Kaine’s “Green Jobs” Initiative

In a Jan. 12 release, and again in his state of the Commonwealth speech, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine outlined the details of his “green jobs” initiative. For the most part, it is a worthy policy thrust, containing some very good ideas, some inoffensive ones, and only one worrisome proposal. The package is modest in scope, constrained by Virginia’s budget straightjacket, but considered as a whole, it would nudge the Commonwealth in the right direction.

Let’s be clear about what the green jobs initiative is not. While there are strong conservation components, the Kaine initiative is not a comprehensive approach to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. “Green jobs” does not address key drivers of energy intensity in Virginia’s economy, such as the auto-centric system of transportation and land use. But provisions of the program, if enacted, would get us closer to creating sustainable, energy-efficient regions.

The most far-reaching – and laudable — provisions would promote energy conservation in two ways: (1) raising energy-efficiency standards for state buildings, and (2) promoting electric utility investments in conservation.

In his state of the Commonwealth address, Kaine cited the top recommendation of his Climate Change Commission: to reduce electricity consumption in Virginia by 19 percent of current levels by 2025 (with adjustments for population growth). That goal won’t reduce total consumption by 19 percent, but it would reduce per capita consumption. It’s an ambitious goal but an achievable one.

Kaine has already issued an executive order requiring all new state buildings be constructed to high energy-efficiency standards. This year, the governor proposes extending that idea by amending the Code of Virginia to require “all state and local government buildings meet either LEED or Green Globes standards for efficiency.”

He’s not talking about new buildings only. He’s talking about retrofitting existing buildings. Retrofits, he notes, would put a lot of carpenters, electricians and installers back to work – a good thing in a recession. Fair enough. What he didn’t do in the speech was say how he intends to pay for the retrofits.

If the plan relies upon the routine allowances for building maintenance and improvements in the state budget, the sums available to pay for the energy-efficiency retrofits will be meager indeed, and the impact on jobs would be minimal. This strikes me as an instance in which the state should exercise its AAA bond rating to borrow money.

Let’s say, for purposes of illustration, that the Department of General Administration has identified $250 million worth of worthy energy-efficiency projects in public buildings, including only projects that generate a payback of 20 percent per year or more. The Commonwealth could borrow that $250 million, paying 5 percent or so on its bonds. Not only would the expenditure of those funds create work for the construction industry at a time it desperately needs it, the expenditures would more than pay their way. Every dollar the state devotes to debt payment, it makes back through a reduction in energy costs — with an ample “profit” to spare. That’s just good business, and a good tactic for addressing the state’s long-term budget challenges.

Of course, state and local government account for only a tenth or so of Virginia’s economy, so these measures leave 90 percent of the economy untouched. Kaine’s proposed changes to utility rate structuring would address that problem. Said Kaine:

Under current law, we guarantee a rate of return for a utility building a new coal plant, but not for investments that promote conservation. That just makes no sense. Our long-term planning should recognize that conservation is just as important an energy source as new construction. We should treat conservation investments at least as favorably as new generation investments, and my bill will do that.

This measure would address a fundamental flaw in Virginia rate-setting policy. (I haven’t read the bill, so I cannot comment on the specifics, but the broad idea behind it is sound.) Despite the many opportunities available, Dominion, Appalachian Power and the smaller power companies have little incentive to invest in energy efficiency and conservation. One idea currently under consideration is Dominion’s proposal to install smart meters in every home. Smart meters would give consumers the means to carefully monitor their electricity consumption. Pilot programs around the world have demonstrated that people utilize electricity more efficiently when they can measure the impact of their activities.

These proposals are “slam dunks” and warrant the full and fair consideration of the General Assembly. Gov. Kaine proposed some other measures, which don’t seem like the “slam dunks” that may require more thought. I will address them in a future post.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

21 responses to “Kaine’s “Green Jobs” Initiative”

  1. Very excellent commentary.

    Where will the money come from?

    How about we institute peak hour pricing for electricity and the “profit” would be used to pay for smart meters and leveraging bonds to pay for Green upgrades, and tax rebates to individuals that do Green upgrades?

    Label it clearly on each electric bill – that the extra fee for peak hour use is not “profit” for the electric company but to be used for GREEN upgrades (which would include the mandatory smart meter).

  2. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    What’s so smart about these meters? It allows a monopoly the ability to charge their customers more for using less. Great idea! Rates will increase across the board as those who ‘save’ will be taxed to provide vouchers for the poor. After all, we can’t have people dieing because they couldn’t use the AC or heat.

