Give Green Jobs Training Time to Succeed
As part of the Recovery Act, the government - we - invested in training programs for careers in the green economy. Last Friday, the Department of Labor's Inspector General (IG) released a report suggesting that this still-nascent investment hadn't paid off in job creation and should be terminated, the funding for it reverting to Treasury. We beg to differ.
Investments don't pay off over the short term. That's the point. You're investing in a future return.
As part of the Recovery Act, the government - we - invested in training programs for careers in the green economy. Last Friday, the Department of Labor's Inspector General (IG) released a report suggesting that this still-nascent investment hadn't paid off in job creation and should be terminated, the funding for it reverting to Treasury.
We beg to differ. In a separate memo, we've explored the full details of our disagreement. Here's a summary.
First of all, the IG's report claims that the money hasn't been spent in a timely fashion - but they're not counting all of the money the program has committed. The report considers only money spent instead of money obligated. The training programs at issue are paid upon completion, not at the outset - just as one would hope. Funding has been obligated to programs which are still in process. When that money is included, almost two-thirds of the funds have been obligated in the three training programs and close to 90 percent have been obligated of the grants for labor market research and capacity building.
Second, the report focuses on job placement outcomes, which is necessarily the slowest part of a training program. Jobs are the final step. Since most of the training started in the second half of 2010, and the IG's report counts placement data from mid-2011 - less than a year later - it's a flawed and unrealistic metric.
Third, the report focuses on new worker training at the expense of the training of workers already on the job. Improving the skills of existing workers adds enormous value to the economy, and some of the funded programs do nothing but that. The report acknowledges this omission, but doesn't, it seems, consider it important.
There is an aspect of the report with which we don't disagree: we haven't been able to put people into green jobs fast enough. Not fast enough to match the growth of green economy and renewable energy manufacturers; not fast enough to get more jobs for people looking for work
And not fast enough, in part, because employer demand has been softer than expected. The blame for that doesn't lie with efforts to prepare people for jobs - it lies with the constant drumbeat from fossil fuel companies and their allies in Congress demanding that the green economy be slowed or shuttered. It lies with a still-stumbling economy that's in the hands of a Congress that doesn't want to look at it.
The lesson of the past two years isn't that the government shouldn't invest, or that its investments need to pay off immediately. It's that the government can have a role to play in giving Americans the best possible shot at having good, long-term careers. This training program is one way to do that - if we judge it fairly.
Any emerging, growing sector is going to require new training structures to be successful; these are jobs that often didn't exist. Training can be a pathway to the middle class for communities that are otherwise at risk of being left out of the economy entirely.
We can't job train our way into a growing economy. We can, however, prepare our workforce to be successful for it - to be ready for jobs in the fastest growing economic sectors are and in what promises to be the most competitive sector in the global economy.
And we must.
Impetus for job creation lies with the utility companies.
The greatest deterrent to solar energy is it’s direct competition to utility companies. Many homeowners have felt the angst of dual metering, distribution fees, reimbursed energy tax credits and rate credits that expire at the end of the year if they are not used. It simply costs too much this way for homeowners to convert to green energy.
To put it simply: Utilities are in business to make money. They make money by selling energy. Selling energy in a predictable fashion exceeds the requirements of a solar or wind farm. Therefore, hydroelectric, coal and nuclear are used as the mainstay grid suppliers. How can we overcome this competition so that a natural transition is accomplished? The answer is:
A Government sponsored Solar Lease Program for Utility Companies.
A typical example of this would be:
1) A homeowner leasing a solar panel system from a utility on his/her own residence.
2) The utility owns the equipment with a right of way clause. Money is borrowed from federal funds to buy, maintain and install.
A) The utility makes provisions for grid tie systems to provide a path for excess power to flow into the grid from each home. This creates a “pool” of energy in the existing grid from many sources. (Many different systems can be designed for this.)
B) Measured by region, a local cooperative utility such as Presque Isle Utility with 200,000 homes would have annual usage of: 2.4 trillion watts and double that for solar power production: 4.8 trillion watts. With the utility owning the systems, excess power can be sold to external utility grids with enough revenue to pay for nighttime coal usage to supply non solar periods. All excess power is sold and the utility profits.
C) Measured by region, a local cooperative utility such as Presque Isle Electric & Gas Utility with 200,000 homes would have annual usage of: 2.4 trillion watts and double that for solar power production: 4.8 trillion watts. With the utility owning the systems, excess power can be sold to external utility grids with enough revenue to pay for nighttime coal usage to supply non solar periods. All excess power is sold and the utility profits.
3) It is the homeowner’s responsibility to pay a monthly lease payment commensurate with existing utility rate average. This is a choice of paying the same rate: Use metered electricity provided by existing methods or green energy provided by solar and wind. If the rate is the same, no one cares where they get their electricity. It becomes a “no brainer.”
A) The Federal government provides low interest loans to the utility for the system on a long term re-payment from the homeowner.
B) The utility makes provisions for grid tie systems to provide a path for excess power to flow into the grid from each home. This creates a “pool” of energy in the existing grid from many sources. (Many different systems can be designed for this.)
C) Average daily usage would be approximately 12 kilowatts per hour for this example. This results in:1 megawatt of annual usage per home.( 24 hours times 365 days times 1.2 kilowatts/hour.)
D) The solar equipment would be sized at double this amount: 24 Megawatts annually (10 kilowatt/hour times 6.5 hours average sunlight times 365 days per year, adjusted regionally.)
E) The homeowners continue to pay the equipment leases which then cost the utility nothing for investment, only maintenance and low solar assist energy. If the homeowners default, power to the home can be discontinued and the solar equipment will continue to generate power without removal.
The result of this would be near elimination of daytime coal production, if it is at a national level. Also at the national level would be:
1) Loans to fund many investment companies. Revenue funded at a monthly level from every home. No rise in cost to the homeowner and a green economy.
2) Foreign energy demands would dwindle as the program expands and green sources come online.
3) It would spur new technology such as solar panels with built in battery banks of lithium ion or nickel cadmium batteries that could provid 24 hour power periods, furthering the reduction of generated energy. Also regional battery banks to offset short demand load changes.
4) It would further grid requirements for electric vehicles from clean energy sources.
Only with a program such as this can green energy grow.