitalizing on such potential, and proposes policy changes that will promote long-term, quality employment opportunities for all Kentucky’s workers.

But to make the most of these opportunities, the workforce training system must provide the kinds of training needed for growing sectors; create career pathways for workers; create access to that training and the resulting jobs for low-income workers and communities; and ensure that the jobs created are good quality, family-supporting jobs.

Institutionalizing such efforts requires substantive policy actions. Those policies should include an increasing portfolio standard for renewable energy generation and energy efficiency savings, as well as financing elements that spur investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy among energy developers, businesses, institutions and homeowners.

By aligning workforce development and training efforts with the needs of clean energy employers, by reducing hurdles to participation in training and education efforts for all Kentuckians and by demonstrating a policy commitment to pursuing clean energy sources Kentucky can begin to harness the employment opportunities inherent in the clean energy sector in earnest.

The failure of federal climate and energy action is a disappointment. But many states are taking decisive action anyway towards preparing their economic bases and workforce to capitalize on the opportunities presented by a transition to a clean energy economy. States like Kentucky are poised to benefit by getting in the game. If they do, the momentum building in recent years will continue even as we wait for federal action to take it to the next level.

Kristin Tracz is a Research & Policy Associate at the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED).

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

23 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 23

rod-downs-158751

December 30, 2010

This past year our company has presented many of the ideas expressed in this article to state representatives as well as the governor's offices in Florida and Kentucky. Only the governor's office of Kentucky responded with any interest. The follow up was quickly buried in agency red tape. We sincerly believe that out of work manufacturing and engineering people can be put back to work on real green energy projects working in currently unused manufacturing facilities. Red Tape clutter needs to be replaced with helping hands so people living in states like Kentucky can get back to work. Our company is definetely poised to take the next step and bring employment to the people of Kentucky. We are seeking the financial incentives and investment in our company to not only create employment opportunities but also instill confidence in the financial future of many.

Comment
2 of 23

tomgarven

December 30, 2010

This is a well written article by someone who appears to be sincerely concerned about the future of their state and the individuals who live there.

The article draws on an underlying belief that many people believe we should be going forward with renewable energy. So what's the problem; why are we not rapidly moving in that direction? All of the reasons could only be answered by a paper much longer than this post but I will take a shot at hitting just one.

LEADERSHIP - At my grand old age of 70 I have never before witnessed such a startling LACK of leadership. We have become a society of me, me, me instead of we, we, we and the worst case of arrogance I have every witnessed. We seem to think we can dictate to other countries how they should behave when we can't even feed and care for everyone in our own country. What might be an appropriate term/phrase be for such behavior; how about; stupid is as stupid does.

I find it increasingly distasteful that we jump back and forth between renewable energy and the drill-baby-drill crowd. For heavens sakes people, everyone knows we are going to need oil for another 100-300 years so why are we still burning up this important resource in our cars and trucks? What are we going to use 20 years from now?

We desperately need someone who can explain to the American people WHY we need not only renewable energy but energy in all forms. Solar in AZ, NV, CO, CA and on our homes, wind on our coasts, the Great Plains and on the Great Lakes. Maybe even some new nuclear reactors where appropriate. Maybe we should use about 500 small inherently safe modular reactors to replace the boilers on about 400 of our coal burning power plants.

We need someone who can PROPOSE an "Energy Plan" that will last longer than 4 years. For heavens sakes people, when are we every going to wise up?

Tom G.
tomgarven@hotmail.com

Comment
3 of 23

Keller

December 30, 2010

At the risk of pointing out the painfully obvious, needlessly increasing the cost of energy (whether thru renewable energy or nuclear power) does not help the economy. Indeed, the effect is quite the opposite because we become less competitive as a result of higher costs for all our goods and services. Further, the entire premise of renewable energy (i.e. saving the planet) is hopelessly misplaced.

The required national energy plan is actually pretty simple, does not require a bunch of politicians as well as bureaucrats and eliminates special interest groups clamoring for handouts because they can not compete in the marketplace.

The Plan: energy conservation and increased energy efficiency. Reduces costs, makes the environment cleaner and revitalizes the economy.

Comment
4 of 23

tomgarven

December 30, 2010

To Keller:

Some of your statements are valid and I support both energy conservation and increased energy efficiency and we need to be doing more of each. And yes both SHOULD be part of an overall energy strategy [Energy Plan] for our country.

However those two elements alone will never get us to the point of being "energy independent" will they? In fact, do most Americans even agree on what energy independence means? Does it mean free from oil imports from the tar sands in Canada? Does it mean from Mexico that uses much of the money we send them to support their government and fight drug trafficking? Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems is it? Maybe it just means free from oil imports from other than North America?