    Here’s an idea. How’s about giving homeowners a voucher to get the hell off the grid? Then there would be plenty of juice and we wouldn’t be stuck paying billions for stupid meters.

    BTW, did you know the temp in N. Philippines was 44 degrees the other day? Hasn’t been that cold since back in the 80’s. Quite interesting watching PI news channel as people were bundled up like Eskimos. They don’t have smart meters in PI, just smart people. Most just hook a line to someone elses drop. The meter never sees it.

  3. The suggestion about going “off grid” instead of smart meters is ironic as most folks who have actually gone “off grid” require a smart meter to help them monitor their electricity use to keep it within the constraints of their own “grid”.

    Besides, you don’t need a voucher to do this.

    You can do it anytime you wish – and the government will actually help you pay for it.

    What more would you want?

  4. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Oh yeah, Virginia is out there on alternative energy. Well, they talk a good game, but the benefits go to their big business buddies.

    http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-financing/more-to-desire-from-dsire/

    There is a difference between using a meter as an engineering tool, vs one that is just another big brother reporting tool.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    All I can tell you about green jobs intitiatives is tha most economists discount them.

    1) They are frequently different jobs, not new jobs. You don’t get to count a job you steal.

    2) “Inititative” suggests tht the job has not yet been able to exist on its own. some of these jobs will be unsustainable and will disappear in a few years.

    3) As a corollary to 2). New jobs sometimes happen because the new technology is not a job efficient as the old technology, and therefore it costs more. A new job that is less efficient costs more and isn’t worth as much as a “real” new job created out of new efficiencies.

    People are not going to be so thrilled about those new jobs when they see them on their electric bill.

    ——————–

    I think the best item on this list is incresing the energy efficiency of government buildings. It is a gift that keeps on giving, since it should lower government costs indefinitely. This is known technology with a big payoff – low hanging fruit.

    And if it does NOT work as advertised, if gov’t manage to screw it up, it will be government employees freezing in the dark. Maybe they will then think twice before inflicting it on the rest of us.

    Buildings accoount for a third of all energy use in VA. And they are also a major result of land use. Other than that the supposed relationship between land use and energy is tenuous at best. We have no proff yet that one kind of land use is less energy intensive (in total) than another. That knowledge simply does not exist.

    For example Rail freight has been advertising that they can carry a ton of freight 400 miles on a single gallon of fuel. That works out to something like for times as effcient as a truck (work it out for yourself).

    So why isn’t rail freight one quarter the cost of trucking? Because the total system is what counts.

    And that is the problem with the alleged efficiency of some land use pattern that we don’t have and won’t happen unless we enforce it. We have no way of even guesstimating what the total system costs would be, even if we had a legal and ethical way to engineer it.

    ————————–

    “Pilot programs around the world have demonstrated that people utilize electricity more efficiently when they can measure the impact of their activities.”

    Depend on what you mean. Places that have more expensive electriity use less, and some evidence suggets they also produce less GDP per person.

    Even if you think we SHOULD produce less GDP per person, it is hard to see how tht equates to more efficiency. Or how anyone is better off. You are trading GHG for welfare. So then the argument is that well, yes but you are better off with less GHG than more GDP.

    But if that is the case then we aren’t buying enough GHG reduction, we’d be better off to be still poorer, use less electricity, and produce less GHG.

    Yikes.

    RH

  6. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/go8f6736-copy.jpg

    “And if it does NOT work as advertised, if gov’t manage to screw it up, it will be government employees freezing in the dark. Maybe they will then think twice before inflicting it on the rest of us.”

    Actually they aren’t freezing in the dark. Feddies might be freezing or sweating because there’s no heat or AC by design, but darkness won’t be part of the environmental equation.

    The picture above is the new ‘super green’ fed building in San Fran. That’s what the rest of the country look forward to.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    I’ve heard that building has problems and won’t even be certified by the greenbuilding council. Uses too much steel.

    Also that workers have to wear sunglasses because it lets in too much light.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “Green buildings, as represented by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, are an undisputed market success. In the eight years since the launch of LEED, green has firmly established itself among mainstream leaders in the building sector, representing tens of billions of dollars in value put in place and materials sales. LEED was created to reduce the environmental impacts of the built environment….

    In this report Rob Watson and Greenerbuildings.com attempt to answer whether commercial green buildings live up to their name — that is, that they are engendering demonstrable environmental improvement.

    Their findings are both encouraging and cautionary. Overall, they believe that LEED buildings are making a major impact in reducing the overall environmental footprint of individual structures. However, significant additional progress is possible and indeed necessary on both the individual building level and in terms of market penetration if LEED is to contribute in a meaningful way to reducing the environmental footprint of buildings in the U.S. and worldwide.”

    http://envirovaluation.org/

    If you read on it’s a little hard to see how the billions in construction costs will be recouped. It appears that the savings from alleged reductions in VMT are counted twice.

