Green industry casts wide net

Renewable-energy sector created 91,000 jobs in state, study says

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 16, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

• 8 Comments
• Email
• Print

Photo by Barry Gutierrez / The Rocky

The Peetz Wind Energy Center in Peetz. A study released Thursday concluded that Colorado's renewable-energy and efficiency industry created more than 91,000 jobs and generated $10.2 billion revenue in 2007.

If your idea of a green job includes a furnace repairman or an auto-dealer who sells fuel-efficient vehicles, this study's for you.

Funded by the state government, Xcel Energy, the city and county of Denver and others, a study released Thursday concluded that Colorado's renewable-energy and efficiency industry created more than 91,000 jobs and generated $10.2 billion revenue in 2007.

Government officials, investment bankers, lawyers and university professors who have dealt with solar, wind and biomass are considered partial green-collar workers in the study.

The study was conducted by the Boulder nonprofit American Solar Energy Society and research firm Management Information Services, in Washington, D.C. The study found that the renewable-energy and efficiency sector accounted for more than 4 percent of the gross state product in 2007 - making it one of the biggest contributors to Colorado's economy.

"In a surprisingly short time Colorado has effectively positioned itself as a national leader in the green economy," said Brad Collins, ASES' executive director.

"Colorado's experience offers a good case study for other states about how to tap into the tremendous economic opportunities in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency sectors."

Nationwide, the sector created more than 9 million direct and indirect jobs and produced $1.045 trillion in revenue.

In Colorado, the study forecasts, the sector could grow to as much as $61.5 billion and create 613,000 jobs by 2030 with research, development and stable policy initiatives.

In contrast, a 2005 study conducted by the Colorado School of Mines concluded that the state's oil and gas industry contributed nearly $23 billion and 70,000 jobs annually.

Critics questioned the new study, doubting that renewables and energy-efficiency companies employ 1 in every 30 Colorado workers - or nearly twice the number of cops, firefighters, security guards and prison guards, combined.

Ron Witwer, the former Republican state representative from Genesee who sponsored legislation in 2007 to double Colorado's renewable-energy goal, is skeptical.

"As a proponent of renewables, I'm concerned that exaggerated numbers just give skeptics more ammunition to undermine green-energy efforts," he said Thursday.

He had expressed similar doubts in October after Gov. Bill Ritter said the renewable-energy industry has created 90,000 direct and indirect jobs in Colorado, citing this study. At that time, Ritter had mistakenly attributed the study to the University of Colorado Leeds School of Business but subsequently corrected the author to be the Solar Energy Society.

ASES' Collins said the study used broad definitions of the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industry.

"We wanted to capture the broadest possible involvement of the economy, so that for companies that touch energy efficiency - even only in part - that part was included," he said. "So it's a whole description."

For renewable energy, the study considered the impact of wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen, fuel cells and geothermal energy, along with biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Calculating the impact of energy efficiency was more difficult, Collins said, because it usually includes energy services such as weatherization, new insulation in attics, caulking doors and windows, recycling, reuse and re-manufacturing.

But the study went a step further by including businesses with products and services that are partially energy-efficient.

For instance, it included companies that make, repair or maintain air conditioners, furnaces, windows, automobiles and other products that sell energy-efficient models along with ordinary ones.

"We took that section of the work that makes the energy-efficient product, a partial number of full-time employees, and a ratio of the revenue from the plant," Collins added.

The report also noted companies that have announced plans in the past two years to add jobs in Colorado:

* Wind-turbine maker Vestas Wind Systems is developing plants in Windsor and Brighton with plans to employ a total of more than 2,000 people.

* AVA Solar Inc., a spinoff from Colorado State University, plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant that would employ 500 people.

* Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. said it was moving its U.S. headquarters from Austin, Texas, to Broomfield, which offered economic incentives to lure the wind-energy farm developer. The headquarters is expected to employ 140 people.

* Siemens Energy said it would establish a wind turbine research and development center that would employ 50 people in Boulder.

The American Solar Energy Society was founded in 1954. Management Information Systems' client list includes Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Lockheed Martin and the U.S Marine Corps.

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

GREEN STATE

Colorado's green industry provides nearly 100,000 jobs in the state and brings in $10 billion in annual revenue, according to Boulder-based nonprofit American Solar Energy Society and Management Information Services. Some findings:

* Green industries generated $10.2 billion in revenue and provided over 91,000 jobs in Colorado in 2007, accounting for more than 4 percent of the gross state product.