The state of California has been doing a very good job of conserving and increasing efficiency. So good in fact their energy consumption has been basically FLAT for the last few years. However, the state is now $32 billion in debt and to my knowledge there is no data around that shows how much conservation and energy saving have either cost or saved. It's nice to think energy efficiency and conservation are free but it's not.

I frequently watch the University of California TV [UCTV] and their programming on how California has achieve their FLAT energy consumption level. They use CFL's and LED street lighting where and when affordable. They have time of day electric rates that vary from $.12/kw [cents] to more than $.35/kw. They have mandated the installation of more insulation and Energy Star windows in new construction. They are mandating all new construction be energy or carbon neutral. They have decided to eliminate ALL coal fired power plants used for electricity generation.

So has it been cheap - not by a long shot. Has it been effective; it seems to have been effective however, I will leave that up to you to determine if the cost seems to be justified?

Good discussion - keep it going.

Tom G.

Comment
5 of 23

thomas-schmidt-36371

December 31, 2010

I think that I liked renewable energies better when it seemed to, just be there, for the people and not so much for the United States newly reformed socialistic government to invest tax payers money into as an attempt to encourage mega millionaires and billionaire elitist to invest in as well.

It would seem that the one true accomplishment the renewable energies industry has made in the hearts of the American people, over the last decade, is to convince the people that energy costs must go up if we (the American people) want clean energy.

Its been rumored that, sometime in the near future we (the American people) can kiss the U.S. of A. good-bye and will "adopt" the NAU (as if the American people really had the choice).

Why can't RE just be there for us (the American people)? Why does RE want so badly to dominate us just like the established energy infrastructure and every other industry for that matter?

We are offered jobs from industry with what they call competitive incomes but then the products we manufacture for them are priced at a level the requires us to go into debt and/or seek out government assistance for; food, health care, housing in order to acquire those products, which we are prompted to do by way of a never ending bombardment of advertising.

Comment
6 of 23

Angus

December 31, 2010

Seasons Greatings-from Canada
While I know renewable or alternate energy is a must, I agree with the staements from Keller that energy conservation is also a high priority. One area I think needs to be explored between our two countries is north-south grids and a north-south high speed train complex. These two areas could reduce dependancy on two of the largest energy consumption industries in NA. Several grids from northen Canada to southern states would enable the vast stores of hydro electricity to be used while wind located along the grid could be used to replenish the hydro during off-peak hours. The second option of a high speed train from Montreal to Miami,a second from Toronto to New Orleans and a third from Vancouver to Los Angeles would reduce the amount of jet fuel consumed and offer an alternative to the automobile. Even though our countries are seperate, the links by automobile and airlines have been fully intergrated for yaers and offering a third alternative would enable a higher level of conservation. Just think of the construction jobs, the energy saved and the economic bennifits for such a plan and I am sure there would be agreement.

Comment
7 of 23

franklin-thom-158015

December 31, 2010

Reality should come into play at some point. ALL renewables total less than 10 percent of our power consumption, chiefly due to their cost. The "drill here now" crowd supports the production and use of our own proven reserves, rather than importing our 70% of it. Authorizing this, in all areas we have
documented those reserves, would create thousands of jobs throughout the country, and would immediately lower the cost of oil products here (and worldwide). Couple with such authorizing legislation a percentage to continue funding of all green energy research (they will ALL be cost competitive in the future) and I believe we have a winning combination. To fail to realize that the nation runs on carbon fuels and must continue so for awhile, and insisting we import rather than use our own assets is rather foolish and is costing us dearly in many ways.

Comment
8 of 23

Angus

December 31, 2010

Comment
franklin-thom-158015:

While I admitt we have a long ways to go to wean us off fossil fuels, we don't have much time either. here in NA the largest deposit of fossil fuels is the Tar Sands in Alberta and the environmental costs are enormous. It takes an equvilent barrel of oil to mine three barrels equivalent of oil. Net gain is two barrels of oil. The amount of ground water used and the after processing mess is as bad as any process from a third world country. Even though there is a large reseve of oil in the Tar Sands, the costs both economically and environmental are far to big to be ignored. is this the future you speak of because to date, no other reserves of oil have been discovered and not very likely to be discovered in the near future. Conservation is a must that must be acted upon now.

Comment
9 of 23

tomgarven

January 3, 2011

There are so many good comments here I don't know where to start other than to say thank you for all the positive comments. Also it seems everyone is focused on offering recommendations which is a very good thing. Makes writing comments fun huh?

