U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–186 PDF 2009

GREEN JOBS AND THEIR ROLE 

IN OUR ECONOMIC RECOVERY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 31, 2009 

Serial No. 111–13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

[Vacant] 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Tom Price, Georgia, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 31, 2009 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Price, Hon. Tom, ranking republican member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ............................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Additional submissions of: 

Letter, dated April 14, 2009, from the Associated General Contractors of America ......................................................................... 60 

Letter, dated March 31, 2009, from Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. .................................................................................... 58 

‘‘7 Myths About Green Jobs,’’ University of Illinois College of 

Law, by William T. Bogart, et al, Internet address to ................ 66 

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ................................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Additional submissions: 

Uhalde, Raymond J., senior advisor to the Secretary of Labor, 

U.S. Department of Labor, prepared statement of ...................... 54 

Response to ‘‘Seven Myths about Green Jobs’’ and ‘‘Green Jobs 

Myths,’’ working paper series from Robert Pollin, University 

of Massachusetts Amherst ............................................................. 75 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bogart, William T., dean of academic affairs and professor of economics, 

York College of Pennsylvania ...................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Krepcio, Kathy, executive director, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce 

Development, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University ................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Research brief: ‘‘Preparing the Workforce for a ‘Green Jobs’ Economy,’’ February 2009 ............................................................................. 43 

Ringo, Jerome, president, the Apollo Alliance ............................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Letter, dated March 24, 2009, from the Apollo Alliance ........................ 22 

Roy, Robin, Ph.D., vice president, Serious Materials, Inc. ............................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Sherman, Jill, Gerding Edlen Development ................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Wolfe, Clinton R., Ph.D., executive director, Citizen’s for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA) ............................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Additional submissions of: 

‘‘There’s a Green Hangover Coming’’ ................................................ 25 

‘‘A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear 

Energy,’’ August 2008 .................................................................... 27 

(1) 

GREEN JOBS AND THEIR ROLE 

IN OUR ECONOMIC RECOVERY 

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lynn Woolsey [chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Woolsey, Shea-Porter, Payne, Hare, 

Sablan, Price, Wilson, and Kline. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Jordan Barab, Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Jody 

Calemine, Labor Policy Deputy Director; Lynn Dondis, Labor Counsel, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections; Jessica Kahanek, 

Press Assistant; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; James Schroll, Junior 

Legislative Associate, Labor; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Assistant Communications Director; Kirsten Duncan, Professional Staff Member; Ed 

Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg, Senior Legislative 

Assistant; Alexa Marrero, Communications Director; Molly 

McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; and Linda 

Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY [presiding]. A quorum is present. The 

hearing of the Subcommittee on the Workforce Protections will 

come to order. I will yield myself as much time as I may consume 

for an opening statement. 

And I want to thank all of you—all of us, up here, also—for being 

here to attend this hearing on green jobs and the role they play in 

our economic recovery. Green industry, green technology will play 

a key role in our economic recovery, and that is no surprise to any 

of us. So today, the economy, which is in very bad shape, and millions of people are out of work—it is because of that we are going 

to have the discussion of what are green jobs and will they make 

a difference as our economy rebuilds itself? 

In February, unemployment stood at over 8 percent, with workers in the construction sector taking the very hardest hit. But our 

president has taken bold action with the passage of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an act that provides new resources and new momentum to create and maintain millions of new 

jobs. 
2 

Green jobs are a top priority of the Recovery Act, and at least 

$500 million has been set aside for green job training. The exciting 

news is that greening our economy will require workers in existing 

and traditional jobs as well as in new industries and new job sites. 

We now have substantial evidence, some of which you are going 

to hear about today in testimony, that green industries are revitalizing existing jobs that would have otherwise gone by the wayside. 

I am confident that if we stay on course and encourage American 

ingenuity and innovation we can emerge from this national recession stronger than we were before. 

For this hearing today, we intend to roll up our sleeves; we intend to address some of the very practical questions that are in 

front of us. What is the broadest definition we can come up with 

for green jobs—a definition that truly captures the full potential of 

an emerging economy? What factors drive growth in the green jobs? 

What are the skills that workers need, and how do we build on 

existing skills? And finally, what can we do to educate our future 

workforce for these jobs of the future? 

I know that detractors of the green revolution argue that the 

lack of a standard definition for green jobs is a reason not to commit money to it. Well, that is exactly why we are here. 

This is the Labor Committee. This is the Workforce Protection 

Committee. Our responsibility is putting job titles together under 

the Department of Labor, and we will be doing that and building 

on what our information is that we find out from you today. 

We need a long-term viewpoint; we don’t need a shortsighted 

viewpoint. And we may not have an exact consensus on a definition 

today, but most of us can agree on some very, very certain principles. 

We know that green jobs are real. We know that green jobs enhance environmental quality while creating good jobs right here at 

home. And we know that a green economy will transform this country and the world. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of you, and I defer now to 

our ranking member, Mr. Price, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Workforce Protections 

I want to thank everyone for attending this hearing on ‘‘Green Jobs and Their 

Role in our Economic Recovery.’’ 

Green industry, green technology and green jobs are our future, and will play a 

key role in our economic recovery. 

Today the economy is bad and millions of people are out of work. 

In February, unemployment stood at over 8%, with workers in the construction 

sector taking the hardest hit. 

But our President has taken bold action with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that provides new resources and new momentum to create and maintain millions of jobs. 

Green jobs are a top priority of the Recovery Act and at least $500 million has 

been set aside for green job training. 

The exciting news is that greening our economy will require workers in existing 

and traditional jobs as well. 

We now have substantial evidence—some of which you will hear in testimony 

today—that green industries are revitalizing existing jobs that would have otherwise gone by the wayside. 
3 

I am confident that if we stay on course and encourage American ingenuity and 

innovation, we can emerge from this national recession stronger than we were before. 

For this hearing today we intend to roll up our sleeves and address some very 

practical questions. What is the broadest definition we can come up with for green 

jobs: a definition that truly captures the full potential of an emerging economy? 

What factors drive growth in green jobs? 

What are the skills that workers will need, and how do we build on existing 

skills? 

And finally, what can we do to educate our future workforce for these jobs? 

I know that detractors of the green revolution argue that the lack of a standard 

definition for green jobs is a reason not to commit money to it. But that is a shortsighted viewpoint. We may not have a precise consensus on a definition, but most 

of us can agree on certain principals. We know that green jobs are real. We know 

that green jobs enhance environmental quality, while creating good jobs right here 

at home. And we know that a green economy will transform this country and the 

world. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and defer to ranking member 

price for his opening statement. 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I want to thank our distinguished panel for taking time and joining us today and sharing your expertise. 

Today’s hearing provides members of this subcommittee with the 

opportunity to learn more about the emerging workforce sector encompassed by the term ‘‘green jobs.’’ As we have already seen, Congress has played an active role in shaping the direction of this 

workforce. 

In December 2007, the Green Jobs Act was signed into law as 

part of the Democrats’ energy package, creating a new program to 

provide training for workers in the energy efficiency and renewable 

energy fields. The cost was $125 million. 

And recently the Democrats’ spending package included $750 

million for competitive grants to attract workers in high-growth 

and emerging industries. Nearly two-thirds of that has been set 

aside for green, energy efficient, or renewable energy industries. 

It is clear that green jobs, whether through government mandates and spending or through legitimate market forces, are emerging as a significant part of the workforce sector. However, before 

devoting additional federal dollars, if any, to the emerging green 

jobs sector, to the emerging green jobs sector, we must be able to 

identify what exactly entails a green job and gauge the impact on 

the economy. 

There must also be a broader discussion about which energy 

fields and technologies should be captured under the umbrella of 

green jobs. It would be shortsighted not to include a multitude of 

jobs in a broad range of industries, including energy technologies 

such as nuclear power and clean coal. 

Looking at what Congress has already done, the Green Jobs Act 

defined green jobs as energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that include the energy efficient building, construction, and 

retrofit industries, the renewable electric power industry, and the 

energy efficient and advanced drivetrain vehicle industry. Also included in that definition were the biofuels industry, the 

deconstruction and materials use industries, and manufacturers 

that produce sustainable products using environmentally sustainable processes and materials. 
4 

However, some take a much broader definition of green jobs. To 

them, it may mean more than meeting workforce needs in a greenapproved environmental field. They may also add the requirement 

of meeting ideologically-driven social goals. 

A green job, to some, may be one that is part of a unionized 

workforce, that guarantees tenure, or that imposes set costs on employers through mandated wages and benefits. Most Americans 

would not attach these added definitions to what they believe is a 

green job. 

In the years to come, our nation will need a new generation of 

highly educated and skilled employees, and industries must be innovative and responsive to domestic and global competition. Efforts 

to increase energy conservation and foster job creation in the areas 

of green jobs are commendable and may better position the United 

States for the long term. But if the value of social goals is placed 

at a higher premium than economic prosperity and ingenuity, it is 

possible that none of this may be realized. 

Republicans are committed to an emerging dynamic workforce focused on renewable energy and green jobs. Holding this hearing 

today brings us one step closer toward a careful vetting of the definition of a green job, which is important given that this category 

of jobs may be significantly impacted and shaped by future federal 

policies. 

We all look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and 

hope that you will provide us with a full and complete portrait of 

the green job sector. I look forward, as well, to working with my 

colleagues and the chairwoman on the this committee to explore 

this topic further. 

I thank the chair. 

[The statement of Mr. Price follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Price, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey. I would like to begin by 

thanking our distinguished panel of witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate 

that they have taken time out of their busy schedules to share their expertise and 

experiences with us. 

Today’s hearing provides Members of this Subcommittee with the opportunity to 

learn more about the emerging workforce sector encompassed by the term ‘‘green 

jobs.’’ As we have already seen, Congress has played an active role in shaping the 

direction of this workforce. 

In December 2007, the ‘‘Green Jobs Act’’ was signed into law as part of the Democrats’ energy package, creating a new program to provide training for workers in 

the energy efficiency and renewable energy fields. It came at a cost of $125 million. 

More recently, the Democrats’ spending package included $750 million for competitive grants to attract workers in high growth and emerging industries. Nearly 

two-thirds of that has been set aside for green, ‘‘energy efficient or renewable energy 

industries.’’ 

It is clear that ‘‘green jobs’’—whether through government mandates and spending or legitimate market forces—are emerging as a significant part of the workforce 

sector. However, before devoting additional federal dollars, if any, to the emerging 

green jobs sector, we must be able to identify what exactly entails a green job and 

gauge the impact on the economy. 

There must also be a broader discussion about which energy fields and technologies should be captured under the umbrella of green jobs. It would be shortsighted not to include a multitude of jobs in a broad range of industries, including 

energy technologies such as nuclear power and clean coal. 

Looking at what Congress has already done, the Green Jobs Act defined ‘‘green 

jobs’’ as energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that include the energy- 
5 

efficient building, construction, and retrofit industries; the renewable electric power 

industry; and the energy efficient and advanced drive train vehicle industry. 

Also included in that definition were the biofuels industry; the deconstruction and 

materials use industries; and manufacturers that produce sustainable products 

using environmentally sustainable processes and materials. 

However, some take a much broader definition for ‘‘green jobs’’. To them it may 

mean more than meeting workforce needs in a green-approved environmental field 

but the requirement of meeting ideologically-driven social goals. A green job to them 

may be one that is part of a unionized workforce, that guarantees tenure, or that 

imposes set costs on employers through mandated wages and benefits. Most Americans would not attach these added definitions to what they believe is a green job. 

In the years to come, our nation will need a new generation of educated and highly-skilled employees. And industries must be innovative and responsive to domestic 

and global competition. Efforts to increase energy conservation and foster job creation in the areas of green jobs are commendable and may better position the 

United States for the long-term. But if the value of social goals is placed at a higher 

premium than economic prosperity and ingenuity, none of this may be realized. 

Republicans are committed to an emerging, dynamic workforce focused on renewable energy and green jobs. Holding this hearing today brings us one step closer toward a careful vetting of the definition of a green job, which is important given that 

this category of jobs may be significantly impacted and shaped by future federal policy. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses who may provide us with a full and 

complete portrait of the green job sector. And I look forward to working with my 

colleagues on the Committee to explore this topic further. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials to the hearing record. Now I would like to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses who are here this 

morning, and after that I want to—I will tell you before then about 

the lighting system. 

You have 5 minutes. When you start to speak the light will turn 

green in front of you, and then when it turns yellow you know you 

have 1 minute, and then when it is red, we hope that you are ready 

to just totally sum up. And then if you have more that you should 

say, help us when we ask questions. We only get 5 minutes too, between our question and your answer—so help us help you continue 

with your information to us, if you haven’t gotten it all out. We 

would be glad to do that. 

So first I would like to start by introduction Dr. Robin Roy, and 

we are going to continue in the order that I am introducing you. 

Dr. Robin Roy is the Vice President of Projects and Policy at Serious Materials, a company that makes environmentally sustainable 

building materials. 

Now, you may have seen Dr. Roy on television, and you may 

have followed what has been going on, and he will tell us a little 

bit about it. But a Chicago glass manufacturer was going to go out 

of business and Dr. Roy, seeing how, I believe, how dedicated the 

employees were at that company, took a look at could that company 

be useful and beneficial to his company, and they purchased it so 

that it could continue. Before I even met you, Dr. Roy, I was very 

impressed that you did that. 

Before joining Serious, he cofounded Next Energy, which advises 

government industry and environmental organizations on energy 

policy and strategy. Dr. Roy was a project director and fellow at the 

United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment, where he 

advised Congress on energy efficiency initiatives in the federal gov-
6 

ernment and housing sectors. Dr. Roy received his Ph.D. in civil 

engineering from Stanford University. 

Jill Sherman is the Senior Development Manager at Gerding 

Edlen Development, and environmentally-conscious real estate development company in Portland, Oregon. Before joining that firm, 

Ms. Sherman developed affordable housing in the nonprofit sector. 

She holds a B.S. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and a master’s in urban studies from Portland State University 

Thank you for being here, Ms. Sherman. 

Dr. William Bogart is the Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics at York College in Pennsylvania. Before joining 

the faculty at York College, he was Chair of the Economics Department at Case Western Reserve University. 

Dr. Bogart is a prolific writer and teacher of economics and finance. He received a Ph.D. from Princeton University. 

Welcome, Dr. Bogart. 

Jerome Ringo is the President of the Apollo Alliance. He was recently chairman of the National Wildlife Federation, which he represented at the United Nations conference on sustainable development in 1999. 

