The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Monday, May 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Response to LA Times: Solar Projects Benefit Counties

Keely Wachs, Senior Director of Corporate Communications, BrightSource Energy
November 28, 2012  |  6 Comments

As other reporters and bloggers have pointed out, Sunday's Los Angeles Times ran a one-sided and misinformed article questioning the economic benefits of utility-scale solar projects on desert counties.

Let’s be perfectly clear – the counties where utility-scale solar projects are being built are benefitting significantly in direct and economic investments, tax revenues and job creation.  For example, our $2.2 billion Ivanpah project is more than 70% complete and is employing more than 2,000 workers on site today.  At its peak, the project employed more than 2,100 workers, and is estimated to generate $250 million in construction wages and $650 million in total wages over its 30-year life.  More than 80 percent of these workers are from the local union halls in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.  Many of these trade workers were unemployed for years following the economic downturn in 2008.  Today, they are earning good wages to support their families and buying goods in their local communities.  You can meet a couple of these impressive construction workers by viewing this video.

The Ivanpah project is also estimated to generate approximately $300 million in local and state tax revenues over its 30-year life.  The wages and taxes generated at Ivanpah only represent the project’s direct economic benefits.  The indirect benefits to local businesses are estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.  The Ivanpah project also takes pride in supporting the local community by contributing to High Desert universities and philanthropic organizations, supporting job training opportunities, youth organizations, veteran’s services and more.

As a solar developer, we understand that our projects will have impacts on local infrastructure, such as roads and emergency services.  This is why we work closely with local leaders to better understand our impacts, identify ways to minimize them wherever possible and fairly mitigate the county for impacts that cannot be avoided.  We took this approach in San Bernardino County when developing the Ivanpah project and we’re currently engaged in similar discussions in other counties for future projects. 

The LA Times highlights one such project – Hidden Hills Solar in Inyo County – where we are currently working with local leaders.  The story points out that just five percent of the construction jobs at Hidden Hills would be filled by Inyo County residents.  Yet the story ignores the fact that the primary reason that five percent of the construction workers come from Inyo County is because it has a small population.  According to the most recent census, Inyo County has 18,000 residents.  Compare this with the two million residents in San Bernardino County where Ivanpah is being built. 

In fact, according to an independent socioeconomic and fiscal analysis report created for the California Energy Commission (CEC) staff, “Due to extraordinarily high unemployment rates within Inyo County, particularly in the construction trades, it is reasonable to assume that the local labor force will be able to supply all available positions.”  In other words, the project could put all of the county’s unemployed qualified construction workers back to work.  

The story also accepts Inyo County’s claim that the project would cost the county $11-12 million during the 30-month construction phase and an additional $2 million a year in public safety and other services, completely ignoring the independent CEC report.  Again, the independent analysis counters these claims and highlights the significant economic benefits of these projects.

The independent report looks at two scenarios – Inyo County’s analysis and its own third-party analysis.  Scenario 1 applies the county’s analysis of $11-12 million impacts during construction and $1.2 million in annual operations, while Scenario 2 applies the independent report’s analysis of $2.7 million in costs during construction and $390,000 in annual operations.  In both scenarios, the net fiscal impacts are significantly beneficial to the county.  Scenario 1 results in a positive net fiscal impact of $61.1 million and Scenario 2 leads to a positive net fiscal impact of $88.2 million.

The bottom line: these projects are providing tens of millions of dollars in positive fiscal benefits to the counties where they are built.  Whether one uses data provided by the county, a solar company or an independent party, the projects are creating jobs, leading to direct investments, indirect spending and tax revenues for the counties.  To argue otherwise ignores the facts and creates false perceptions regarding one of our nation’s fastest growing industries.  

This article was originally published on BrightSource and was republished with permission.

Lead image: Solar installation via Shutterstock

6 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
December 5, 2012
I'm all for solar energy, but let's clarify some of the arguments in this response:

"The story points out that just five percent of the construction jobs at Hidden Hills would be filled by Inyo County residents. Yet the story ignores the fact that the primary reason that five percent of the construction workers come from Inyo County is because it has a small population. According to the most recent census, Inyo County has 18,000 residents. Compare this with the two million residents in San Bernardino County where Ivanpah is being built."