I hope everyone has the time to also read another paper written by the author [and co-author] at the below link. On about page 16 she lists 6 strategies for Kentucky which makes for interesting reading.

http://maced.org/files/Clean_Energy_Careers.pdf

Here are the strategies shorten for posting

1 Put in place policies that strengthen and make sustainable demand for workers in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors.

2 Establish a lead agency or taskforce to spearhead planning, communication and cross-agency cooperation regarding state efforts related to the clean energy economy
along the lines of the Clean Energy Corps.

3 Strengthen mapping of job opportunities and career pathways in this sector through a recurring labor market study … to the career pathways for low-income, low-skilled
Kentuckians.

4 Build upon existing systems, institutions and certifications to ensure career-oriented, good-paying jobs are created or retained through policy developments.

5 Increase access to training to include: funding for clean energy training with a particular focus on financial assistance for low-income people seeking training, including means-tested scholarships.

6 Promote low-income hiring and job quality standards where possible as the clean energy economy continues to gain momentum.

These are of course worthy and excellent starting points. So what else can we do to help her achieve her goals?

If you were living in a coal producing state and wanted to promote renewable energy what would you do?

Would you go talk to the coal unions or electric utilities? How about local schools and universities?

Just asking.
Tom G.

Comment
10 of 23

tomgarven

January 3, 2011

@ Dave Fisher:

I lived in California [CA] for about 35 years before retiring to Arizona. I moved to Arizona before Arnold Schwarzenegger the departing governor left office but my son, daughter-in-law and wonderful grand-kids still live there. As a strategy to improve the environment he LISTENED well and that is what politicians should or need to do since they are not technical experts in the field. Over the 35 years I live there you could literately see air quality improving.

Mr. Schwarzenegger did some things well and some not so much. Some jobs were lost and some industries left the state due to regulation. What I would have LIKED to see happen would have been an ENERGY PLAN for American instead of an energy plan for CA. That would have put CA on an even footing with the rest of the country.

For example; I happen to think that a new smaller, inherently safe nuclear reactor will be a PART of our energy mix in the future for many reasons. But it takes from 5-10 years to design and test a prototype reactor and then another 5-10 years to get the approvals to build and complete construction of the first unit so we are looking at up to 15-20 years before you can make your first kilowatt of electricity. O.K. if this might be true, lets now start building 100 of these next generation power plants; you could be looking at 20-40 years. Even 20 years is not going to help us much when we start down the back side of the peak oil curve is it?

Cont'd

Comment
11 of 23

tomgarven

January 3, 2011

Renewable energy systems on the other hand can be designed, permitted and installed much more quickly and that is just one of the reasons why so many utilities are now starting to build renewable energy systems. They can see the handwriting on the wall so to speak and know what is coming. The age of CHEAP energy from CHEAP oil is about over. When the oil supplies run low and it become more and more expensive, what are planning to use what in our vehicles? Electricity, natural gas, hydrogen or are we planning on driving 2 passenger 100 mpg cars? Actually we will probably need all of these in my opinion. Remember, there is no shortage of energy – only our willingness to pay for it.

So your 'too dramatic' idea of starting young is a GREAT idea. Our best hope for success lies with our children. Teaching children early in life the value of conservation and energy efficiency is very important. And yes, every parent should be helping by teaching their children to turn off the lights when leaving a room and programming the thermostat to automatically set back at night. Besides snuggling is good right? LOL.

As far as natural gas is concerned everything you said is true. It is however just another form of a carbon based fuel which we will just burn up like oil. It too will become more and more expensive over time. It will however be a good transition fuel until we can someday become an electric society. Sadly I will never live to see that day :-(

Tom G.

Comment
12 of 23

tomgarven

January 4, 2011

It appears there are only about two of us still posting on this story. I hope the author has at least scanned the posts and given thought to the various perspectives and comments made. It has been a very good discussion.

This will probably be my last post on this article. I have held the following belief for a very long time that energy production and consumption are directly tied to the health and vibrant nature of a society. And in fact the author of this piece clearly identifies how it has affected her State of Kentucky.

Many other authors have written about the energy sector and still others like economists have shown how investing in energy can be a good thing for a society. Yet, I see little being done to improve the living standards of the billions of people living in poverty around the world. I sincerely wish everyone living in America could visit at least a few of these countries to see how the other 75% of the world population lives. Some of our priorities might change for the better. The below website provides just a very small glimpse into what life is really like for some individuals.

http://www.heartsandminds.org/poverty/hungerfacts.htm

I will leave you with this thought. If we continue down our current path of burning up every carbon source we can find; the change we get might not be the change we want.

tomgarven@hotmail.com

If you write please put KENTUCKY in all CAPS on the SUBJECT line of your e-mail.