Mr. Ringo was also a delegate to the 1998 global warming treaty 

negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. He has served as an associate research scholar at Yale University and is currently an official adviser to the Sundance Channel’s, ‘‘The Green.’’ Mr. Ringo attended 

Louisiana Technical University and McNeese State University. 

Now Congressman Wilson is going to introduce Dr. Wolfe. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey and Ranking 

Member Price. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce our next 

witness. 

Dr. Clint Wolfe’s long scientific and management career includes 

service as a researcher with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as 

lead investigator on nuclear steam generator corrosion issues for 

Westinghouse, and as manager of the strategic materials technology department at the Savannah River Nuclear Laboratory in 

my home state of South Carolina, where over 50 percent of electrical generation has been by nuclear, safely, for over 30 years. 

Dr. Wolfe has served as the chairman of the technical advisory 

panel to the Department of Energy’s plutonium-focused area. He 

was instrumental in the establishment of the South Carolina University’s research and education foundation. 

Dr. Wolfe is also the recipient of the distinguished service award 

from South Carolina State University, an HBCU, in Orangeburg, 

South Carolina. The award was in recognition of 17 years of service 

on the school’s education foundation board of directors, including 3 

years as chairman of the board. 

Dr. Wolfe retired from SRNL in 2005 and became the executive 

director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness in Aiken, 

South Carolina, in January of 2008. 

Dr. Wolfe, welcome. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Kathy Krepcio is the Executive Director of John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. She also 

serves as the Project Director of the National Technical Assistance 
7 

and Research Leadership Center to promote employment and economic independence for adults with disabilities. 

Ms. Krepcio has served as chief of staff in the New Jersey State 

Office of Information Technology and director for policy and planning at the New Jersey Department of Human Services. She 

earned a B.A. from Syracuse University and an M.A. from Rutgers. 

Welcome, all of you. We are very anxious to hear your testimony. 

And we will begin with you, Dr. Roy. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN ROY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROJECTS 

AND POLICY, SERIOUS MATERIALS 

Mr. ROY. Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today and share Serious Materials’ experience in creating 

green jobs. Five months ago, the community around Vandergrift, 

Pennsylvania, woke up to devastating news: The Kensington Windows Plant has shut its doors, throwing about 150 folks out of 

work. 

Some people had worked there for over 30 years. The average 

tenure was about 20 years. In a small community, it was an absolutely devastating blow. 

Serious Materials had already been exploring east coast manufacturers, so we took a look. We looked at the plant, looked at the 

people; we really liked what we saw. They made high quality products, they had good facilities, good equipment, the workers were 

highly skilled. It was clear that we could introduce our technology, 

retool and revise production to make our highly economic, highly 

efficient products. 

Two weeks ago, yesterday, we formally reopened, and now have 

hired back about 30 of those 150 workers. We were fortunate to 

have Governor Rendell out on the day 2 weeks ago, and what he 

said really speaks, I think, very vis-a-vis of this hearing today, so 

I am going to quote from him: 

‘‘This is a great example of the opportunities we have to create 

a green economy where workers manufacture products that reduce 

our energy dependence, encourage conservation, save consumers 

money, and strengthen our national security. We have a skilled 

workforce, idle factory space, and an infrastructure that can be 

used quickly to build, install and service products like these. And 

now we have new resources to invest in these industries and our 

people to make these projects a reality and rebuild our economy so 

that we can emerge from this national recession stronger than before.’’ 

I think all of those bits of what Governor Rendell said were really quite on target. By the way, we are, as you mentioned, Chairwoman Woolsey, we are also getting skilled workers back to work 

in Chicago, where another plant shut its doors in December, throwing about 300 people out of work. We have now acquired the assets 

of that plant, again through the bankruptcy process. 

We have completed a great agreement with the union. We have 

just last week hired back the first several workers, and we plan to 

reopen in the next several weeks. We will keep you up to date on 

how all that progresses. 
8 

So what is it that we are doing? Serious Materials develops advanced green building products that save energy, save money, improve occupant comfort, and address climate change. That creates 

jobs in the process. I think it is fair to say that every Serious Materials job is a green job for that reason. 

But beyond just the jobs that are created, our products contribute to economic health, saving more than it costs to produce 

and install them. I think that is very important. For example, replacing windows has generally not been regarded as cost effective— 

for example, in low-income weatherization—but our highly-insulating, low-cost windows technology actually changes that. Windows replacements are now cost effective for widespread installation in low-income weatherization, and in public and assisted housing, and in federal, state, and municipal buildings in many cities 

and many housing and building types. 

These are all areas which are supported by the Recovery Act, you 

may notice, as well as private investment in various energy efficiency retrofits ordered by the tax credit—— 

It is certainly the case that the Recovery Act and the deliberations leading to it gave us great confidence in our efforts to acquire 

and restart both the Pennsylvania and Chicago plants. 

More importantly though, looking forward, effective implementation of the Recovery Act and energy efficiency provisions is going 

to allow us to bring the staffing levels back up to where they were 

when those plants shut their doors and beyond, and bring production up there and beyond. It is enormously important that we get 

that effective implementation of the Recovery Act. 

We are going to be able to hire up much more rapidly than we 

otherwise would have. We had always intended to expand to the 

East Coast and the Midwest, but now we will be able to do that 

very quickly—much, much more quickly than we would have otherwise. 

There is an enormous amount of work to be done to deliver on 

the opportunities that are presented by the Recovery Act, both to 

create near-term jobs and also to deliver on the longer-term economic health, energy security, and environmental imperatives that 

we are facing. A lot of the work is administrative implementation 

of the Recovery Act; there is a lot that needs to be done. We are 

confident that it can all get done, but it needs to be moved on quite 

promptly and effectively. 

A lot of the work just happens to be regular business activity as 

we hire up and retool and get our equipment going, get our suppliers and supply chains and our downstream going. There are also 

some legislative issues which seem like they are—they come up 

and have to be addressed over time. But we are confident that it 

all can go well, and we expect it to all go well. We are planning 

to have staffing at about 1,000 by the end of this year making high 

quality gear. 

Now, I know there is interest in this Committee on job training 

issues. For us, as manufacturers of a product, job training is not 

the key focus in our facility. We are rehiring, mainly, of folks who 

have been put out of work that are already highly skilled. So it is 

not the critical issue for us. 
9 

That said, we know that downstream job training is vital in installation of our products, both our windows and our super-efficient 

drywall, things of that nature. Certainly in low-income weatherization we need a lot of auto skills—— 

And I can stop with that. 

[The statement of Mr. Roy follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Robin Roy, Ph.D., Vice President, 

Serious Materials, Inc. 

Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and share Serious Materials’ experience. 

Serious Materials manufactures green products 

Founded in 2002, Serious Materials, Inc. develops and manufactures advanced 

green building materials that save energy, save money, improve occupant comfort, 

and address climate change. As a result, it would be fair to say that every Serious 

Materials job is a green job. 

Our products include: 

• Serious Windows: high-performance insulated windows that are up to four 

times more energy efficient than required for Energy Star listing. In fact, 

SeriousWindows already exceed the proposed Energy Star standards for the year 

2013. With our acquisition of Alpen Windows in 2008, we now have more than 27 

years of high-performance windows manufacturing experience, and have supplied 

windows and glass to 10,000 projects nationwide. 

• ThermaRock: a unique aerogel-drywall product that provides high levels of insulation for space-constrained locations. For example, adding a 5⁄8 inch ThermaRock 

panel to an uninsulated brick wall can increase the thermal performance from about 

R-1 to about R-5. 

• QuietRock & QuietHome Windows: soundproofing products which can reduce 

material use, enhance livability, and support denser, more sustainable urban development. 

• EcoRock: an environmentally superior alternative to standard gypsum drywall, 

which uses 80% less energy to manufacture, and contains 80% postindustrial recycled material, including waste from steel and cement plants. 

In addition to delivering unprecedentedly high performance, Serious Materials 

also uses advanced technology to drive down costs to unprecedented levels. The combination of high performance and lower costs makes our breakthrough products costeffective in many applications where previously, savings didn’t justify the costs. 

For example, replacing windows has generally not been regarded as cost-effective 

for use in the low income weatherization assistance program. However, our highly 

insulating, low cost windows change that, and are cost-effective for wide-spread installation in low income weatherization in many cities and housing types. This is 

a major step forward delivered by the use of advanced technology. Similarly, insulating the walls of many older masonry buildings was often infeasible due to the 

indirect cost of consuming precious interior space. ThermaRock, with a thickness of 

5⁄8 inch, provides an unprecedented insulation option which can be cost-effective in 

many applications. Notably, these advanced technologies do not require novel installation practices or labor skills. 

Serious Materials manufacturing facilities 

Serious Materials currently manufactures in four locations across the United 

States: 

• Sunnyvale, California; 

• Newark, California; 

• Boulder, Colorado; and 

• Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. 

We will open our fifth plant, in Chicago, Illinois in the next several weeks. 

The Vandergrift and Chicago plants provide excellent examples of putting skilled 

manufacturing workers back on the job. 

Back on the job, manufacturing in Vandergrift, PA 

The former Kensington Windows plant in Vandergrift, PA shut its doors in October 2008, putting over 150 people out of work after its parent company filed for 

bankruptcy. We looked at the plant and its people, and liked what we saw. Kensington Windows had manufactured high quality windows using the latest tech-
10 

nology and high quality components. The average tenure of the work force was 18 

years, with 9 percent having more than 30 years with the company. It was clear 

that we could revise the production to focus on highly insulating windows, and 

quickly introduce our cost and performance enhancing technology. The location was 

also excellent, allowing us to conveniently deliver products and service to the east, 

mid-Atlantic and central regions. 

Serious Materials acquired the assets at the end of January 2009, through the 

bankruptcy process. We’ve rehired 30 of the former workers, and target getting back 

to a workforce of 150 by year’s end. 

On March 16, Governor Rendell keynoted the official ribbon cutting ceremony at 

the plant. As noted by the Governor: 

‘‘This is a great example of the opportunities we have to create a green 

economy where workers manufacture products that reduce our energy dependence, encourage conservation, save consumers money, and strengthen 

our national security. Similar opportunities exist across Pennsylvania. We 

have a skilled workforce, idle factory space and an infrastructure that can 

be used quickly to build, install and service products like these windows or 

energy efficient appliances. * * * And, now, with the support of President 

Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as our own 

state programs, we have new resources to invest in these industries and our 

people to make these projects a reality and rebuild our economy so that we 

can emerge from this national recession stronger than before.’’ 

There is a real, personal side to this, as best described by Robin Scott, one of first 

rehired workers and life-long area resident: 

‘‘When I was told Serious Materials was going to buy the place [Kensington] I was 

on cloud nine. I want my kids to recognize the bright future they can have in our 

country and what better example is there than giving our workforce a fighting 

chance during rough times. You can practically taste the excitement in the air—not 

only from Kensington employees but also from everyone in Vandergrift—it just feels 

like a huge relief for everyone.’’ 

Getting back on the job, manufacturing in Chicago, IL 

Republic Windows garnered national attention in December 2008 when it suddenly closed its doors, declared bankruptcy, and left 300 people unemployed just before the holidays. As in Vandergrift, we looked at the plant and its people, and liked 

what we saw. We worked closely and productively with the union, United Electrical 

Workers, through the bankruptcy process. At the end of February 2009, Serious Materials acquired the assets of the former Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, 

Illinois through the bankruptcy process. 

I’m delighted to note that Serious Materials has completed an agreement with the 

union, and the Chicago plant will have union representation. We’ve just hired back 

the first few employees, and are planning to reopen in the next several weeks. 

Vice President Biden commented on Serious Materials plans for the Chicago factory: 

‘‘The reopening of this factory and the rehiring of these workers provide 

an excellent example of how the money in the Recovery Act is targeted to 

spur job creation quickly,’’ said Vice President Biden. ‘‘These workers will 

not only earn a paycheck again; they will go back to work creating products 

that will benefit America’s long-term economic future.’’ 

We’ll keep the committee informed on our progress in reopening. 

Effective implementation of ARRA is essential 

It will take some time, but Serious Materials intends to return to and exceed the 

former production and employment levels of the Chicago and Vandergrift plants. We 

are also expanding production and jobs at our other facilities in California and Colorado. These are all green jobs. 

Effective implementation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act energy efficiency measures is essential to our plans. It will allow us to expand operations and 

hire up far more rapidly than would be possible without it. This will bring more 

jobs not just at the factory, but also in installation, and for our upstream suppliers. 

ARRA supports implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency measures in several areas: 

• In private homes, with Sec 25C tax credits 

• In low income weatherization 

• In refurbishment of public and assisted housing 

• In refurbishment of schools 

• In improving other local, state and federal buildings 
11 

There is a great deal of work to be done to deliver on the opportunities presented 

by ARRA to both create near-term jobs and deliver on longer term economic health, 

energy security, and environmental imperatives. 

We are working with our suppliers, customers, and other interested parties across 

a wide range of implementation issues. 

There are also a number of important administrative issues to be addressed 

promptly and effectively. For example, the software models used to assess the cost 

and performance of measures in the Weatherization Assistance Program (e.g., the 

National Energy Audit Tool) urgently require updating and correction through the 

Department of Energy. Also regarding WAP, some administrative guidance will be 

needed from the Department of Labor. With respect to Energy Star, the Department 

of Energy has recently proposed strengthening the criteria for windows in a twophase process. Phase I was urgently needed to catch up to code requirements already existing in many states, and to the market. Phase II is also urgently needed 

to restore Energy Star’s leadership position. These are but three examples of many 

needed activities, none of which are unworkable, but all of which must be addressed. 

On the legislative front, I note that a bill has been introduced to roll back the 

stringent energy saving requirements that ARRA established as a condition of receiving residential tax credits. In our view, rolling back those stringent criteria 

would be a significant misstep. The Recovery Act’s higher performance standards require manufacturers to lift their game in order to benefit from taxpayer funds, but 

can be readily achieved using existing technology. Our products, and those of several of our competitors already meet the Recovery Act requirements for high performance. Shifting production to higher performance items will deliver near term 

benefits for jobs and the economy, and as importantly, deliver longer term benefits 

for energy security, the environment, and consumers. The higher standards also encourage American innovation, by clearly rewarding better-performing products. This 

hinges on continued support for raising the bar on energy saving windows. Unraveling the higher standards that were established in the Recovery Act would result in 

taxpayer dollars being wasted on unnecessarily inefficient products, and discourage 

innovation. 