    Claims are made of energy savings vs commercial buildings, without reference tothe difference in cost from commercial buildings.

    And they claim $170 million per year in incresed productivity from green buildings (like working with sunglasses on?)

    But the chief claim is 78 million ton reduction in CO2. At the current price of $30 a ton that’s a $2.3 billion savings. Based on what I can tell that implies an ROI of ten to twenty years years breakeven, on CO2 alone.

    I beleive green buildings ae one of our best enery saving options, but I really hate this kind of feel-good, fuzzy-math review.

    For example: “LEED has helped spur an entire industry in green building materials. Certified projects to date have specified a total of more than $10 billion of green materials….”

    Oh goody. LEED helped us spend $10 billion extra in so-called green stuff. Subtract that from the energy savings.

    Wait a minute, didn’t they say in the first paragraph that total construction was only tens of billions?

    ????????????????????

    At least the guy in Indiana installing recycled glass countertops shipped from California has a job. But then, they have perfectly good stone, right there in Indiana.

    Hence my rule, if it costs more, it probably isn’t green, at least in that particular application.

    RH

  9. the problem that you have RH is that you don’t consider pollution as a “cost” or you consider it a fixed “cost” that does not vary.

    So let me give you a concrete example.

    Dioxin was considered a very valuable substance that provided very useful products and of course an extremely beneficial ROI.

    ..until.. it was determined that the cost of the pollution was far, far worse and in fact, unacceptable to the point where ROI was not even a discussion point.

    I can repeat this tale with dozens of other chemicals that – over time – were found to be much more harmful than originally considered.

    That changes your ROI.

    The point of GREEN buildings and LEED is that – we admit – that burning coal to produce electricity is now known to be much more harmful than originally thought – and that while there is no easy way to stop using coal – that we need to use less of it and eventually, either require more restrictions (adding expense) or transitioning to other less polluting (but more expensive) technologies.

    I would agree with you that LEED makes no sense just to be doing LEED because it is believed to be “more efficient”.

    But this is why – now days -when we talk about LEED – we talk about how much a particular building contributes to pollution – to green house gases… non-LEED verses LEED.

    so how do you compute the “cost” of green house gases and widespread mercury pollution to figure in to your ROI calculations?

    ROI can change if we determine that mercury and green house gases are much more “costly” than we original thought – the same way that we decided that other pollutants turned out to be much more “costly” than originally thought.

    Nowdays – products that produce Kepone as a waste – no longer have a positive ROI if the kepone cannot be released into the environment as it originally was and instead must be reprocessed into a non-pollutant or permanently sequestered.

  10. and here's the truth:

    "The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
    True, energy efficiency has improved, especially in states like California. But American drivers, households and businesses still use more energy than those in most other rich countries to do the same thing. The United States spends more energy to produce a ton of cement clinker than Canada, Mexico and even China. It is one of the most energy-intensive makers of pulp and paper, emitting more than three times as much carbon dioxide per ton as Brazil and twice as much as South Korea."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    “the problem that you have RH is that you don’t consider pollution as a “cost” or you consider it a fixed “cost” that does not vary.”

    Where did you ever, EVER, come up with that? I recognize pollution as a stream of costs, and some of it is cumulative, as well. I am trained and educated as an environmental chemist.

    —————————

    “I can repeat this tale with dozens of other chemicals that – over time – were found to be much more harmful than originally considered.

    That changes your ROI.”

    Correct, however there are tens of thousands of chemicals out there. We made major mistakes on a few dozeen – that we know of. We made major mistakes in the airline industry that killed hundreds before we figured out what was wrong. For decades the early Portuguese navigators sent ships to sea ballasted with stones that pounded the planks off the bottom.

    Unfortunately, we learn from bad experiences.

    There is stilll no reason to use the precautionary principle to justify extreme measures to prevent a high cost event which has a low probability. That is wasteful use of resources, and it is in no way ‘green”.

    We are really lousy about evaluating uncertainty and we spend, as a rule, way too much avoiding the wrong risks. This is a well known fact that has been studied over and over in psychology. We are more upset over losing $100 than we are happy over winning $100. Even more so if the $100 is percieved as “stolen”.

    If you beileive that we face a small probability one truly catastrophic event, then you would believe we are justified in spending all that we have in preventing it. Obviously this is a fallacy because you wind up catastrophically broke either way.