* This could grow to as much as $61.5 billion and 613,000 jobs by 2030 with continued leadership, research, development and policy efforts.

* Colorado is a disproportionately large player in the renewable-energy industry. Colorado's gross state product accounts for only about 1.7 percent of the U.S. GDP, but in 2007 Colorado had about 6 percent of the U.S. wind market, nearly 6 percent of the photovoltaics market and about 5 percent of the biofuels market.

* Hottest sectors include: wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, biofuel, R&D (federal government), recycling, energy-efficient windows/doors and green building.

* The green industry generates about 70 percent more jobs than the oil and gas sector and more than 21/2 times as many jobs per revenue as the oil and gas sector.

• January 16, 2009

  6:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  cleantech writes:

  In a tight economy it's good to know which sectors are well positioned for future growth. The report is at:

  www.ases.org/greenjobs

• January 16, 2009

  7:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  VVVV writes:

  Thank you RMN for insinuating that the statistics that Solar Energy Society do not correlate with the statistics for the national GDP percentage. Some deeper investigation would have been nice to determine what jobs are not included in the national study that SES did include. But I understand that you might be on a tight budget at the moment.

  I fear that with the loss of the RMN, there will be no stopping everyone jumping on the bandwagon, only to potentially see it crash just like petroleum in the 80s. Since it is all politically driven, all it would take is Obama screwing up enough to guarantee a radical conservative in 2012 to completely undermine the industry. But then enthusiasm never listens to warnings that things might be too good to be true. I guess we are just used to having a massively migrant population coming and going, but never adopting Colorado as their home, so they will never vote to improve the situation if it means they get taxed more. If the economy gets bad, they'll just go back to Detroit, LA, Dallas, etc. and leave a wake of trash.

• January 16, 2009

  9:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mmannino writes:

  This report is just short of propaganda. The conclusions are absurd as noted by its critics. Similar conclusions could be reached about the traditional energy industry. Let's count people who service autos, sell autos, wash autos, ... In addition, many jobs (furnace repair, insulation installation) have nothing to do with massive subsidies and mandates for alternative energy. Any comparison to the traditional energy industry is rigged because the traditional energy industry is burdened with outrageous restrictions, taxation, and regulation.

  The cheerleaders for massive subsidies and mandates to alternative energy will continually try to obscure the issues. The major issue is whether alternative energy should receive massive operating subsidies and mandates. I do not object to some level of subsidies for research and development. Operating subsidies and mandates are another issue however. Please demand answers to the following question about alternative energy:

  - Full cost disclosure including the extra cost of transmission capacity and backup power generation
  - The impact of alternative energy on electricity rates as compared to alternatives such as new coal plants.
  - Pollution impact taking into account the need for continually available backup generation. Any reductions in pollution from alternative energy can be offset by the need for continually available backup power.
  - The impact of much higher energy costs on other parts of the economy. While it is true that massive subsidies and mandates for alternative energy will generate economic activity, the issue is the cost of this additional economic activity. Saddling the economy with much higher energy costs will undoubtedly cause the decline of much more economic activity than created by massive subsidies and mandates for alternative energy. Unfortunately, the party in power will only count the increased economic activity, not the counter balancing decline in economic activity. Do not be fooled by the cheerleaders however. If electricity rates substantially rise, the losses in economic activity will overwhelm any increases in economic activity.

• January 16, 2009

  9:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jackson_foi writes:

  90,002 ASES. We bought the high-efficiency AC and window glazing, and 6s instead of 8s in our cars.

• January 16, 2009

  11:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  NeilT writes:

  mmannino writes: "Unfortunately, the party in power will only count the increased economic activity, not the counter balancing decline in economic activity."

  Yet, you refuse to acknowledge the contribution alternative energy/sustainability/conservation has and continues to make to our economy. You most definitely will not admit that these WILL contribute even more to our economy in the future.

  You refuse to acknowledge that many, many people have bought improved insulation/windows/vehicles/etc, without subsidies, in the name of saving money and increasing/retaining the value of their property. Energy efficient products/homes are in high demand amongst people that want to save on energy expenses. We call them conservationists, as opposed to conservatives. Oh, the irony.

  You do know that an entire sub-industry has taken off, from Architects to final cleaning, in regard to super-energy-efficient homes. These homes are built without central heating and cooling. Unfortunately, this is happening in Germany, instead of the United States.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/wor...