The importance of job training 

Serious Materials manufacturers green building products for installation and use 

by others downstream. For the foreseeable future, we anticipate rehiring skilled 

workers, and job training is not a critical issue. 

However, we recognize the urgent need for specialist installers downstream of our 

manufacturing work. Installation should provide good jobs both for skilled installers 

and for entry level helpers, who can then be on a track to become a skilled installer. 

Because window installation is a specialized activity and must be done in an effective, logistically efficient manner, we maintain on our team a certified trainer who 

regularly conducts courses suitable for all skill levels. We offer this training service 

to our customers and others, and anticipate that some may build such services into 

their training programs, both for entry level and higher skilled workers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today, and I look forward to 

your questions now and at any time. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Sherman? 

STATEMENT OF JILL SHERMAN, GERDING EDLEN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. SHERMAN. Chairwoman Woolsey and members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity—— 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Can you put your microphone a little 

closer to you? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Sure. How is that? 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about 

what we believe is a huge economic development opportunity. Although conditions are nothing short of brutal in today’s real estate 

industry—and you typically don’t hear real estate and opportunity 
12 

being talked about in the same sentence—at Gerding Edlen, we do 

see, along with the significant challenges, enormous opportunity. 

Gerding Edlen Development has been working in the green 

building development business for over 15 years. We are an Oregon-based company with offices in Seattle and Los Angeles. For 

over a decade, our company has led the nation in developing highly 

sustainable, transit-oriented, mixed use urban high rise projects. 

We have more U.S. Green Building Council LEED certified buildings than any other firm, with 39 either certified or in the process 

of certification, including seven platinum and 24 gold rated buildings. 

Along the way, with the help of our talented partners, we have 

pioneered numerous energy, water, and sewage innovations. For 

example, we recently completed a high rise office building where 

not only are we using 63 percent less energy than a typical building designed to meet code, but we also took the entire building off 

the municipal sewer system. So we are not connected—that building is not connected to the sewer because we process 100 percent 

of the storm, grey, and black water and actually recover more 

water than we can use in that building. 

Today, the buildings that we develop consume 50 percent less energy than a code-compliant building and between 30 and 50 percent less water. We estimate that throughout our portfolio, we have 

reduced carbon emissions by over 7,500 metric tons annually and 

reduced energy consumption by 61 megawatts a year. Our current 

objective, though, is to develop buildings that actually produce 

more energy than they use and produce no waste—what we call net 

zero buildings. 

In the aggregate, our projects to date represent almost $5 billion 

worth of economic activity and literally tens of thousands of family 

wage jobs with skill sets ranging from finance, to engineering, to 

design, to highly-skilled union craftspeople in the field, to Americans working in factories producing doors, windows, conduit, steel, 

and the like. 

However, new construction is only the tip of the iceberg. There 

are millions of commercial, education, medical, and other very large 

buildings across the country that are energy and water hogs— 

buildings that are needlessly wasting energy and desperately need 

retrofitting. And this is where we believe the current opportunity 

lies. 

Rather than putting a new roof on a building, why not add solar 

panels and cogeneration facilities to generate energy? Why not install day lighting sensors, occupancy sensors, and new lighting systems to reduce lighting loads and therefore use less electricity? 

Instead of replacing a broken sink or toilet, we can replace all 

of the plumbing fixtures and reduce water demand by 30 to 50 percent while also reducing the sewage outflow. Instead of fixing a 

broken window, why not replace all the outdated windows with— 

Mr. Roy’s—energy efficient glazing manufactured here in the 

United States? 

We can do all of this very quickly—in fact, years faster than we 

can develop new buildings. Within a matter of weeks we can have 

architects and engineers hired who can survey the buildings, prepare drawings, pull required permits, and within 60 to 90 days we 
13 

could have tens of thousands of highly-skilled craftworkers in the 

field executing the work, and for the most part completing that 

work by the end of the summer of this year. 

Am I doing something wrong? Okay. 

This would create family wage jobs at multiple levels ranging, 

again, from engineers to designers to factory workers to skilled 

craftworkers on jobsites. The resulting job skills will have lasting 

demand as we move towards a new economy wherein we value resource efficiency and move away from unstable imported energy 

sources. 

In closing, I just want to thank you again for having me here 

today and to the fact that we are having this discussion at this critical time, and emphasize that now is the time to take advantage 

of the opportunity and take a leap forward towards a more sustainable future where we can create tens of thousands of very highskill jobs that can lift the economy, create a new foundation for the 

nation—a foundation that is good for both the economy, the environment, as well as people. And I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Sherman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Jill Sherman, Gerding Edlen Development 

Chairwomen Woosley and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about what we believe is a huge economic development opportunity. Although conditions are nothing short of brutal in today’s real estate industry, at Gerding Edlen, we see, along with the significant challenges, enormous opportunity. Gerding Edlen Development has been working in the Green 

Building Development business for over 15 years. We are an Oregonbased company 

with offices in Seattle and Los Angeles. For over a decade, our company has led the 

nation in developing highly sustainable, transit oriented, mixed use urban high rise 

projects. We have more US Green Building Council LEED certified buildings than 

any other firm, with 39 either certified or in the process of certification, including 

seven platinum and 24 gold rated buildings. 

Along the way, with the help of our talented partners, we have pioneered numerous energy, water and sewage innovations. For example, we recently completed a 

high rise office building where not only are we using 63% less energy than a building designed to code, but we also took the entire building off the municipal sewer 

system. So, we are not connected to the sewer because we process 100% of our 

storm, grey and black water and actually recover more water than we can use in 

the building. Today the buildings we develop consume 50 percent less energy than 

a code compliant building and between 30% and 50% less water. We estimate that 

throughout our portfolio we have reduced carbon emissions by over 7,500 metric 

tons annually and reduced energy consumption by 61 mega watts per year. Our current objective is to develop buildings that actually produce more energy than they 

use and produces no waste, what we call net zero buildings. 

In the aggregate, our projects to date represent almost $5 billion worth of economic activity and literally tens of thousands of family wage jobs with skill sets 

ranging from finance, to engineering to design to highly skilled union craftspeople 

in the field, to Americans working in our factories producing doors, windows, conduit, steel and the like. However, new construction is only the tip of the iceberg. 

There are millions of commercial, educational, medical and other very large buildings across our country that are energy and water hogs. Buildings that are needlessly wasting energy and desperate need retrofitting; and this is where we believe 

the current opportunity lies. Rather than putting a new roof on a building, why not 

add solar panels and cogeneration facilities to generate energy? Why not install day 

lighting sensors, occupancy sensors, and new lighting systems to reduce lighting 

loads and therefore electrical demand? Instead of replacing a broken sink or toilet, 

why not replace all of the plumbing fixtures and reduce water demand by 30 to 50%, 

while also reducing the sewage outflow? Instead of fixing a broken window, why not 

replace all of the outdated windows with new energy efficient glazing that is manufactured here in the US? 
14 

We can do all of this very quickly, in fact years faster than we can develop new 

buildings. Within a matter of weeks we can have architects and engineers hired who 

can then survey buildings, prepare drawings and pull the required building permits 

within 60 to 90 days. Then we can have tens of thousands of highly skilled craft 

workers in the field executing the work and for the most part completing that work 

by the end of the summer of this year. This would create family wage jobs at multiple levels ranging from engineers and designers, to factory workers to skilled craft 

workers on jobsites. The resulting job skills will have lasting demand as we move 

towards a new economy wherein we value resource efficiency and move away from 

unstable imported energy sources. 

In closing, I just want to commend your leadership on this issue and emphasize 

that now is the time to take advantage of this opportunity and take a leap forward 

toward a more sustainable tomorrow creating tens of thousands of high skill jobs 

that will not only lift this economy, but will create a new foundation for our nation, 

a foundation that is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for 

people. I look forward to answering any questions. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Bogart? 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM T. BOGART, DEAN OF ACADEMIC 

AFFAIRS AND PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, YORK COLLEGE 

Dr. BOGART. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, I am 

honored to testify today. An aggressive push for a green economy 

is underway in the United States. Many people assert that green 

jobs can simultaneously improve environmental quality and reduce 

unemployment. These assertions are used to justify spending billions of dollars to subsidize preferred industries or technologies. 

The recent revelations regarding the misuse of federal government subsidies by AIG provide a warning of how large-scale spending without sufficient due diligence can be misdirected. Today’s testimony is organized around five questions that should be asked of 

those who would like to spend money subsidizing the creation of 

green jobs. 

Question One: What is the net increase in jobs or energy produced? The most prominently cited estimates of jobs created do not 

estimate the number of jobs that would be destroyed as a result of 

a move from current energy technology to alternative energy production. Many green jobs are substitutes for existing jobs. An increase in electricity generation from wind or other sources will substitute for energy from, say, coal, which, in turn, will then reduce 

employment in coal mining and processing. 

Question Two: What are the assumptions? The advocates for 

green jobs expenditures claim that their programs will have a large 

impact. This claim rests on economic multiplier analysis. Multipliers are based on the idea that an increase in activity by one firm 

will lead to an increase in activity by other firms. Multipliers are 

difficult to observe and must be estimated typically by a modeling 

technique known as input-output analysis. 

Input-output analysis relies on two key assumptions, neither of 

which holds for green jobs. The first assumption is that the ratio 

of outputs to inputs is constant; in other words, no change in technology. The assumption that technological progress will operate favorably for wind, solar, and other preferred approaches while not 

operating for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power is evidence that the 

jobs estimates are created using an inappropriate methodology. 
15 

The second crucial assumption for input-output analysis is that 

there are fixed prices over time. That is unlikely to be the case for 

green jobs since the key justification for public support for green 

technology is that oil and coal will become more expensive, either 

for technological reasons or because of a tax based on carbon dioxide emissions. 

Question Three: What makes a job ‘‘green’’? Being green differs 

depending on who is doing the classification. For example, a report 

from the U.S. Conference of Mayors counts current nuclear power 

generation jobs as green jobs, yet does not count future jobs in nuclear power as green jobs. The United Nations has a definition that 

includes steelworkers who produce parts for wind turbines regardless of the greenness of the steel production. 

These definitional issues are not simply inconveniences that 

make it impossible to compare the claims of different reports. More 

importantly, they represent a fundamental confusion about the 

idea of a green job—a confusion that must be resolved before committing taxpayer dollars. The lack of transparency about the assumptions underlying various definitions provide incentives for 

special interest groups to have their jobs designated as green while 

excluding their rivals from the favored designation. 

Question 4: What is the added value from the job? One problem 

with the green jobs literature is it consistently counts jobs as a 

benefit rather than as a cost to the consumer. The purposes of all 

businesses, green or not, is not to use resources but to produce 

goods and services desired by consumers that could be sold for 

more than the cost of production. Many jobs created in response to 

government mandates are not a benefit but rather a cost from the 

consumer’s viewpoint. Such costs may be worth incurring for the 

benefits from the program, but they should be counted correctly. 

Promoting inefficient use of labor and thereby raising consumer 

prices will steer resources towards technologies, firms, and industries that will be unable to compete without ongoing subsidies. 

Dooming the environmentally-friendly sector to an unending regime of subsidies is fiscally irresponsible and harmful to any efforts 

to build a competitive and environmentally-friendly economy. 

Question 5: How are technologies being chosen? The green jobs 

literature is selectively optimistic about favored approaches and 

pessimistic about disfavored ones. However, the premise that reorienting our economy in a greener direction by shifting to sustainable 

energy production is questionable because most jobs in renewable 

energy sectors appear to be subsidy-driven. Indeed, U.S. subsidies 

for renewable energy projects are so attractive that in 2008, BP announced that it dropped plans to build wind farms and other renewable projects in Britain; instead it is shifting its renewable programs to the United States, where government incentives for clean 

energy projects provide ‘‘a convenient tax shelter for oil and gas 

revenues,’’ as a BP spokesman noted. 

Royal Dutch Shell also announced it was abandoning wind energy products in Britain in favor of the U.S. These developments 

lend support to the idea that renewable energy is viable only when 

spenders are bribed by taxpayer support or coerced by a mandate. 

To attempt to transform modern society in the way proposed by 

the green jobs literature is an effort of staggering complexity and 
16 

scale. There will be significant opportunity to develop new energy 

sources, new industries, and new jobs. I am confident that a market-based discovery process will do a better job of developing those 

industry sources—energy sources, industries, and jobs than a series 

of mandates or subsidies based on imperfect information and hidden assumptions. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Dr. Bogart follows:] 

Prepared Statement of William T. Bogart, Dean of Academic Affairs and 

Professor of Economics, York College of Pennsylvania 

Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before your 

Committee today on the question of green jobs and their role in our economic recovery. 

An aggressive push for a green economy is well underway in the United States. 

Many people routinely assert that ‘‘green jobs’’ can simultaneously improve environmental quality and reduce unemployment. These assertions are used to justify 

spending billions of dollars to subsidize preferred industries or technologies. The recent revelations regarding the (mis)use of Federal government subsidies by AIG provides a warning of how large-scale spending without sufficient due diligence can be 

misdirected. Before we repeat that experience in another industry, we should perform sufficient due diligence. Today’s testimony is organized around five questions 

that should be asked of those who would like to spend money subsidizing the creation of ‘‘green jobs.’’ 1

Question 1: What is the net increase in jobs/energy produced? 

The most prominently cited estimates of jobs2 created do not estimate the number 

of jobs that would be destroyed as the result of a move from current energy technology to alternative energy production. Many green jobs are substitutes for existing 

jobs. An increase in electricity generation from wind, solar, or other sources will 

substitute for energy from, say, coal-fired generation, which in turn will reduce employment in coal mining and processing. The net impact on employment will depend 

on the relative labor intensity of energy production in the respective sectors at the 

margin of added or subtracted production. 

The labor intensity—the labor required per unit of energy produced—is much 

higher in the green jobs sector. Advocates point to this higher labor requirement as 

a benefit because it will tend to increase employment. However, this confuses an 

end (goods and services valued by consumers) with a means (labor). If the cost of 

energy increases as a result of inefficient production, then the net benefits available 

to the citizens of the United States decreases. Many goods become more costly and 

American producers become less competitive in world markets. The efficiency of energy use has increased dramatically over time, which is one reason for our high productivity and standard of living. It would be a mistake to discard this proven record 

of progress in favor of untested, costly alternatives. 