The population comparison above is completely irrelevant to percentage of county residents being employed by the project.The % of Inyo Co. residents employed by the project has nothing to do with San Bernardino or the Ivanpah project whatsoever. The majority of construction workers would actually be coming from Nevada, where the closest population center is located. The concern of the County is that they will not realize the job creation or economic development benefit of the project, since wages/tax revenue would go not only to a different County, but a different State, while the County (which is very small, and therefore has tightly constrained resources) has to dedicate staff and time to permitting and overseeing the project.

"It is reasonable to assume that the local labor force will be able to supply all available positions...In other words, the project could put all of the county's unemployed qualified construction workers back to work."

Numbers don't always provide the best story. In this instance, one might consult a map. The project is located 200 miles east of Inyo County's population center, over 3 mountain ranges, on the far side of Death Valley - which is historically recognized as one of the hardest commutes of all time. It is most definitely not reasonable to assume the project will put Inyo County's unemployed contractors to work - unless they move to Nevada
Jim Ash
Jim Ash
November 29, 2012
Maybe they are Jaded by or are in bed with LA County and their Inspectors. They are trying everything possible to run good companies that offer clean affordable renewable energy to other counties or States
ANONYMOUS
November 29, 2012
Agreed with the 1st and 2nd commenters; the LA Times has abused its influence in recent months. They told their readers to vote no on Prop 37, and I almost would have if I was a sheep that didn't research the issues and just went with what the news told me to do. I'm thinking Monsanto, Pepi, Dow, etc, must've made their own "contributions" to the LA Times.

And anonymous commenter # 4: So nuclear power plants aren't expensive to build/maintain? They may not produce carbon emissions, but to say the are "really green" is ludicrous. I have lived next to a nuclear power plant all my life, which was built in one of the most beautiful coastal areas in California, and no one in the area wants it there because they are storing their spent fuel above ground with no real plan of what to do with it. That's toxic pollution waiting to happen, a cost that is not calculated into the price of nuclear electricity. And what happens when we continue to put these plants on fault lines and next to the ocean where a disaster like Fukushima can repeat itself? Is the possibility of a nuclear disaster "really green"? External costs of fossil fuels and nuclear fuels are not taken into account, they are artificially cheap, ESPECIALLY fossil fuels which the government *gasp!* SUBSIDIZES! So we're building a concentrated solar power plant to prepare for the day that school kids won't have to practice evacuation drills in case of a meltdown and we won't have to worry about environmental destruction.

Furthermore, what electric company pays for it's own maintenance? NONE! They repair the grid, power plant, distribution lines, etc, then pass on that cost when they raise electricity prices. Get your facts straight before commenting next time. Actually, get a tow truck, 'cause your ideas are stuck in the mud, fool. PWNED!
ANONYMOUS
November 29, 2012
It makes sense to discuss the downside to solar energy site development. It is expensive and is not free for the local governments. First the US taxpayers pays to build the facility and then the local counties and cities pay to sustain the facility. Solar technology will never pay back the investors so it has to be subsidized by the government. The extra costs will eventually be passed on the energy consumer or taxpayer. WHY DOESN'T THE POWER COMPANY PAY FOR MAINTENANCE. The answer is: Solar power is not profitable. If you are going to promote green energy, consider nuclear or thorium reactors (SSTAR) which are profitable and REALLY GREEN.
CAROLL MARSTON
CAROLL MARSTON
November 29, 2012
There seemed to be a time when news reports were simply that - NEWS - unbiased and informative. Did that change when the news outlets were purchased by corporations that began to use the "news" for persuasive (and sometimes political) purposes. Thanks to the writers of the above article for keeping the news media "honest".
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
November 28, 2012
Excellent response. It's becoming increasingly clear that the LA Times simply has an ax to grind regarding renewable energy. Not sure why, but all readers should be aware of this apparent bias.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 11
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 10
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • Rotork plc
  • SolarEdge Technologies
  • KACO new energy, Inc.
  • Demand Energy
  • Solar Energy International (SEI)
  • CleanEdison
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information