Thank you
Tom G.

Comment
13 of 23

ktracz

January 4, 2011

I have indeed been following the comments, and would love to hear any feedback about Kentucky in particular, or similar states in general. While rural electrification of developing countries (and many other issues raised in comments here) is both noble and important, this piece spoke more specifically to the challenges facing the American (and Kentucky) workforce and the opportunities posed by a transition to a clean energy future. I'm happy to chime in to conversation in that vein if readers care to continue.

Thanks for reading and for your feedback!
Kristin Tracz, MACED

Comment
14 of 23

tomgarven

January 5, 2011

@ Kristin: I took a few minuted this morning to look at some of the utilities located in Kentucky then some additional data. Here is what I found.

In 2004 91% of Kentucky power was generated by coal.
97.4% of all coal production is for domestic use
Kentucky has 58 coal fired power plants
The eia indicated a decrease of about 5% in total overall production, and;
Coal production accounts for about 18,000 jobs in Kentucky

And then I looked at where coal is going and found this piece.

WASHINGTON — The headline news for the coal industry in 2010 was what didn't happen: Construction did not begin on a single new coal-fired power plant in the United States for the second straight year. This in a nation where a fleet of coal-fired plants generates nearly half the electricity used. But a combination of low natural gas prices, shale gas discoveries, the economic slowdown, and litigation by environmental groups has stopped — at least for now — groundbreaking on new ones. "Coal is a dead man walkin','' said Kevin Parker … "Banks won't finance them. Insurance companies won't insure them. The EPA is coming after them. . . And the economics to make it clean don't work.''

Last year, utilities and power-generating companies dropped plans to build 38 coal plants while announcing they would retire 48 aging, inefficient ones, according to the environmental group Sierra Club.

=======
If I were one of the 18,000 coal workers I would be looking for a new career. Is this a clue where to find new support?

O.K. so where do we go. You have already made contact with the governor and found a willing ear. You have already published papers galore showing the value of transitioning to a clean energy environment. What's next on the list of 'things-to-do'. One of the things on the list must be a strategy that will change the culture of Kentucky?

How can you change a culture that for generations has relied on coal to feed and clothe families?

Con't

Comment
15 of 23

tomgarven

January 5, 2011

This is not going to be an easy job, but it can be fun.

There are lots of good books on culture change. There are books on individual change and organizational change and still more on institutional change. So far, from what I have read; the efforts in Kentucky to manage change have been limited to mostly the federal and state levels. There is nothing wrong with this since this is where you must begin; BUT, in my not so humble opinion, it is time for a change. It is time to close the book on this chapter and move on to Chapter 2.

It is time to get out of the office and into the face of every power plant general manager you can get an audience with and find out how they see the transition to renewable energy. They have read the same things in the trade journals I have, so they know what is coming. It is time to start talking to hundreds of coal mine worker and those that run the power plants and fix the distribution grid. It is time to start building a much broader BASE from which to ensure the change you desire can be achieved.

I would also start talking to as many union executives as possible and see what they believe would be a reasonable transition plan and what roll they see for themselves in the future. Many unions have or can develop excellent training programs. Their support and the support of the individuals they represent is imperative.

As someone who worked in the nuclear power industry for 20 years and then consulted with many senior executives in that industry, I can't stress just how important Chapter 2 will be. Getting out of the office and into the field is difficult and challenging for some. However, it is these same individuals who will be providing the feedback necessary to determine the what, when, where and how a smooth transition can be achieved.

Tom G.

Comment
16 of 23

Keller

January 6, 2011

If I were you, I would not be quite so quick to smugly write off coal. It is abundant and technology has a way of overcoming seemingly impossible barriers. I would also not be so quick to jump onto the renewable band wagon. Basic physics and the laws of economics do not favor wide-scale use of erratic and diffuse energy sources.

Help is on the way to Kentucky, but from a completely unexpected direction.

Comment
17 of 23

Keller

January 6, 2011

Kristin,
If you would be so kind to contact me at m.keller@hybridpwr.com, I would like to forward a technical paper that I suspect you will find interesting. By the way, I graduated from Virginia many years ago with a nuclear engineering degree.

Regards,
Mike

Comment
18 of 23

Anonymous

January 6, 2011

As to the title of this article, it is quite appropriate.
While the Red state of Texas has political leadership that talks non-stop nonsense, private enterprise in the state has quietly been building a wind-powered infrastructure, putting Texas in the number one spot for that growing energy source.