Even in the favored green industries, increasing labor efficiency has been an important component in making the technologies more commercially viable. For example, corn-based ethanol cost reductions in the United States have been driven in 

part by economies of scale in farm operations and the advanced technology necessary to convert corn into ethanol. If instead we had thousands of workers diligently squeezing corn by hand we would not produce more biofuel but we would 

vastly inflate the number of green jobs and dramatically increase the cost of the 

fuel. 

Many green jobs reports start with the assumption that spending public money 

is the source of the additional economic activity. However, that expenditure comes 

from higher taxes now or in the future. Because people engage in activities to avoid 

taxation, the cost of the tax exceeds the revenue yielded by the tax, a phenomenon 

known as deadweight loss. Such actions are wasteful but they are an unavoidable 

part of any tax policy. Including deadweight loss in the analysis of the supposed 

value of green jobs created by increased public spending will reduce the net benefit 

of the subsidy. The green jobs advocacy literature does not incorporate such estimates, which implies that their results overstate the benefits. The most glaring 

oversight is that these issues are not even mentioned in the literature. 
17 

Question 2: What are the assumptions? 

The advocates for green jobs expenditures claim that their programs will have a 

large impact because of the added jobs and other benefits created as those hired into 

green jobs spend their paychecks. This claim rests on economic multiplier analysis. 

Multipliers are based on the idea that an increase in activity by one firm will lead 

to an increase in activity by other firms. For example, the contractor for a new football stadium buys concrete, the concrete subcontractor buys new tires for its trucks, 

all the firms’ workers go out to dinner, and so forth. Multipliers are difficult to observe and must be estimated by indirect means, usually a modeling technique 

known as input-output analysis. 

Input-output analysis relies on two key assumptions, neither of which can be 

made for green jobs. The first is constant coefficients production, which means that 

the ratio of outputs to inputs is constant regardless of the scale of production or the 

time period. This eliminates the possibility that inputs may be substituted for each 

other, either because of technical progress or because of changes in factor prices. For 

example, a typical assumption would be that if a dollar of energy was required to 

produce $10 of steel at the time the input-output table was created, then this relation will continue to hold. In reality, if the price of energy increases, the relation 

is likely to change as higher energy prices induce steel producers to change production techniques to reduce the energy used per unit of steel. Since green jobs proponents concede that green energy will cost more per unit than conventional fuels,3

the ratio of energy costs to production is not constant and this assumption is violated. The assumption that technological progress will operate favorably for wind, 

solar, and other preferred approaches while not operating for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power is prima facie evidence that the jobs estimates are created using an inappropriate methodology. 

The second crucial assumption for input-output analysis is that the relationship 

between production factor prices is constant. In most cases, the relation between inputs and outputs is calculated using dollar values rather than physical quantities. 

This approach is valid only if the physical quantities and the monetary values have 

a constant ratio, in other words if there are fixed prices over time. That is unlikely 

to be the case for green jobs since a key justification for public support for green 

technology is that oil and coal will become more expensive, either for technological 

reasons or because of a tax based on carbon dioxide emissions. Because of the pervasive role of energy, such changes would alter factor prices throughout the economy, 

again making the input-output analysis inappropriate. 

Question 3: What makes a job ‘‘green’’? 

There is no standard definition of a green job. According to the studies most commonly quoted, green jobs pay well, are interesting to do, produce products that environmental groups prefer, and do so in a workplace that is unionized or expected to 

be unionized in the near future. Such criteria have little to do with the environmental impacts of the jobs. 

Being green differs depending on who is doing the classification. In an odd twist, 

the Conference of Mayors report (p. 12) counts current nuclear power generation 

jobs as green jobs, yet does not count future jobs in nuclear power as green jobs. 

The United Nations report excludes all nuclear power related jobs and many recycling jobs, while at the same time expanding their definition in other areas by including all jobs asserted to ‘‘contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality.’’ (p. 3) The UN version of green jobs is extended to include jobs 

in the supply chain. For example, wind turbine towers involve large amounts of 

steel and so employment in the steel industry counts so long as the steel ends up 

in a turbine. The steel jobs themselves are not required to have a low environmental 

impact, it is sufficient that the steel produced goes to a favored product. As a result, 

important value judgments are embedded in the definitions and not explained. 

These definitional issues are not simply inconveniences that make it impossible 

to compare the claims of different reports. More importantly, they represent a fundamental confusion about the idea of a green job, a confusion that must be resolved 

before committing taxpayer dollars. The lack of transparency about the assumptions 

underlying various definitions provide incentives for special interest groups to have 

their jobs designated as green while excluding their rivals from the favored designation. 

Question 4: What is the added value from the job? 

One problem with the green jobs literature is that it consistently counts jobs as 

a benefit rather than a cost. The purpose of a business, green or not, is not to use 

resources but to produce a good or service desired by consumers that could be sold 

for more than the cost of production. For a given level of output, businesses that 
18 

use more resources are less efficient—have higher costs—than those using fewer resources. Many jobs created in response to government mandates are not a benefit 

of the program but rather a cost. Such costs may be worth incurring for the benefits 

a program produces, but they must be counted as costs not benefits. 

The Conference of Mayors report includes lawyers and administrators of regulations as benefits of green jobs spending. This is analogous to claiming an increase 

in prison guards as a benefit of the war on drugs. By making labor the end, rather 

than treating labor as the means to production of environmentally friendly goods 

and services, the literature makes a foundational error. Promoting inefficient use of 

labor will steer resources towards technologies, firms, and industries that will be 

unable to compete in the marketplace without ongoing subsidies. Dooming the environmentally friendly sector to an unending regime of subsidies is fiscally irresponsible and harmful to any efforts to build a competitive and environmentally friendly 

economy. 

Many of the benefits of producing products accrue to the owners of the intellectual 

property underlying the products. In the case of wind power, most of the patents 

and other key intellectual property are held by European firms. We import the high 

value parts of the process, and Americans perform the relatively low value operations of assembly and installation. This is analogous to the situation in much U.S. 

manufacturing in which Chinese firms perform assembly work but U.S. firms capture most of the value. 

Question 5: How are technologies being chosen? 

The green jobs literature calls for massive shifts in power generation technologies. 

The literature is selectively optimistic about favored approaches (wind, solar, biomass) and pessimistic about disfavored ones (coal, nuclear). However, the premise 

that reorienting our economy in a greener direction by shifting to ‘‘sustainable’’ energy production is questionable because most jobs in renewable energy sectors appear to be subsidy driven. For example, a study done for the American Wind Energy 

Association and the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation estimated 

that if the investment tax credit for solar/photovoltaic projects and the production 

tax credit for wind energy were not renewed at the end of 2008, then those industries could lose 77 percent of their jobs.4

Indeed, U.S. subsidies for renewable energy projects are so attractive that in 

2008, BP announced that it dropped plans to build wind farms and other renewable 

projects in Britain; instead it is shifting its renewable programs to the United 

States, where government incentives for clean energy projects provide ‘‘a convenient 

tax shelter for oil and gas revenues,’’ as a BP spokesman noted.5 Royal Dutch Shell 

also announced it was abandoning wind energy projects in Britain in favor of the 

U.S.6 In Germany, environmental advocates are arguing that wind power is an inefficient and ineffective method of reducing CO2 emissions.7 These developments lend 

support to the idea that renewable energy is viable only where there is taxpayer 

support or mandates. 

To attempt to transform modern society in the way proposed by the green jobs 

literature is an effort of staggering complexity and scale. To do so based on wishful 

thinking and bad economics would be the height of irresponsibility. There will be 

significant opportunities to develop new energy sources, new industries, and new 

jobs in the future. I am confident that a market-based discovery process will do a 

far better job of developing those energy sources, industries, and jobs than a series 

of mandates or subsidies based on imperfect information and hidden assumptions. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

ENDNOTES

1This testimony is based on research conducted jointly with Andrew Morriss, Andrew 

Dorchak, and Roger Meiners, ‘‘7 Myths About Green Jobs’’ available at http://papers.ssrn.com/ 

sol3/papers.cfm?abstract—id=1357440 and ‘‘Green Jobs Myths’’ available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract—id=1358423. 2 United States Conference of Mayors, U.S. METRO ECONOMIES: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL GREEN JOBS IN THE U.S. ECONOMY, 2008; American Solar Energy Society, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY: ECONOMIC DRIVERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, 2007; Center for American Progress, GREEN RECOVERY: A PROGRAM TO CREATE 

GOOD JOBS AND START BUILDING A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY, 2008; United Nations Environment Program, GREEN JOBS: TOWARDS DECENT WORK IN A SUSTAINABLE, LOWCARBON WORLD, 2008. 3For example, the study from the Center for American Progress (p. 6) notes that $1 million 

spent on solar energy will currently produce considerably less energy than $1 million spent on 

oil. 
19 

4 Navigant Consulting, Economic Impacts of the Tax Credit Expiration. Prepared for the 

American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation, 

13 February 2008, Navigant Consulting, Bedford, MA. 5Terry Macalister, Blow to Brown as BP scraps British renewable plan to focus on US, THE 

GUARDIAN (7 November 2008). 6Danny Fortson, Shell to quit wind projects, THE SUNDAY TIMES (7 December 2008). 

7 Anselm Waldermann, Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals, 

SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL (10 February 2009), http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ringo? 

STATEMENT OF JEROME RINGO, PRESIDENT, 

THE APOLLO ALLIANCE 

Mr. RINGO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members 

of the Committee, for inviting me to testify. 

We face many challenges today, some of which are foreign oil dependency, puts our national security and economy future at risk. 

We face the collapse of a financial sector and growing threats of 

global warming and all its economic, environmental, and human 

costs. 

Since 2003, the Apollo Alliance has been talking about economic 

stimulation through green jobs, and under the umbrella addresses 

climate change and energy independence. We believe our nation 

can and must achieve a triple bottom line: energy security, climate 

stability, and broadly-shared economic prosperity. The message of 

the Apollo Alliance has been working for 6 years—the message of 

clean energy, good jobs, and now the economic message of our time. 

Green collar jobs are well-paid career-track jobs that contribute 

directly to preserving or enhancing environmental quality. They 

run the gamut from low-skill, entry-level positions to high-skill, 

higher-paid jobs, and include opportunities for advancement in 

both skill and wages. 

Green collar jobs tend to be local. Building retrofits, solar panel 

repairs, transit line construction—these jobs can not be outsourced. 

Many manufacturing jobs can be green collar jobs if we start making the input of the clean energy economy here. There are 750,000 

green collar workers in America today, according to Leo Gerard, 

the president of the United Steelworkers of America, and Michael 

Peck, the CEO of Gamesa, which is a wind turbine manufacturing 

facility in Pennsylvania. 

Every new American bill creating demand for renewable energy 

and energy efficiency services creates new jobs overseas even 

though we have a robust manufacturing infrastructure and a 

skilled workforce here. Fully half of America’s existing wind turbines are manufactured overseas, and we rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components, even though the solar 

cells were born in America. 

Congress can take advantage of this incredible opportunity to 

strengthen and expand America’s middle class by boosting our energy manufacturing sector. Congress can do this, for example, by 

helping the clean energy manufacturing supply chain retool and retrain to create a clean energy manufacturing supply and ensuring 

labor and domestic content standards are included. 
20 

I have included as part of the written testimony a letter signed 

by the Apollo Alliance and business supporters and will be sent to 

congressional leadership. The letter makes the case for why we 

must invest in domestic manufacturing and ensure that clean energy products are made in America. Apollo will be rolling out our 

manufacturing proposal in late April and sending a delegation to 

our state and local coalition members to meet with our congressmen over the break—over the Spring Break. 

We are more likely to build a new energy future with good jobs 

for working Americans if we ensure any new energy policy is an 

investment strategy as well as a regulatory strategy. Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Mr. Ringo follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Jerome Ringo, President, the Apollo Alliance 

Chairwoman Woolsey and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me here today to talk about an issue of crucial importance to our nation’s future. 

For Americans this is a time of daunting challenges and boundless opportunities. 

We have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, putting our national security and economic future at risk. We have seen a collapse of the financial sector that 

has had rippling effects on the rest of the American economy. And we have seen 

the growing threat of climate instability and all its economic, environmental and 

human costs. 

Nevertheless our energy, climate, and economic crises also present tremendous opportunities. The Apollo Alliance offers a unique perspective on the issue before this 

committee, ‘‘Green Jobs and their Role in Our Economic Recovery.’’ As a coalition 

of labor, business, environmental, and social justice leaders and organizations, we 

believe our nation can and must achieve a triple bottom line: energy security, climate stability, and broadly shared economic prosperity. My goal today is to illustrate how clean energy and good jobs go hand in hand. 

In 2003, the Iraq War impressed upon the country the need for energy security, 

and the climate change debate was in full force. The founders of the Apollo Alliance 

believed they could capture the interest of the Bush administration by talking about 

economic stimulation through green jobs, and under that umbrella, address climate 

change and energy independence. They catalyzed the conversation about green-collar jobs and tried to impress upon the powers that be that the polemical discussion 

that pitted jobs against the environment was false and old. The past administration 

didn’t want to listen. But change has come and President Barack Obama understands that investment in a clean energy economy means jobs and economic prosperity. 

Last time I was in Washington, D.C. something happened that made me so excited. It was when President Obama signed the executive order on middle class communities. He walked up to me and grabbed my hand. I said, ‘‘Mr. President, I’m 

Jerome Ringo.’’ He said, ‘‘I know who you are. You’re the president of Apollo Alliance. You guys are doing great work. Keep up the good work.’’ 

The reason why I was so excited is that the message the Apollo Alliance has been 

working on for six years—the message of clean energy, good jobs—is now the economic message of our times. 

The Apollo Alliance’s comprehensive economic development strategy, The New 

Apollo Program, recognizes that great challenges bring with them great opportunity. 

We say no to business as usual and yes to a new path that will build a clean energy 

economy that creates millions of jobs—high-quality jobs that pay decent wages and 

support families. We say yes to a climate stability agenda that also strengthens national security. The Apollo Alliance estimates that an ambitious $500 billion in federal spending over 10 years would create over 5 million jobs. This includes a broad 

range of activities such as building efficiency, renewable energy investments, smart 

growth, advanced grid technology, research and development initiatives and a ‘‘cap 

and invest’’ program to reduce climate change pollution. 

What are green-collar jobs? Green-collar jobs are well-paid, career track jobs that 

contribute directly to preserving or enhancing environmental quality. They run the 

gamut from low-skill, entry-level positions to high-skill, higher-paid jobs, and include opportunities for advancement in both skills and wages. 