    Now, what if you face two catastrophic events: global warming or a large meteor impact. You would hate to spend ALL your money fighting global warming, and then spot an incoming meteor.

    You can only spend all your money on one task once, and it is a truley lousy bet. Always.

    ———————–

    I plant corn, and it costs me $800 an acre. My expeced value based on what I know about yield and prices ranges from $600 to $1200 an acre, but it is a skewed curve ($1200 is about as likely as winning the lottery) and the media is only around $900.

    Assuming I get a crop: I could have a catastrophic loss. I can buy insurance, but on average I’ve only got $100 worth of profit to work with, and I gotta eat and continue in business, somehow. Maybe, out of that $100 I can afford $5 worh of insurance premium. That won’t insure me against a catastrophic loss, but it might buy me enough to keep from getting wiped out; enough to start over building new equity.

    So, my risk is $800, my range of uncertainty is $600, my expected profit is $100. Even if I had all the money in the world to work with there would be NO REASON to spend more than $800 on insurance when my loss can only be $800.

    But that is what some “greens” demand when they call in the precautionary principle.

    ——————————

    “I would agree with you that LEED makes no sense just to be doing LEED because it is believed to be “more efficient”.”

    Wrong, if we believe it is more efficient we shoudl do it, but we should not spend a million on leeds if it doesn’t geve us a decent return.

    My comment was ONLY that, based on the figures given, 1) I can’t see what the return is, and 2) a number of those figures look “fishy”, over optimistic, or double counted.

    Good conservation is hard to do. It is complicated and fraught with unintended consequences. There are real physical limits as to what is possible, and economic limits as to what is desireable. Glossing it over and making it sound easy is a sure way to make huge misakes.

    Those mistakes could EASILY cost us more than Kepone, although you won’t believe it.

    I believe we SHOULD have a nationa Apollo or Manhattan project to speed up the introducton of renewable energy. We could have done it for what the war in Iraq costs. We could have done it for what we spend on chewing gum. But I also believe it wll be as difficult and dangerous as the Appollo project as well.

    Unlike EMR I wouldn’t sugggest taht we fund this by confiscating the chewing gum industry. We need industry to provide the economy that allows us the luxury of buying a good environment.

    Obviously there is some kind of trade off to be made there, just as there is with my insurance example.

    ————————–

    EMR, and many others, have expressed the opinion that we need fewer people consuming less stuff. Taht the ecosphere would be better off without us, except we are part of the ecosphere, too.

    If you believe the catastrophic, man-made influence theroy then surely we have an obligation to do something. But we are going to have to answer a fundamental ethical question: “To whom and how much? Who is going to be fewered and who is going to be lessened, by how much?

    But, if you just pulll out the precautionary theory flag, well, you can ignore all that by simply saying we have to do whatever it takes.

    ————————-

    You seem to think that I am not “green”, just because I don’t buy into every green theory and product. In fact, I just demand more quality control, because I know how hard the process is.

    I seee that becoming green the way some people want is likely to kill a lot of people. Others think we can achieve unlimited growth and prosperity through green technology: that we can achieve zero pollution, and everybody can have everything for free, no cost.

    I think that is nonsense, conservation is limited and growth isn’t. Eventually we still have to face he same problems that we now think we can postpone through conservation. We need to figure out what the real problems are and focus on them, because they ae going to make Mercury contamination seem like small potatoes.

    RH

  12. re: who decides how much pollution is “worth it”?

    no you RH – correct?

    so.. if the State of Va or the U.S. Govt decides – and further restricts – based on the existing processes that they do use – and it causes calculations about ROI to change – just because you do not agree with that process and outcome does not mean that we cannot do it.

    You say tomato and the govt says TOMATO.

    Guess whose ‘tomato’ prevails?

    so… if the government decides that there is too much pollution coming from Dominion Power’s smokestacks and they will require more pollution restrictions.. ergo the price of electricity will go up…

    ergo.. LEED and other conservation measures – previously thought not cost-effective – now ARE cost-effective…

    .. then …other than your own strenuous disagreement – why does that process not result in more investment in conservation and energy efficiency?

    Bonus Question: – Could Virginia CONCEIVABLY – decide to treat power plant pollution and electricity rates the same way that California has?

    Double Triple Bonus – since California has the nations highest GDP and the 7th largest in the world – larger than Canada and Spain (I believe) and it’s been that way for more than a decade – your argument that such restrictions and increased costs of electricity harming GDP – seems to be more opinion of yours than anything else.

    So .. California did this… and it is …. conceivable ….that Virginia could also do this.

    right?

