Earlier this year I was invited to the White House to discuss the impacts of climate change on small businesses and the positive effects of implementing the Clean Power Plan. I know this topic isn’t as entertaining as much of the dirty mud-slinging and therefore doesn’t generate the media buzz, but let me tell you about what I learned and what I hope will lead to a clean energy speech–or at least a few pro-Clean Power Plan and clean energy job stories–before the polls open tomorrow, November 8.
I learned that very few members of Congress—or other people—have actually read the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Granted, it’s not a page-turner and it’s not 140 characters or less, but let me quickly summarize some key points:
- CPP provides a national set of strategic policies intended to reduce air pollution and the emission of climate change-causing gases.
- Assuming the pending state lawsuits are rejected, states will be required to reduce their pollution 32% below 2005 levels, but that’s split up over 15 years, so 2% to 3% per year is not that challenging, right? Right. The technology (and potential jobs) already exists to accomplish this goal.
- States can come up with their own plan to comply with CPP, so it’s not a “my way or the highway” mandate. States can use solar, wind, hydro, energy efficiency or a combination of clean energy to get rid of our old air-polluting power plants.
Some of my Indiana and Michigan friends and local representatives say that the plan creates unnecessary regulation and that it will cost jobs and raise electricity prices. That would concern any businessperson or consumer, but having read the plan and fact sheets, I must tell you that those assumptions are just assumptions.
The official CPP factsheet explains that the U.S. will see a $20 billion in climate benefits and $14 billion-$34 billion in health benefits from reduced asthma attacks, hospital visits and the like, and post a total net benefit after any extra costs of $26 billion-$45 billion. In other words, the plan will act as a stimulus for the national economy as well as improving public health and help prevent the worst economic effects of the climate-related damage that we’ve seen from increased flooding, drought, wildfires and other extreme weather events.
In terms of jobs, lawsuits against CPP only create more jobs for–you guessed it–lawyers. To generate more middle-class jobs, let’s put the lawsuits aside and focus on upgrading our mid-20th-century grid infrastructure and building new clean power generation facilities. Most U.S. coal plants are retiring anyway, and any new coal or natural gas plants will cost billions. Yes, fossil fuel mining and fracking creates jobs, but at a great cost to our health, our environment, and the ticking climate change clock.
The solar industry has already proven itself to be a job engine. As of November 2015, the solar industry employed more than 208,800 solar workers, representing a job growth rate of 20.2% since November 2014. By the end of 2016, solar is expected to grow another 16% to nearly 240,000 workers. Imagine how many more non-lawyer jobs would be created for solar, wind, energy storage and energy efficiency if states drop their lawsuits and implement CPP.?
CPP also allows states to move toward more decentralized utility power plants. Thousands of moderately sized solar power plants, smartly paired with energy storage battery banks, could be built closer to communities across the country. Such a CPP-based strategy would help stabilize the grid and spread construction and operational jobs across entire states, especially in the Midwest and South where commercial- and utility-scale solar installations have largely lagged behind the solar expansion seen in the Southwest and Northeast United States.
My business and lawmaker friends may also not be considering the manufacturing jobs that will be created. There are already several solar and wind factories in Indiana, Michigan and Georgia. I’ll bet if we begin to implement the CPP and start building gigawatts of wind and solar projects, manufacturers would want to expand their operations into the many empty warehouses and shuttered production facilities scattered across the regions. Moreover, new cleantech companies would also set up innovation hubs in order to meet the regional demand. In a few years, the Rust Belt could be transformed into the Solar Belt.
As for the statement that “solar raises electricity prices,” I can say that our company has built or is building utility solar power plants in Michigan, Indiana and elsewhere that are competitive with the long-term cost of building and running a fossil fuel plant. In the coming years, solar and wind will become even more competitive with conventional energy and will continue to drive down the cost of consumer electricity.
While the candidates are focused on email servers, building a wall, locker room talk and why they are the best and the other is the worst, the U.S. continues to see unprecedented flooding, drought and wildfires. If you agree, tell your representative via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or whatever platform you prefer that #SolarIsNow, not the future, and let’s get back to substantive concerns that will truly affect jobs, the air that we all breathe, and the future of our country.
The original version of this article was published on Greentech Media.
By TJ Kanczuzewski, president and board member, Inovateus Solar