Green-collar jobs tend to be local. Building retrofits, solar panel repairs, transit 

line construction—these jobs can’t be outsourced. Most of these jobs are in indus-
21 

tries that already exist, but that are just now getting involved in the green economy 

because of policy changes and public commitments to energy efficiency, renewably 

energy, and transportation. 

Green-collar jobs are here and growing and exist in many of the states of this 

committee’s members. 

A new report by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst says that investment in energy efficiency retrofits, a smart 

electrical transmission grid, rapid transit and renewable energy will yield over 

37,000 jobs in Congressman Grijalva’s state of Arizona and in Congressman Kline’s 

state of Minnesota. 

Environment California predicts that by meeting California’s Renewable Portfolio 

Standard goal of 20 percent by 2010—119,000 person-years of employment will be 

created at an average salary of $40,000. And there are two measures on November’s 

ballot that would raise the portfolio standard. 

The clean energy economy is present in Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina and nearly every other state in the union. There is no doubt 

that investment in the clean energy economy creates and retains jobs—jobs like the 

ones held by workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago. The company’s 

fortune is evidence of the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) and its considerable investment in weatherization and energy efficiency. 

In early December 2008, 260 members of United Electrical, Radio and Machine 

Workers of America Local 1110 lost their jobs at the window company. Last month, 

Kevin Surace, the chief executive officer of Serious Materials, a Sunnyvale, California-based manufacturer of ultra energy efficient windows, reached agreement 

with the plant’s former owner and with United Electrical Workers and purchased 

the Chicago factory. He also committed to honoring the union contract and to eventually rehiring all of the plant’s union workers. In late March 2009, President 

Obama commended Mr. Surace for his work to reopen another window plant in 

Vandergrift, Pennsylvania where 150 people once worked. 

The potential of the clean energy economy is evident. What’s not evident is whether we have the human capital or the political will to ensure the jobs are American. 

In 2005, a National Association of Manufacturers study found that 90 percent of 

survey respondents expect a moderate to severe shortage of qualified, skilled employees like machinists and technicians. And the National Renewable Energy Lab 

concurs that a shortage of skilled labor is a large obstacle to an economy with strong 

renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. 

We’ve had the political will to pass policies that create the demand for the clean 

energy economy—the Production Tax Credit, Investment Tax Credit, and the ARRA 

which appropriated more than $100 billion dollars for clean energy and green-collar 

jobs. 

The missing element is the supply side. We don’t make most of the systems involved in producing clean energy. Fully half of America’s existing wind turbines 

were manufactured overseas. And we rank fifth among countries that manufacture 

solar components, even though the solar cell was born in America. The fact that 

other countries are prepared to deliver these products—and we are not—means that 

every new American bill creating demand for renewable energy systems and energy 

efficiency services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we have a robust 

manufacturing infrastructure and a skilled workforce. We have an incredible opportunity to strengthen and expand America’s middle class by boosting our clean energy manufacturing sector. 

Congress can take advantage of this opportunity by implementing the following: 

1. Provide direct federal funding for clean energy manufacturers to retool their 

facilities and retrain their workers to develop, produce, and commercialize clean energy technologies. 

2. Attach standards to funding: condition federal support to manufacturers on 

their ability to meet labor and domestic content standards. 

3. Increase funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, both to expand 

its role in strengthening the clean energy supply chain and to establish partnerships 

with regional/local development and manufacturing support organizations. 

4. Increase funding for the Green Jobs Act and direct funds administered under 

the Act toward workforce and skill standards development for the clean energy 

manufacturing industries. 

5. Create a ‘‘Presidential Task Force on Clean Energy Manufacturing’’ to bring together a range of federal agencies to make the manufacturing of clean energy systems and components a national priority. 

Only by ensuring that all Americans come out winners will we build enough public support to do what must be done on the scale necessary to boost the economy, 

stabilize the climate, and achieve energy independence. 
22 

If I leave you with one message today, it is this: We’re more likely to build a new 

energy future with good, green-collar jobs for working Americans if we ensure that 

a new energy policy is an investment strategy as well as a regulatory strategy. 

We have called on the ‘‘can do’’ spirit of the original Apollo program in our Alliance’s name because we believe the American people are once again ready for a 

great challenge. Energy is the transformative issue of our generation. 

The challenge for Congressional leaders today will be to ensure that we all get 

there together: working men and women alongside industry, environmentalists, and 

our national security community. 

We’re confident this great nation can get the job done; we’re confident we can get 

there with your leadership. 

Thank you. 

[Additional submission of Mr. Ringo follows:] 

Tuesday, March 24, 2009. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House; Hon. HENRY A. WAXMAN, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. HARRY REID, the Office of Senate Majority Leader; Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC. 

DEAR SPEAKER PELOSI, MAJORITY LEADER REID, CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN, AND

SENATOR BINGAMAN: As Congress prepares to debate the 2009 energy bill, you have 

a critical opportunity not only to help establish America as a global leader in clean 

energy, but also to strengthen our middle class, which has shed 4.6 million manufacturing jobs since 1999, including more than a million since late 2007. We can accomplish both of these ends by investing in the manufacture of renewable energy 

and energy efficiency systems, especially the small firms that make component parts 

for these systems. 

Demand for clean energy technology is on the rise: the domestic market for solar 

panels, wind turbines, and biofuel equipment will reach $325 billion annually by 

2018. A national renewable electricity standard will increase this demand, as will 

an eventual carbon pricing program. However, if the energy bill does not help domestic manufacturers retool their facilities and retrain their workers to produce 

clean energy products, we will be unable to meet this demand with American supply. And if we do not ramp up American supply, the jobs and other economic benefits of the clean energy future will go overseas, leaving us just as ‘‘energy dependent’’ on foreign countries as we currently are for fossil fuels. 

We must invest in domestic manufacturing to ensure that clean energy products 

are made in America. This investment should use multiple financial instruments, 

including direct loans, bonds, and tax credits, and target the entire supply chain, 

from original equipment manufacturers to component parts suppliers. It should help 

manufacturers meet international product standards so that systems and components are compatible with their foreign counterparts, granting us access to overseas 

markets. Importantly, federal dollars should go only to firms providing well-paying 

jobs with benefits. 

We estimate that $50 billion in federal and private financing for industrial retooling and retraining programs could create 1 million new jobs (250,000 direct manufacturing jobs and an additional 725,000 indirect jobs) and generate as much as 

$120 billion in industry revenue. This investment would capture only a fraction of 

the clean energy economy’s potential: by installing enough new clean energy equipment to generate 25 percent of our electricity, we could create approximately 3.5 

million new jobs (1 million direct manufacturing jobs and 2.5 million indirect jobs) 

and revenues of over $400 billion. 

Investing in manufacturing in the 2009 energy bill will ensure that clean energy 

technologies are not only installed in America, but made and assembled here as 

well. We need a strong commitment by the federal government to invest in quality 

manufacturing jobs, invest in energy independence, and invest in our future. 

Thank you for consideration of this important request. 

Sincerely, 

PHIL ANGELIDES, Chairman. 

In partnership with: Peter Altman, Natural Resources Defense Council; Bob 

Baugh, AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council; Robert Borosage, Campaign for America’s Future; Michael Coast, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center & American Small Manufacturers Coalition; David Foster, Blue Green Alliance; Adam 

Friedman, New York Industrial Retention Network; David Gardiner, David Gardiner & Associates; Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers; Carrie Hines, American Small 
23 

Manufacturers Coalition; Mike Klonsinski, Wisconsin Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership & American Small Manufacturers Coalition; Brad Markell, United 

Automobile Workers; Loch McCabe, Shepherd Advisors; Jeffrey Mittelstadt, National Council for Advanced Manufacturing; Scott Paul, Alliance for American Manufacturing; Michael Peck, Gamesa; Kevin Pranis, Change to Win; Mark Wagner, 

Johnson Controls, Inc.; Joel Yudken, High Road Strategies. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Wolfe? 

STATEMENT OF DR. CLINTON WOLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AWARENESS 

Dr. WOLFE. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, it is 

an honor to testify before you today. I represent a nonpartisan organization whose several hundred members are concerned about 

our energy policy, greenhouse gas emissions, acidification of the 

oceans, and the future of this planet. Our mission is to educate relative to all things nuclear, including commercial nuclear power. 

We are headquartered in Aiken, South Carolina, and we are very 

proud that more than half of our electricity in South Carolina 

comes from nuclear power plants and more is on the way. We are 

also proud that our entire federal delegation, senators and representatives, Republicans and Democrats are strong supporters of 

nuclear power. We believe this is the way it should be. After all, 

nuclear energy provides the least expensive, cleanest, safest source 

of energy for our citizens. 

How shall we define green jobs? It seems to me that we should 

define green as being low or no harmful emissions released to the 

environment such as particulates, carbon, sulfur, or nitrogen oxides. Two types of electrical generation need to be satisfied in the 

future. One will be niche applications to bring power to a remote 

location or a mobile facility, or to augment power from the grid in 

certain commercial and real estate applications. 

A second need, requiring many times more energy than niche 

markets, is baseload energy. This is the electricity that is produced 

24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We have basically two options for 

providing baseload electricity: fossil fuel and nuclear. 

Some will argue that wind and solar energies can provide baseload energy, but by definition baseload is consistent and these two 

sources are extremely variable. Nuclear already provides 20 percent of our nation’s electricity which equates to 75 percent of our 

country’s emission-free electricity production. 

We believe that workforce development to support a needed nuclear renaissance is vitally important. Retirement rates among existing nuclear workers may exceed 50 percent in less than 10 years, 

and the pipeline of new workers hasn’t been filled for 30 years. 

We should maximize the social good to come from these programs 

by investing in skills, trades, and education. We should not spend 

the money training people to perform menial tasks associated with 

a particular technology and then be faced with retraining when the 

demand for that particular task diminishes. 

When we talk about workforce development for the nuclear renaissance, we are talking about skills and crafts such as certified 

welders, pipefitters, health protection technicians, maintenance mechanics, operators, electricians, as well as graduate engineers in 
24 

nuclear, civil, materials, chemical, electrical and mechanical fields, 

not to mention all the support personnel. We are talking about investing in people in a way that they can be a resource for the economy in good-paying jobs, no matter in which industry they eventually work. 

Supporting workforce development in the nuclear industry will 

provide short-term education and training for needed replacements 

in the industry and will make it possible for new nuclear plants to 

be designed, licensed and built. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are 

likely to be created. Quick action is needed if we are to fill those 

jobs domestically instead of importing people with the required 

skills from other countries. 

One scenario for energy independence is that if we move toward 

electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, or hydrogen powered autos, we 

will need enormous amounts of electricity that must be produced 

in a clean, safe manner. This would require a huge expansion of 

the nuclear energy supply and perhaps open opportunities in the 

niche markets for solar and wind power, and we would be independent of foreign oil. 

In August, 2008 the laboratory directors of the Department of 

Energy’s National Laboratories issued a report entitled, ‘‘A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy.’’ 

This report is a roadmap for nuclear energy policy produced by the 

leaders of some of our greatest science and technology resources. 

Dr. Chu himself is a signer of that document. One of the marquee 

recommendations of the report is, ‘‘Establish a national priority to 

immediately deploy advanced light water reactors to meet our nation’s increasing energy demand while limiting greenhouse gas 

emissions.’’ 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we believe nuclear 

is the greenest of the green energies, and we request that Congress 

pursue public policy initiatives that will support growth of the nuclear industry to help make us energy independent. Thank you for 

allowing me to speak and I will be happy to take questions. 

[The statement of Dr. Wolfe follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Clinton R. Wolfe, Ph.D., Executive Director, 

Citizen’s for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA) 

Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, it is an honor to testify before you 

today. I represent a nonpartisan organization whose several hundred members are 

concerned about our energy policy, greenhouse gas emissions, acidification of the 

oceans, and the future of this planet. Our mission is to educate relative to all things 

nuclear, including commercial nuclear power. We are headquartered in Aiken, SC. 

We are very proud that more than half of our electricity in SC comes from nuclear 

power plants and more is on the way. We are also proud that our entire federal delegation, senators and representatives, republicans and democrats are strong supporters of nuclear power. We believe this is the way it should be. After all, nuclear 

energy provides the least expensive, cleanest, safest source of energy for our citizens. 

How shall we define Green jobs? It seems to me that we should define ‘‘Green’’ 

as being low or no harmful emissions released to the environment such as particulates, carbon, sulfur, or nitrogen oxides. 

What are the needs addressed by Green jobs? Two types of electrical generation 

need to be satisfied in the future. One will be ‘‘niche’’ applications to bring power 

to a remote location or a mobile facility, or to augment power from the grid in certain commercial and real estate applications. A second need, requiring many times 

more energy than niche markets is baseload energy. This is the electricity that is 

produced 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We have basically two options for pro-
25 

viding baseload electricity—fossil fuel and nuclear. Some will argue that wind and 

solar energies can provide baseload energy, but, by definition, baseload is constant 

and these two sources are extremely variable. Nuclear already provides 20% of our 

nation’s electricity which equates to 75% of our country’s emission-free electricity 

production. We believe that workforce development to support a needed Nuclear 

Renaissance is vitally important. Retirement rates among existing nuclear workers 

may exceed 50% in less than ten years, and the pipeline of new workers hasn’t been 

filled for 30 years. 

What are the desirable characteristics of the jobs created? We should maximize 

the social good to come from these programs by investing in skills, trades, and education. We should not spend the money training people to perform menial tasks associated with a particular technology and then be faced with retraining when the 

demand for that particular task diminishes. When we talk about workforce development for the Nuclear Renaissance we are talking about skills and crafts such as certified welders, pipefitters, health protection technicians, maintenance mechanics, operators, and electricians as well as graduate engineers in nuclear, civil, materials, 

chemical, electrical and mechanical fields not to mention all the support personnel. 

We are talking about investing in people in a way that they can be a resource for 

the economy in good paying jobs, no matter in which industry they eventually work. 

What is the role in the economic recovery and long-range impact? Supporting 

workforce development in the nuclear industry will provide short-term education 

and training for needed replacements in the industry and will make it possible for 

new nuclear plants to be designed, licensed and built. Hundreds of thousands of jobs 

are likely to be created. Quick action is needed if we are to fill those jobs domestically instead of importing people with the required skills from other countries. 

One scenario for energy independence is that, if we move toward electric vehicles, 

plug-in hybrids or hydrogen powered autos, we will need enormous amounts of electricity that must be produced in a clean, safe manner. This would require a huge 

expansion of the nuclear energy supply and perhaps open opportunities in the niche 

markets for solar and wind power, and we would be independent of foreign oil. 