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    “The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency.”

    Nonsense. That is NOT the “truth”.

    It ignores the fact that every one of those countries (except japn) has a lower GDP output per person than we do. They are NOT more efficient, they just do less, or they could (also) be more efficient, but at a lower level of output. But your quote does not explain that,and it is therfor misleading.

    California has lost almost 2 million people in the last ten years and their economy is declining compared to other western states. Some of that may be due to their environmental initiatives, but we will never know as long as peopl like yourself refuse to look.

    I am NOT saying that we cannot use less electricity, that we don’t waste some, or tht there are no efficiencies to be made.

    I AM saying that people who publish crap like the qupote above are not telling the whole truth. I think it is destructive to the cause: we need to be beady-eyed, cold-hearted capitalist businessmen if we expect to make green a going enterprise.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    “35-year-old project manager Kristine Gardner says in response to the 44% drop in her 401(k) last year: “There’s just no guarantee that when you’re ready to retire you’re going to have the money.” Newsflash: Higher returns are the compensation for incurring risk, and lower returns are the price of safety. Ms. Gardner’s 401(k) would have been completely safe had she shifted her investment allocations into money markets. As money markets yield a paltry 1%, Ms. Gardner’s real complaint isn’t that 401(k)s are unsafe, but rather that financial markets require her to incur risk in exchange for being compensated for incurring risk.”

    Now, take out 401K and replace it with “environment” and you cansee the problem with overly conservative “greens”.

    No risk, no return.

    RH

  15. “It ignores the fact that every one of those countries (except japn) has a lower GDP output per person than we do. They are NOT more efficient, they just do less, or they could (also) be more efficient, but at a lower level of output. But your quote does not explain that,and it is therfor misleading”

    I’m not aware of the link between energy consumption per capita and GDP.

    Perhaps you can provide some supporting data for your assertion.

    Otherwise – I’ll take something in the NYT to your personal opinion… sorry…

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    I provided that link previously, and you ignored it last time.

    http://secondlawoflife.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/energy-consumption-and-gdp/

    Shows sevveral graphs based on UN data. These are pretty much a stright line, except for Japan which I mentioned before.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/fig18.cfm

    Shows the historic rate of growth of GDP vs energy consumption in the U.S.

    We have been consistently doing better for 60 years, but those lines cannot diverge forever. There is a finite physical limit to efficiency, which we have not reached yet, as evidenced by Japan.

    However, there may also be fundamental differences in how we make a living that cannot be duplicated, such as steel making vs software.

    There is also the issue of absolute energy usage in which the US is a leader by vrtue of size and GDP.

    World GDP is around 50 trillion of which US is around 14 snd japan is next at 4. EU combined is around 10, and China is 3.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “re: who decides how much pollution is “worth it”?

    no you RH – correct?”

    Not me. But we decide every time we decide what to spend.

    We spend 5.9 billion to reduce pollution in non-attainment areas.
    good bad or indifferent, that’s what we spend.

    Then we observe a decrease in deaths from asthma and other respiratory ailments, and the decrease we observe is 500 deaths per year, so the cost of each life saved is $11,800,000 which is twice what EPA figures other life saving measures cost, or are worth.

    Or, maybe we observe a decrease of 2000 deaths, in which case our cost is half of EPA’s value.

    But wahtever it is, it gives us a benchmark which we use to compare our next efforts.

    You don’t like this concept, but as soon as you clim some policy does good, then you have to measure what that good is, and compare it to other goods.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    “ergo.. LEED and other conservation measures – previously thought not cost-effective – now ARE cost-effective…”

    Wrong, we ahve been over this before. Electricity costs whatever it costs, by electing LEED electricity you are paying for electriciy and you are paying for cleaner air.

    You are not buying the same things so you cannot compare the costs. The new price is RELATIVELY more cost effective than the previous condition, but it now isn’t he same condition.

    Even if it is competitive, the new price is higher, you can buy less, and you are worse off. Along with everyone else, and therfore the entire economy.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    “Double Triple Bonus – since California has the nations highest GDP and the 7th largest in the world – larger than Canada and Spain (I believe) and it’s been that way for more than a decade “

    Been over this too. CA is a big state with a big GDP. It has been losing GDP and population for the past five years, partly because of electricity prices and other environmental charges.

    Virginia could be like California and it could get the same results; less population and lower GDP.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “The latest big PV plant (Waldpolenz Park, Germany) to go up using the cheapest thin-film PV available will need to sell its power at $350/MWhr to cover interest and operating costs. That’s three times the current mean residential rate in the US.”

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=54380

    RH

Leave a Reply