  I suppose I should accept the fact that we have become followers, instead of being the leaders that we built our reputation on. Still, for a <5% increase in construction cost, I'd like for Americans to rid themselves of their heating and cooling bills. Wishful thinking, I know. There are a lot of home-based interest$ that vehemently disagree with me, of course. Oh well, some folks in Germany are not too concerned with the Russian-borne natural gas issues taking place right now. They don't even have a heater. Now if these same Germans adopted the Spanish version of electrical power, in the form of solar concentrators, they wouldn't need to rely on many others for very much (unlike the U.S.). Half of their vehicles are diesel, as well. Don't forget about the much improved mileage and their huge biodiesel industry.

  Good for them!

  Another tidbit you will not admit, or fail to understand, is that all energy was and still is heavily subsidized. Coal would not be delivered without the railroads. Ridiculously cheap leases enable the extraction of resources. Shall we talk about global energy security and the costs associated with it?

  Subsidies open the door for further investment. Further investment will enable these technologies to scale. Once they scale the costs will come down. Simple. At least we are experiencing growth in these areas, no thanks to you and your ilk. What other industry, in your opinion, is as promising for Americans?

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12318...

• January 16, 2009

  12:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mmannino writes:

  NeilT,

  I do not refuse to acknowledge any economic activity. I just want an honest accounting. I am opposed to massive operating subsidies and mandates for energy efficiency and alternative energy. Private individuals can make informed choices about energy efficiency. The subsidies for energy efficiency (mostly huge tax credits and deductions) are driving the growth, not basic economics. Alternative energy is driven by massive mandates, not basic economics. The promoters of alternative energy, especially the politicians want to hide the true costs. Barack Obama, in a candid moment, indicated that electricity rates would increase substantially because of alternative energy mandates.

  Your claim that all energy is subsidized is absurd. Coal users must bear the full transportation costs. The railroad industry must pay costs to build and maintain rail networks. If you want to see real leasing costs, auction all the private land on which rail lines exist. The true lease costs will depend on alternative uses of the land.

  I support some level of R&D subsidies for alternative energy and energy efficiency. The operating subsidies and mandates will ensure that we choose inefficient technologies that lead to high energy prices, poor reliability, and non competitive industries that rely on high energy usage.

• January 16, 2009

  12:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  windbourne writes:

  The thing that is missing here is that Xcell just opened up bids for 2GWs worth of clean (or mostly clean) power.

  From SPaceDaily:
  http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/X...
  <q>
  Xcel Energy will seek to acquire approximately 2,200 megawatts of electric generation supply for its Colorado customers between now and 2015, through an all-source request for proposal (RFP) issued by the company. The RFP is part of the most recent 2007 Colorado Resource Plan (CRP) approved by state regulators in December.
  Xcel Energy is seeking to add up to 700 megawatts of additional wind and solar generation through the RFP. In addition, the company will consider acquiring up to 600 megawatts from solar thermal generation with storage capability or natural gas backup.
  Under Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules, all forms of electric generation greater than 30 megawatts - both fossil fuels and renewables - can be bid, although this RFP restricts coal-fired bids to those from facilities that capture and sequester at least 50 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions.
  </q>

  In particular, the important thing is that Xcell is looking to get power from OTHER AE sources. That includes Solar Thermal and geo-thermal. Solar Thermal is currently at the same costs as coal, and much cheaper than "Clean" Coal . With a bit of work and luck, Skyfuel (a local company) may have a contract for that work. In addition, it is possible that this could springboard 1 or more local geo-thermal companies. In particular, several of the local drilling companies may want to hook up with some other companies and pursue this option.

• January 16, 2009

  6:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  NeilT writes:

  "Your claim that all energy is subsidized is absurd. Coal users must bear the full transportation costs. The railroad industry must pay costs to build and maintain rail networks"

  If the government didn't help build the railroads to begin with, they wouldn't be self-supporting today.

  You either need a serious history lesson or you will not admit to the true history of industry in the United States.

  Start with the "Pacific Railway Act of 1862." If not for this helping hand, coal would have a very difficult time moving about today.

Featured

• Inauguration Keepsakes

  

  Pre-order special edition copies of the Wed., Jan. 21 Rocky and other inauguration keepsakes.

• Midyette trial

  

  Alex Midyette's trial started today. Follow the trial through live updates from the courtroom.

• Nuggets dancers

  

  See the Nuggets dancers' fashion shoot.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: No Bull: Fans speak out on the Broncos' new head coach.

• Stock Show

  

  A roundup of the best coverage from the National Western Stock Show.

• Legislature Blog

  

  The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.

• Boulder Wildfire

  

  See photos from the Boulder County fire.

• Weekend plans?

  

  Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.