In August, 2008 the laboratory directors of the Department of Energy’s National 

Laboratories issued a report entitled, ‘‘A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential 

Role of Nuclear Energy.’’ This report is a roadmap for nuclear energy policy produced by the leaders of some of our greatest science and technology resources. Dr. 

Chu is a signer of that document. One of the marquee recommendations of the report is ‘‘Establish a national priority to immediately deploy advanced light water reactors to meet our nation’s increasing energy demand, while limiting greenhouse gas 

emissions * * *’’ 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we believe nuclear is the greenest 

of the Green energies and we request that Congress pursue public policy initiatives 

that will support growth of the nuclear industry to help make us energy independent. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak and I will be happy to answer your questions. 

[Additional submissions of Dr. Wolfe follow:] 

‘‘There’s a Green Hangover Coming’’ 

A modified version of an op-ed that Dr. Clinton R. Wolfe submitted to Aiken 

Standard newspaper on January 30, 2009. It ran on Monday, February 2, 2009. 

The recent holidays may have provided some Americans another reason to try the 

latest hangover remedy. Our nation wrestles with solutions to hangovers of a different sort. First we had a housing crisis, then a credit crisis. The big three automakers awakened to a realization that they have over imbibed. Global warming concerns all of us and we are dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and more 

than 70% of our electricity generation. 

In our eagerness to remedy the energy issues, state after state and even the federal government mull mandates that some fixed percentage of a state’s energy be 

derived from ‘‘green’’ sources. Now most people will agree that it is worthwhile to 

strive for such a goal if what we mean by ‘‘green’’ is that the source is ‘‘no, or low 

emissions’’ energy. Actually, the country already produces 20% of its electricity from 

nuclear power plants so mandates that encourage states with less than 20% nuclear 

to build more nuclear capacity would be most welcome and it would not represent 

a technological hurdle. The problem with merely expanding nuclear capacity to meet 

our ‘‘Green’’ goals is that nobody makes a buck at the federal trough. You see, we 

know how to integrate more clean, safe, cost effective nuclear capacity into our na-
26 

tionwide grid and we don’t need incentives to do that, other than loan guarantees 

to protect utilities and ratepayers against external events not of their own making. 

If we exclude nuclear from the candidate technologies to receive the government 

dole, then the mandates will have to be met by entrepreneurs hawking solar, wind, 

biomass, chicken manure, or whatever else they can dream up in their garages. We 

will pay handsome incentives to them for producing very expensive energy at very 

inopportune times. The timeliness of energy delivery is a very important parameter. 

Utilities depend upon coal and nuclear plants to provide what is known as ‘‘baseload’’ power. ‘‘Baseload’’ power is just what its name implies. It is the minimum 

steady state electricity requirement 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When electricity demand rises above that minimum, most power producers rely on natural gas 

powered turbines to provide this ‘‘peaking’’ power or ‘‘load following ‘‘capability, because these turbines can be started, stopped and throttled much more easily and 

rapidly than coal or nuclear fueled plants. Natural gas, of course, is a greenhouse 

gas producer and the fuel is very expensive compared to nuclear. 

It is important to make some obligatory comments relative to the ‘‘Green’’ movement. First, the first law of thermodynamics tells us that ‘‘energy can neither be 

created nor destroyed’’, therefore, there is no such thing as ‘‘renewable’’ energy. Call 

it sustainable, inexhaustible, low emission, but don’t call it ‘‘renewable.’’ Those who 

attempt to exclude nuclear from consideration as satisfying ‘‘Green’’ requirements 

often cite noncompliance with ‘‘renewable’’ as their rationale. 

Secondly, I strongly support significant investment in research and development 

of alternative energy candidates. Expenditure of federal funds in qualified research, 

development and demonstration projects is appropriate as we look for advances to 

bring these technologies closer to economic viability. The objection arises when we 

try to leapfrog decades of needed development and force compliance with mandates 

that can’t be met with today’s technology, unless of course, we count nuclear. 

Florida recently commissioned an independent study that concluded that their 

proposed mandates would cost two to three times more if supplied by wind and solar 

than if the energy were supplied by nuclear. 

OK, so your state won’t be able to meet its mandates for ‘‘Green’’ energy, so what? 

Well, we did call them mandates, not goals. That means that somebody will interpret that to mean that if you can’t produce your quota of energy from trough-eligible 

technology, you will have to import it from someplace that has an excess of it. Oh 

happy days in the Dakotas! Wait! It gets better. You will have to pay for the transmission and distribution of the energy produced from places where the wind comes 

sweeping down the plain. Most of the areas likely to generate wind power are located a half a continent away from the population centers that will use the electricity. Now that wouldn’t be so bad if there is enough of it at a baseload rate, but 

wind is quite fickle and most wind turbines operate at less than 30% of capacity. 

That means you have to build transmission and distribution infrastructure sized at 

three times the amount of electricity you will actually generate. 

I’m sorry, there’s still more. Now that this wind generated electricity is flowing 

to us whenever the wind blows, we have an increased need to load follow with gas 

turbines because now both the supply and the demand are variable. One can envision a scenario where some areas may have to take emission free nuclear offline to 

make room for the wind energy and load follow with natural gas turbines. So the 

upshot is that the more wind (or solar) we use, the more greenhouse gas we 

produce! What’s wrong with this picture? 

Some have been promoting wind power as an answer to our energy woes. I don’t 

know if they own any windmills, but I’ll bet they own some natural gas. Tell your 

congressmen, senators and representatives to think this one through. 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Dr. Wolfe. 

Ms. Krepcio? 

STATEMENT OF KATHY KREPCIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

JOHN J. HELDRICH CENTER FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

Ms. KREPCIO. Good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey and members 

of the Subcommittee. I am the Executive Director of the John J. 

Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, 

and as one of the nation’s leading university-based research and 

policy centers dedicated to the American workforce, the Heldrich 

Center believes that the emergence of a green economy will lead to 
35 

a new generation of jobs as well as the eventual transformation of 

traditional occupations across many industries. 

As our country transitions to a cleaner energy economy, many 

are working to identify the specific occupations and sills that workers must have to succeed. To assist them, the Heldrich Center recently produced a brief entitled ‘‘Preparing the Workforce for a 

Green Jobs Economy’’ to assist educators and others interested in 

preparing workers for green employment. Based on our research, 

my testimony will quickly look to answer six key questions. 

First, what is a green job? Green jobs can be broadly defined as 

jobs that involve protecting wildlife, reducing pollution, or reducing 

energy usage. In the nation’s energy sector, green jobs are concentrated in two areas: energy efficiency and renewable energy. 

The energy efficiency sector generally involves retrofitting residential and commercial buildings to use less energy and the manufacture of products that save energy. This sector will likely provide 

the greatest number of green jobs, at least in the short term. 

The renewable energy sector involves creating, installing, and 

maintaining technologies that generate energy from resources that 

are naturally replenished, such as wind and solar. Our findings 

show that the majority of green jobs in the energy sector will not 

be new occupations immediately, but will be traditional occupations 

that may require an additional layer of green skills and knowledge. 

Second, what drives growth in green jobs? There are three primary drivers: technological advances and the pace of those advances, economic conditions and energy prices, and the presence of 

federal and state energy policy that can drive investment or demands. 

Third, are the green job numbers a myth? Green jobs are extremely difficult to quantify. At present, there is no clearly defined 

federal government standard for counting green jobs and an unclear consensus on what is a green job. 

However, if you look at the energy industry, we know that the 

majority of green energy jobs are currently found in the energy efficiency sector. According to the American Solar Energy Society, in 

2007 95 percent of all green energy jobs were in the energy efficiency sector, and only about 5 percent in the renewable energy 

sector. While today’s renewable energy job numbers appear to be 

smaller, it is predicted that they will grow faster, mostly because 

of public policy efforts to increase the degree of the nation’s energy 

supply that comes from renewable sources. 

Fourth, where will the green jobs be located? Well, since the majority of energy efficiency jobs are in the retrofitting of buildings, 

these types of jobs will be widespread across most states. However, 

the demand for renewable energy jobs and skills will vary by state. 

Our findings show that four critical factors play a role in the demand for green energy workers, especially in the renewable energy 

area: the strength and characteristics of any area’s workforce, the 

natural resources and geography of a particular area, the depth 

and breadth of an area’s industrial infrastructure, and the level 

and nature of state, regional, and local energy policy and leadership to affect change. 

What skills are green energy employers seeking? As I mentioned 

earlier, green energy jobs will most likely be traditional jobs, many 
36 

of which require a new green layer of skills and knowledge. Employers that we spoke to tell us that workers will need to have 

what they always need to have—skills. That is basic academic and 

workplace readiness skills as well as traditional job-specific skills 

and credentials. A carpenter or plumber needs first and foremost 

to know how to be a carpenter or plumber. Eventually workers will 

need green job-specific skills and knowledge and credentials as the 

industry grows and matures. 

Finally, what can the nation’s workforce and education systems 

do to prepare workers for green jobs? Well, number one, talk and 

listen to employers. They will be the best source for information on 

the type of skills and information needed for a job. 

Track those drivers of energy sector job growth: technology, economic conditions, and public policy. They will dictate the pace and 

scale of jobs and where new occupations are emerging. 

Coordinate education and training with economic development efforts and the emerging workforce needs of employers by creating a 

green job talent network. And finally, focus education and training 

efforts on providing workers with skills to meet the as-they-emerge 

industry-determined needs, develop pathways for workers, and look 

to complement, not duplicate, already existing employer-and labor 

union-led training efforts. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Ms. Krepcio follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Kathy Krepcio, Executive Director, John J. Heldrich 

Center for Workforce Development, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 

Good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey. My name is Kathy Krepcio and I am the 

Executive Director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. I am pleased to offer testimony today 

about preparing the nation’s workforce for a ‘greener energy’ economy—with a special focus on green collar jobs in the energy industry. 

As one of the nation’s leading university-based research and policy centers dedicated to the American workforce, the Heldrich Center believes that the emergence 

of a ‘‘green’’ economy will lead to a new generation of jobs—as well as the eventual 

transformation of traditional occupations across many industry sectors. 

As the United States makes its transition to a cleaner energy economy, state and 

national policy makers are working to identify the specific occupations and skills 

that workers must have to succeed in this emerging energy revolution. To assist 

them, Heldrich Center researchers recently produced a research brief to assist educators and others interested in training ‘‘green’’ workers in the skills employers are 

and will increasingly demand. This report, entitled Preparing the Workforce for a 

Green Jobs Economy, defines the types of entry level and middle-income ‘‘green 

jobs’’ that are most likely to grow, describes the factors driving the anticipated 

growth in different industries, and outlines strategies for training a 21st Century 

workforce with these relevant skills. 

What is a Green Job? 

Green jobs can be broadly defined as jobs that involve protecting wildlife or ecosystems, reducing pollution or waste, or reducing energy usage and lowering carbon 

emissions. Our research focused on the nation’s energy industry, and in that vital 

sector green jobs will be concentrated in the energy efficiency (EE) sector, with 

growth also expected in the renewable energy (RE) sector. 

The Energy Efficiency sector generally involves retrofitting residential and commercial buildings to use less energy, as well as developing and manufacturing products that save energy. Weatherization and building retrofits will likely provide the 

greatest number of green jobs—at least in the short term. For residential weatherization, most jobs require low- to moderate-skills preparation. In commercial and industrial retrofitting, there is a wider range of educational and training needs. Common occupations in these areas include: 
37 

• Electricians • Building Weatherization Occupations • Heating/Air Conditioning Installers • Electrical Engineers • Carpenters, Carpenter Helpers • Mechanical Engineers • Construction Equipment Operators • Cogeneration Construction and Operation • Roofers • Measurement and Verification Technicians • Insulation Workers • Energy Management Analysts • Construction Managers • Building Inspectors, Auditors 

The Renewable Energy sector focuses on creating, installing, and maintaining 

technologies that generate energy from resources that are naturally replenished and 

generally do not emit the greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming. Renewable Energies include wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower. 

While the majority of Renewable Energy occupations are now in manufacturing, 

there are also jobs associated with heavy construction and installation, and operations and maintenance. For example, in the wind energy sector, the occupations 

vary from entry-level construction laborers to advanced engineers. Sheet metal 

workers are needed in the production of wind turbines, and construction workers 

will build cogeneration units and work on upgrading the nation’s electric grid. 

For example, common occupations in wind energy include: 

• Environmental, Energy Engineers • Construction Equipment Operators • Iron and Steel Workers • Industrial Truck Drivers • Sheet Metal Workers • Industrial Production Managers • Machinists, Millwrights • Operators, Maintenance Technicians • Electrical Equipment Assemblers 

There is a widespread misconception that the vast majority of ‘‘green jobs’’ will 

be in the Renewable Energy area. In fact, most of the immediate job opportunities 

will be created in the Energy Efficiency sector as homes and businesses are retrofitted to use less energy, and as manufacturers develop new energy-saving products. 

In terms of money saved, Energy Efficiency may be the cheapest ‘alternative fuel’ 

around. 

A key point is that many Americans do not realize that most immediate green 

job openings will not be ‘‘new’’ occupations, but rather traditional occupations, some 

with a new layer of ‘‘green’’ skills, knowledge, and credentials. These green job 

workers will include construction workers, cost estimators, financial analysts, auditors, computer technicians, accountants, manufacturing workers, truck drivers, 

salespersons, scientists, engineers, and many others—as long as their jobs have 

something to do with energy conservation or increasing the supply of renewable or 

clean energy sources. 

And, the main distinction between jobs in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy sectors that is important for workforce and education professionals to understand has to do with the mix of occupations and employers in these sectors, and 

the green skills and certifications workers need to obtain these various jobs.1

While green job occupations will be found across all industries and at all levels 

of education, the largest number of green jobs in the nation’s energy sector will be 

in occupations that require an apprenticeship, professional certificate, or one to two 

years of postsecondary education. For renewable and sustainable energy occupations, the distribution of required education and training preparation is more varied, 

and specific to the type of renewable energy. 

As you know, the development of green jobs is receiving a significant boost from 

passage of the new Federal stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. Although the general direction of ‘‘green job’’ growth is clear, our research report Preparing the Workforce for a Green Jobs Economy stresses that the specific 

hiring and training needs of clean energy employers will vary significantly from 

state to state. 