It does seem a little strange to me to have to listen to a political leadership that is so out of touch with reality, while the energy people in Texas continue to develop wind night and day.

Comment
19 of 23

tomgarven

January 6, 2011

This article is getting some traction and good comments. Mike would you please send me a copy of the technical paper?

To: tomgarven@hotmail.com

Please put POWER in all caps on subject line.
Thank you
Tom G.

Comment
20 of 23

ktracz

January 6, 2011

Thanks Tom G, and others, for the great feedback. A few initiatives I'd like to draw to your attention that embody some of your suggestions:
1) Through the Appalachian Transition Initiative, we are certainly seeking to hear how Kentuckians and residents of the Appalachian region envision transition. Please take a look at our website: www.appalachiantransition.org to learn more.

2)We are an active member of the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance (www.kysea.org) that includes business owners, renewable energy installers, community based organizations, and many others and works to advance policy change in Kentucky to create an environment more supportive of clean energy technologies. Through this effort, we are in dialogue with labor unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, LiUNA, and others. I will be presenting at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in February in DC -- it is put together in part by the BlueGreen Alliance.

3)While we have not reached out directly to power plant managers as you suggest, we are partnering with rural electric co-ops under our How$martKY on-bill financing program. We just received PSC approval for the pilot program before the holidays, and are preparing to roll out the program in the next few weeks: http://maced.org/howsmart-overview.htm

Thank you, again, for your insightful comments -- I appreciate the chance to share learnings about this topic!

Kristin Tracz, MACED

Comment
21 of 23

tomgarven

January 6, 2011

Kristin:

I scanned all of the references in your post and found the one dealing with the How$martKY program [and approval] the most interesting. I would have hoped for a larger target group and more participants but you are on your way. It would have been nice if your AG was a little more supportive. Don't get me wrong; it is an EXCELLENT first step and I have saved a copy of the program for consideration in my community.

What would I have changed? I would have included lighting improvements for residential customers not just for commercial customers. I would have tried to find and included a 15 year warranty for heat pumps to negate some of the AG's concerns. There are many 10 year warranties around and 15 years wouldn't cost a whole lot more. I also would have taken the AG out to lunch a few more times before the hearings, LOL.

All in all I think you are on a very good path. So for Chapter 3, I would continue to focus on HOW everything you want to do will get paid for. Seems like the next logical step.

Please do not loose my e-mail address and when you have time please send me some lessons learned as the program is implemented.

Thank you
Tom G.

Comment
22 of 23

tomgarven

January 6, 2011

Keller said in part: "If I were you, I would not be quite so quick to smugly write off coal. It is abundant and technology has a way of overcoming seemingly impossible barriers."

Tom G responds.
What you say is true. Tomorrow some bright mind could find a way to burn coal without adding any carbon or other pollutants to our environment. It could happen.

Comment
23 of 23

tomgarven

January 13, 2011

@Dave

I don't mind doing paperwork if it serves a purpose. I do however mind doing the work over and over again for different local and federal agencies.

For a few months last year I was a solar PV salesman and engineer. We would go out, sell the system and do most of the on-site drawings for the installation. Then the documentation was turned over to business owners who did the final take-offs, ordered the panels and inverters and misc. supplies. The permits were obtained, drawings were approved, city and utility inspections were completed and the systems were turned over to the customers. About 100 pages of paperwork in a small town in Arizona.

I have read that in California over 350 pages of documentation are required for most jurisdictions. If you also happen to have a homeowners assoc. add another 100 pages plus they will want a copy of the completed package. All in all over 500 pages of documentation.

I can only end this posting by saying it seem to me that after 50 years of dealing with various government agencies, they now seem to be on a paperwork feeding frenzy. I believe much of that feeding frenzy is probably due to a lack of willingness on the part of one agency to share information with another agency.

Why might you ask? Because paperwork is job security. From the perspective of a government agency; if I know something and you don't, I get to keep my job. I am sad to say that mentality does exist.

Should it be like this? Of course not. Will it improve when the economy improves; I sure hope so. How can a business deal with this? Maybe by calculating in the cost of one employee to do nothing but paperwork? Maybe by doing the work according to every applicable code and standards in a highly professional and safe manner and then ask for forgiveness. That however is not the kind of risk I would care to take.

In the end I'm with you. What every happened to the paperwork reduction act?

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!

NEW Smart Phone App

Kristin Tracz

About: Kristin Tracz joined MACED in June 2010 after finishing her Master of Environmental Management degree at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Kr... more »