A significant challenge for education and training providers will be how to best 

prepare jobseekers with the right skills for the right jobs at the right time that 

meets emerging demand for workers in real time. To meet this challenge of getting 

the balance of skilled workers into jobs that exist, our researchers recommend that 
38 

education and workforce professionals work closely and collaboratively with energy 

policy makers and energy employers to track the primary drivers of job growth— 

that is, technology development, economic conditions and energy policy. 

What Drives Growth in Green Jobs? 

To understand what fundamentally drives growth in green jobs, and thus where 

best to invest education and training dollars, it is important to know that transformation to a new energy economy and thus growth in green jobs in the United 

States depend on three major drivers: 

Technological Advances. Many energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are more expensive than traditional fossil fuel technologies. As these technologies become less expensive, the market will adopt them faster. It is impossible 

to predict which emerging technology—wind, solar, hydrogen—will dominate future 

energy markets and therefore employ future workers. It is much more likely that 

the nation’s energy future will be a patchwork of many different clean energy resources. 

Economic Conditions. Because Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy technology is capital intensive, energy prices and the economy affect businesses’ and 

consumers’ willingness and ability to invest. Like many other industries, the current 

economic downturn has dried up credit for installers of renewable technologies, 

causing manufacturers to reduce their payrolls. As traditional fuel prices rose over 

the past few years, energy efficiency and renewable technologies became more economically viable. The decline in fuel prices lowers demand for alternatives. 

Federal and State Energy Policy. Clean energy incentives (such as tax credits, rebates, or renewable energy certificate trading programs) and economic development 

initiatives can spur private-sector investment, particularly for risk-averse businesses. In general, public policies designed with a long-term goal in mind give businesses the signal they need for wide-scale investment in green energy and technologies. 

Green Job Numbers: Myth or Real Math? 

Green jobs are extremely difficult to quantify. There is no clearly defined federal 

government standard for counting green jobs, nor is there likely to be one, since 

there is no consensus today on what constitutes a green job. 

Today, most green energy jobs are currently found in the Energy Efficiency sector. 

According to the American Solar Energy Society, in 2007 there were 3.75 million 

jobs in the Energy Efficiency area, and 218,000 jobs or about 5% of all green energy 

in the Renewable Energy area.2 While today’s renewable energy job numbers are 

smaller, it is predicted that they will constitute the faster growing jobs—most significantly because of public policy efforts to increase the degree of the nation’s energy supply that comes from renewable sources. 

Various industry associations and research organizations, however, have attempted to provide estimates of green jobs in order to offer a better understanding 

of the potential magnitude of jobs in the energy efficiency and renewable energy 

areas. But, these green job growth projections vary widely, owing to many factors— 

such as the ambiguity of green jobs, unknowns about future economic conditions 

and/or the pace of technological advances, the degree and types of federal and state 

public policies (including stimulus dollars) and their eventual impact on job creation, and whether economists are calculating direct and/or indirect jobs (like administrative or information technology staff) created by the green energy industry. 

It remains to be seen if the stimulus package will create the promised 500,000 

green jobs by the end of 2010, but it is certain that there will be enormous opportunities for workers with a wide range of education and skills. The ways in which the 

federal government and states spend the stimulus money will affect the number of 

jobs that are created by the stimulus plan, as will the pace of the public and private 

sector’s uptake of key energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives. Again, it 

is important that workforce stakeholders work closely with industry to provide 

knowledge and skills training, both traditional and green, that will be necessary to 

meet the new, emerging demand. 

Where Will the Green Jobs Be? 

Across the nation, the demand for energy efficiency jobs and competencies is likely 

to be quite similar—the majority of Energy Efficiency jobs are in the retrofitting of 

buildings. 

However, the demand for Renewable Energy jobs and skills will vary by state, as 

other factors such as workforce strengths, natural resources and geography, infrastructure, and policy priorities also play a large role in where renewable energy industry is located. 
39 

Workforce Strengths. Since demand is fairly consistent for Energy Efficiency, all 

state or regional workforce agencies might consider preparing workers for retrofitting and weatherization occupations. Industry growth in the renewable energy 

sector will vary by state, with companies attracted to existing workforce capabilities, 

such as manufacturing skills, or states with a high number of skilled science and 

technology workers. 

Natural Resources and Geography. Solar collection capacity is strongest in the 

southwest and in states like Florida and Texas. Wind strength and consistency 

needed for large turbine installations is found along the coasts and in the Great 

Plains states. Green jobs related to biofuels made from feedstock will dominate in 

the Midwest and in other agricultural states. U.S. Department of Energy maps and 

data for all renewable resources across the nation are located at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/maps—data/renewable—resources. html. 

Infrastructure. In renewable energy manufacturing, a state’s industrial capacity 

influences the location of alternative energy component manufacturers, which are 

more likely to locate in states with industrial facilities and networks already in 

place. And size matters: wind turbine blades can be up to 200 feet long and weigh 

40 tons, so manufacturers need to locate close to where wind turbines will be constructed, and near water or rail, since some of the components are too large to 

transport by road.3

State, Regional, and Local Policy. In the absence of centralized, national, longterm energy strategies, several states are leading in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy development. By early 2009, 20 states had established various energy 

efficiency resource standards, which mandate efficiency levels through savings goals. 

At least 29 states have created renewable energy portfolio standards that charge 

utilities to supply consumers with a percentage of their energy from renewable 

sources.4 The economic incentives attached to these energy targets or goals will play 

a powerful role in creating demand for workers. In addition, numerous states or regional associations have designated economic development initiatives for clean energy sectors. 

For example, New Jersey, while not in the Sun Belt, has the second highest number of solar installations behind California (over 3,500 residential, commercial, and 

industrial installations) because of a strong rebate system put into place by policymakers to promote the growth of the solar industry in the state.5 In addition, the 

large number of flat roofs on warehouses and big box retail stores provide the infrastructure for capturing the sun’s energy. 

Newton, Iowa is another example where geography, infrastructure, and economic 

development targets created green jobs. In November 2008, TPI Composites opened 

a 316,000 square foot wind turbine facility in this manufacturing town that was 

reeling from the loss of Maytag, which at one time employed one out of every five 

residents.6 As a result of TPI Composites’ new facility, 500 green jobs were created. 

What Skills and Competencies are Green Energy Employers Seeking? 

As noted earlier, green energy jobs will most likely be traditional jobs—construction workers, manufacturing production workers, accountants, scientists—many of 

which require a new, green layer of skills and knowledge. 

Employers in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sectors interviewed for 

our research stressed that that workers applying for green jobs first need the basic 

skills and traditional competencies, degrees, and other recognized credentials associated with a particular job. ‘‘Green’’ competencies, where they are necessary, must 

be learned either in tandem with or after learning the core skills associated with 

a given occupation. 

In the short term, not every green job will require particular green skills or certification. Manufacturing workers in a solar panel facility, for example, may not require anything more than the basic skills required of others working in advanced 

manufacturing environments. In the world of weatherization and installation and 

maintenance of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency technologies, standards for 

certification and training are highly variable, especially at the entry level. In some 

home weatherization programs run by local utilities, for example, entry-level workers may need little more than basic construction laborer or installation skills, such 

as an air sealer who caulks gaps in windows. 

Standards embraced by employers or mandated by funding programs, however, 

often have implications for the training and certification needs of workers. Workers 

who obtain nationally recognized credentials associated with common standards for 

jobs in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sectors may have a better 

chance at obtaining a job even if the job does not require it. For example, a solar 

panel installer may prefer, but not require, that installers obtain a nationally recognized certification, such as a Photovoltaic Installer Certificate from the North Amer-
40 

ican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. Employers are the best and most upto-date source of information on which certifications and levels of education are required for a particular green job. 

In addition to certifications, employers stress that eventually broad sets of green 

knowledge, which cross many industries and occupations, will become increasingly 

important for job advancement, and may be considered basic knowledge in the future clean energy economy. These green concepts include: • Sustainability. How ecological systems work and the conditions under which 

they can function well now and into the future, including a basic understanding of 

the interconnectedness of human activity and the natural world, the effects of energy consumption, waste disposal, and the effects chemicals and other manmade 

substances have on natural systems—from waterways to air quality and climate. • Green Technologies, Standards, and Processes. Awareness of the policies, nationally recognized standards, equipment, and work practices that mitigate the environmental impacts of human activity, including energy use. From solar panels, to 

tax incentives, to weatherization and green manufacturing standards, many aspects 

of business and government are changing to enable the transition to a clean energy 

economy. • Life Cycle Analysis. The environmental and economic effects of a product at 

every stage of its existence, from extraction of materials through production to disposal and beyond. According to employers, life cycle analysis is of great usefulness 

in showing the benefits of using green technologies to consumers. 

What Can the Nation’s Workforce and Education Systems Do to Prepare Workers for 

Green Jobs in the Emerging Energy Economy? 

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sectors are positioned to have a 

long-term transformative effect on the nation’s economy. If the promise of the green 

energy economy holds true, the nation will experience benefits in both combating 

climate change and helping to restore economic strength and employ a large number 

of workers in the United States. 

In order to respond to the very complex and evolving energy industry needs, 

stakeholders must develop a coordinated, flexible workforce development infrastructure. Such systems, which formalize communication networks, articulation agreements, and other linkages among key stakeholders, will also position states and programs to be competitive for federal and foundation grants. To be effective, state 

agencies and other key stakeholders should explore the following strategies: 

Use Federal and State Public Policy as a Roadmap 

Develop ‘‘green jobs policy experts’’ in educational institutions and workforce development organizations who can create partnerships with employers, state environmental, energy, and economic development leaders to understand policy developments and to discern their likely effects on job growth in key areas of the energy 

economy and to identify potential employers. The Database of State Incentives for 

Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org) provides detailed information on state renewable energy initiatives and provides a good starting point. 

Build Partnerships with Employers and Labor Unions 

Establish a green energy advisory council with the leaders of companies, utilities, 

and labor unions to create a strategic venue for interaction and an ongoing feedback 

mechanism that ensures training programs and curricula are driven by industry’s 

priority workforce needs. Employers can identify demand for certifications, hiring 

and recruitment policies, and specific occupations, as well as which jobs will draw 

from labor unions. 

Since labor unions and employers often provide significant amounts of training 

themselves, they can also provide needed guidance on key gaps that exist within the 

education and training system that need to be filled. This will assist states to build 

training systems that build upon and support employer and union-led efforts rather 

than coming into competition with them. 

Develop a Green Jobs Workforce Collaborative or Green Jobs Talent Network 

Encourage green job growth in states and effectively meet employer demand as 

it evolves, through forming a voluntary collaboration network around the green energy industry. This sector approach creates a coalition of educational institutions 

(from high school to university), workforce and economic development system stakeholders, labor and community-based organizations, green energy companies, and industry associations in order to provide and support a trained and job-ready workforce for green jobs. 

The Los Angeles Infrastructure and Sustainable Jobs Collaborative offers an example of a talent network approach, bringing together public and private partners 
41 

to provide a seamless training and education infrastructure for low-income residents 

to be trained for livable wage occupations within the utility industry. Partners include utilities, labor unions, high schools and vocational-technical schools, community colleges, and universities. 

Through research and the development of the New Jersey TLD Talent Network 

(a collaborative workforce model for the transportation, logistics, and distribution industry), the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development has identified key 

elements of effective talent networks. These include: • Identification of Assets. Create an inventory of the public and private assets in 

states or regions to identify gaps and eliminate overlap. Map out existing training 

opportunities, including programs managed by employers, unions, community-based 

organizations, and educational institutions. Chart the funding streams available 

through various private and public entities to support green job growth and training 

efforts and look beyond traditional funding sources. • Cultivation of Career Pathways. Support low-skilled, low-income workers to 

move into higher-skilled jobs that pay better wages through education and green 

jobs training. Ensure that training results in a nationally recognized credential. In 

addition, states should focus on accreditation of training programs and on creating 

‘‘stackable’’ credentials through articulation agreements. For example, Los Angeles 

developed the Green Careers Training Initiative (GCTI) in association with the 

Apollo Alliance and the city’s Green Retrofits program. Among GCTI’s goals are to 

create ‘‘green career ladders’’ in order to link low-income residents with union apprenticeship and community college training programs, as well as provide incumbent worker training. Such programs can provide means for worker advancement 

as well as lifelong learning opportunities. 

• Alignment of Green Jobs Workforce Training Efforts with Economic Development Initiatives. Establish a connection between attracting green energy businesses 

and customized training and hiring and recruitment systems. In Georgia, Suniva, 

Inc. built a new manufacturing facility for silicon solar cells. Through a partnership 

with Gwinnett Technical College and Georgia Quick Start, the state’s free, customized workforce training program, Suniva is ramping up to its projected workforce of 100 jobs. 

• No Duplication of Training or Curricula. Ensure that workers in multiple locations have access to training that is relevant to employers by developing mechanisms to share curricula that result in credentials that are in high demand by employers and are not otherwise available. Consider developing centralized training 

centers that provide students with the opportunity to get hands-on training using 

state-of-the art equipment, thus potentially conserving costs. For example, Florida’s 

Solar Energy Center receives $3 million in operating funds from the University of 

Central Florida and provides continuing education programs in alternative energy 

technologies through a partnership of universities, community colleges, technical institutes, workforce agencies, and industries. Besides solar energy training, handson classes in home energy rater training, fuel cell technology, and disaster relief are 

taught at the center. 

Conclusion 

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy industries have enormous potential 

to create new business and job opportunities for millions of American workers. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the steady movement toward a clean energy economy, and the rising price of traditional fossil fuels are several of many factors that will determine how many jobs are ultimately produced in the green economy. 

States and communities with innovative energy policies and coordinated workforce development systems aligned with employers will emerge as leaders in this 

new green economy. Stakeholders who wish to partake in the federal stimulus training funds for green jobs will need to be committed to preparing their workforce by 

building well coordinated, flexible strategic partnerships among industry, labor 

unions, community based organizations and educators. 

All and all, green jobs employment and training efforts will be better poised to 

succeed by: 

1. Tracking the effects of key drivers of energy sector job growth—technology, economic conditions, and public policy—on the real-time hiring needs of employers. 

2. Creating a green jobs talent network to coordinate education and training with 

economic development efforts and the emerging workforce needs of employers. 

3. Focusing education and training efforts on providing industry-recognized credentials where needed, developing career pathways for workers, and complementing—not duplicating or circumventing—employer and labor union-led training 

efforts. 
42 

We believe that taking these steps will enable state, regional, and/or local green 

jobs initiatives to build a more responsive, sustainable, flexible and coordinated 

workforce education infrastructure. An effective green jobs workforce strategy will 

produce multiple benefits, including ensuring that training leads workers to real job 

opportunities, helping businesses to be more competitive, and garnering federal 

green jobs training grants. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and share these research findings from 

the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. 

Endnotes 

1. Kate Galbraith, ‘‘Dark Days for Green Energy,’’ The New York Times, February 

3, 2009. 

2. Management Information Services, Inc. and American Solar Energy Society, as 

referenced in Roger H. Bezdek, ‘‘Green Collar Jobs in the U.S. and Colorado: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century’’ (Boulder, CO: American Solar Energy Society, 

Inc., 2009) (accessed February 19, 2009 at www.ases.org/images/stories/ASES/pdfs/ 

CO—Jobs—Final—Report—December2008.pdf). 

3. Jason Walsh and Sarah White, ‘‘Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy.’’ 

4. Ibid. 

5. James O’Neill, ‘‘New Jersey’s Largest Solar Field Planned,’’ NorthJersey.com, 

September 25,2008 (accessed at: www.northjersey. com/environment/ 

environmentnews/NJs—largest—solar—energy—field—planned.html). 

6. Dean Reynolds, ‘‘Town Reinvents Self with Wind Power’’, CBS News, November 

2008 (accessed at www.cbsnews. com/stores/2008/11/21/eveningnews/ 

main4626116.shtml). 

[Additional submission of Ms. Krepcio follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Before we proceed on to the questions, I would like to enter a 

written statement by Raymond Uhalde, senior advisor to the secretary of labor at the U.S. Department of Labor, and it is just his 

input into this Committee, into this hearing. Without objection, we 

will include this in our record. 

[The statement of Mr. Uhalde follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Raymond J. Uhalde, Senior Advisor to the Secretary 

of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of green jobs in our country’s 

economic recovery. 
55 

In this statement, I will provide an overview of how Secretary of Labor Hilda L. 

Solis has deployed, and will deploy in the coming months, the funding made available to the Department under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) to promote green jobs and the green economy. 

The Recovery Act, signed by President Obama on February 17, 2009, is the most 

significant single payment our Nation has ever made to ensure our future economic 

success. The Recovery Act will enable the repair and improvement of the country’s 

infrastructure, fund innovative research and development initiatives, create job opportunities for Americans, and propel the growth of ‘‘green jobs’’. This landmark legislation will put us on a course toward economic recovery and growth. 

While there is considerable discussion about the role of green jobs in the economic 

recovery, there is not yet an agreed upon definition of green jobs. The provisions 

of Title X—Green Jobs of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set 

forth one definition that includes a wide array of industry sectors. These occupations 

range from construction and skilled trade work retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency to manufacturing work implementing sustainable processes, as well as jobs 

involving renewable energy installation and maintenance, such as building and 

servicing wind turbines. 

The investment in green jobs will not only help to re-start the economy and put 

Americans back to work, but will also help make America more energy independent. 

The investment in our Nation’s clean energy future will not only secure America’s 

energy supply, but will do so in a way that promotes economic stability and the advancement of all of our communities. For instance, many green jobs are likely to 

be in the construction trades, and these jobs tend to pay above averages wages. The 

May 2007 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that construction and extraction occupations pay a median hourly rate of $17.57 as against $15.10 for all occupations. In 

addition, data from the Current Population Survey published by BLS indicates that 

21% of construction workers were represented by a union in 2008. Therefore, we can 

expect that many green jobs will pay 10% to 20% better than other jobs and will 

be unionized. These are jobs that will provide economic security for our middle-class 

families while reducing our nation’s energy dependence. 

BLS Commissioner Keith Hall testified at the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 

on March 25, 2009, about the effort to measure green jobs. In his testimony, Commissioner Hall noted several challenges in measuring green jobs: 1) green activities 

often cut across industries and occupations, or 2) green jobs account for a subset 

of activity within an individual industry and occupational category. These challenges are present whenever we try to measure jobs in an emerging sector of the 

economy, such as information technology and biotechnology. However, there are 

green jobs that can be easily measured in categories such as the production of renewable electric power. BLS is currently developing approaches to measure green 

jobs, including surveying workplaces in industries where green activity is expected 

to occur to identify both the extent to which they are performing green activities 

and the occupations of the employees who are doing such work. 

While BLS is working on ways to measure green jobs, billions of dollars have already been distributed across the Federal government to the states for infrastructure investments and research and development investments that that will create 

opportunities for green job growth. For its part, the Department has already made 

available $3.47 billion of the Recovery Act to support workforce investment activities. Such activities include retraining dislocated workers, summer employment for 

youth, and community service employment for low-income seniors. The Recovery Act 

also makes available $250 million in funds for Job Corps projects. Future construction and repair of Job Corps facilities will incorporate green technologies. Job Corps 

will also develop and implement green jobs training into their curricula at all Centers. 

The Department of Labor consistently invests in America’s workforce by supporting training and re-training of workers, and providing assistance in getting 

them jobs. As we work to expeditiously and effectively carry out our responsibilities 

under the Recovery Act, the Department and other Federal agencies are collaborating to identify effective green training approaches and opportunities. 

The Department and other Federal agencies have already begun to coordinate 

their work to strategically implement programs that ensure the connection between 

investments in infrastructure and research and development to job training and 

worker placement. For example, during a recent visit to the Community College of 

Allegheny County Secretary of Labor Solis and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu recently announced a major new investment to create green jobs in Pittsburgh and 
56 

other Pennsylvania communities. With these types of partnerships, we are building 

both a stronger economy and a secure, clean energy supply. 

Secretary Solis’ primary focus in administering the Department’s Recovery Act 

initiatives will be to ensure that green jobs workforce training is an effective and 

comprehensive effort to move America’s workforce and economy forward. The greening of our economy will bring significant changes to the American workplace and 

will require the American workforce to acquire new and different skills. The Department of Labor is developing plans for use of the $500 million provided 

in the Recovery Act for research and job training projects that prepare workers for 

careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and will soon issue solicitations 

for grant applications. These grants will provide an infusion of workforce training 

funding that will help ensure there is a qualified American workforce to meet the 

needs of our country’s expanding green industries. The Department of Labor will 

focus on engaging with communities, writing guidance, evaluating grant applications and leveraging funds so that we can provide grants in an efficient and effective 

way and impact the communities most in need. 

The Department will look for ways to make the workforce investment system responsive to the labor market demands for workers in green industries. In fact, the 

Department recently issued guidance to states to help implement the job training 

provisions of the Recovery Act, noting that the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries offer workers new opportunities that may require additional training 

and certification. Through the Recovery Act, a number of other Federal programs 

will receive large investments in programs and projects that could create green jobs. 

These include investments in renewable energy infrastructure, energy-efficiency 

home retrofitting, biofuel development, and advanced drive train/vehicle development and manufacturing. As states receive Recovery Act funding and implement 

training and reemployment strategies, the Department encourages states to recognize opportunities to prepare workers for green jobs related to other sources of Federal funding. The Department has also encouraged states to expand existing training programs, such as registered apprenticeship programs that have the potential 

to prepare workers for careers in the renewable energy sectors and for other green 

jobs. Finally, the Department’s guidance has encouraged states to identify regional 

and local environmental resources, businesses, and pre-apprenticeship programs 

promoting green jobs and products to provide youth summer work experiences that 

prepare them to compete in a ‘‘green’’ economy. With green jobs workforce training, 

we will ensure that American workers have the needed experience and expertise to 

succeed in the green economy. 

The Department of Labor is directing its efforts and resources to assist American 

workers in acquiring the skills they will need to access the new job opportunities 

that will become available in the green economy, thus ensuring that employers in 

existing and emerging high-growth industries will have the skilled and innovative 

workforce. We must ensure that there is an effective pipeline for training which allows people to have both short-term training opportunities and the opportunity to 

advance into higher-skilled jobs. The workforce investment through the Recovery 

Act will help enable our economic recovery, promote future economic growth, and 

advance shared prosperity for all Americans. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. So, thank you all. You have given us way 

too much to think about. My head is spinning, and—but I keep getting back to two main questions that, assuming that we know that 

we are going to have green jobs, green technology, because that is 

the future of the United States of America, it is the industry of our 

future, and it will include workers, from inventors and scientists, 

and the developers and the producers, and then the installers. I 

mean, we have—it is everybody. It is every place. 

So one of my main concerns would be that some critics of green 

jobs, that when we talk about green jobs say that they are only 

entry-level jobs, they won’t do that much for stimulating our economy—but I disagree with that—but I would like to hear your— 

what you think about that. I would like you to tell me where you 

think green job training will take place and how we get the entrylevel green job worker—give them their promotion opportunities, 

how they can—we can prevent them from being in dead end jobs. 
57 

So some of that, I think, Dr. Roy, you would be—you are experiencing that with or without green jobs, so how would you continue 

this? 

Mr. ROY. I would like to address one of those issues. Certainly 

at my company, Serious Materials, we have—I will get back to you 

on the specific numbers, but I believe we have a couple dozen 

Ph.D.s, scientists, and engineers that are working on our new technologies all the time. Now, those are really high-end—very highend jobs. 

It goes all the way up through our chain, down to the installers; 

you have system installers all the way up to Ph.D. engineers. You 

also have quite advanced manufacturing and logistics analysis 

going on all the time. So these aren’t just entry-level jobs; some of 

these are quite high-end. That is how we get the technology that 

becomes cost-effective and attractive to deploy. 

Now, with respect to the downstream: in installation, certainly it 

is important. For example, with windows you have a two-person 

crew if you want to be logistically effective. You have a two-person 

crew that goes through, changes a lot of windows. One of those has 

to be a skilled windows installer with proper training, proper certification. The other one is an assistant, learning, quickly becoming 

a highly-skilled installer. 

It is a very interesting track for that second person, and we are 

not going to run out of opportunities for—in that narrow space of 

windows installers. There are something like 30 million low-income 

households that are highly inefficient for which there are cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades waiting to be done. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. All right. 

Ms. Krepcio? 

Ms. KREPCIO. As I had pointed out, I mean, the range of jobs are 

going to be anywhere, as I said, from entry-level to middle-skill, to 

high-level jobs. And as we know, they will all evolve as the industry evolves. I mean, certainly, you know, one of the things that we 

at the Heldrich Center are very concerned about is, entry-level 

workers get put on pathways, so if they start off as somebody who 

is helping to retrofit and building and caulking a window, you don’t 

need a lot of skills to be able to do that, but you do need to have 

good workplace skills and basic skills, that eventually they might 

be participating in pre-apprenticeship training programs so they 

can become licensed plumbers or carpenters and participate in 

that, and eventually maybe they want to become a contractor. So 

there are certain pathways and certain industries in energy efficiency, and clearly there is going to be the need for scientists and 

technologists to be able to produce the new technologies of the future. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Right. 

Mr. Ringo? 

Mr. RINGO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

At Apollo, we have really focused on a level playing field, that 

those that are engaged in these jobs are from businesses and individuals who might invest in green technologies or get involved in 

owning businesses in green, but also those people who are unemployed, laid off out of our manufacturing industries, and even the 

poor, those people who daily must begin their day having to make 
58 

a decision after whether they should purchase a gallon of gas or 

a gallon of milk. 

I was in Arkansas last week, Madam Chair, and there are 

400,000 homes that are in line to be weatherized through the stimulus money that is going to be available in the state of Arkansas. 

But prior to weatherization of those homes, mainly poor people, 

there must be energy audits done of each home. Of the 400,000 

homes that are awaiting weatherization in Arkansas, there are 

only five certified energy auditors in the entire state. That is a 

green job. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. That would be. 

Ms. Sherman, could you add a little bit to—— 

Ms. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. My time is up, and I am going to—I will 

be back. We will have a second round. 

Congressman Price? 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin I would like 

to ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter that all 

members have received from the Associated Builders and Contractors regarding this issue. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., 

March 31, 2009. 

Hon. LYNN WOOLSEY, Chairwoman; Hon. TOM PRICE, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House Education and Labor Committee, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRWOMAN WOOLSEY AND RANKING MEMBER PRICE: On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and its 25,000 contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and construction related firms across the nation, I am writing to 

thank you for holding today’s hearing on ‘‘Green Jobs and Their Role in Our Economic Recovery.’’ ABC member companies have been at the forefront of green construction since before this terminology came into use. However, we are greatly concerned with recent statutory language which would prohibit over 84% of the construction industry from accessing federal dollars to train construction workers in 

green fields of works and strongly urge you to maintain open access to these important funds. 

Open shop contractors, which make up over 84 % of the private construction industry, recognize the growing market force of green buildings and are adapting their 

training methods to prepare workers for this ever expanding segment of the construction industry. In fact, for the past several decades millions of square feet of 

‘‘green’’ and LEED certified building space has already been built using open shop 

contractors and the specialized skills of their workforce. 

ABC chapters and member companies are actively engaged in training workers 

in a wide variety of skilled occupations and are constantly striving to keep pace with 

technology and innovation in order to make certain America has the skilled workforce it deserves, and that all American workers, regardless of union affiliation, 

enjoy equal opportunity of access to critical job training. However, the continued 

participation of open shop contractors, and the job opportunities for over 84% of the 

construction workforce they employ, in the booming green building market is threatened by the efforts of many in Washington, D.C. to exclude nonunion companies and 

training providers from participating in new government funded green jobs training 

programs. 

The Green Jobs Act, enacted as part of the ‘‘Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007’’ which was signed into law in December 2007, establishes National Energy Training Partnership Grants to fund training programs targeted at creating an 

efficient energy and renewable energy skilled workforce. Specifically, the Green Jobs 

Act would require any entity applying for these grants to partner with organized 

labor. The reality is that this language would bar the numerous open shop training 

programs from receiving this grant funding. 
59 

Organized labor makes up just 16% of the private construction workforce and likely represents a similar amount of work in the green building market. Given the desire to see a continued increase in the use of green building and green technology, 

it seems that limiting the ability to participate in green training to such a small 

percentage of the construction industry would make this growth difficult. If the 

green building market is going to continue to expand in the coming years as some 

groups predict, the participation of the open shop will be a crucial factor in ensuring 

there are enough skilled workers to meet the demand. 

To that end, ABC, along with many other construction and business groups, 

strongly supports the ‘‘Green Jobs Improvement Act’’ soon to be introduced by Congressman John Kline which would amend the Workforce Investment Act to allow 

both union and open shop training providers access to the federally funded energy 

efficiency and renewable energy worker training programs. This bill would give all 

workers the opportunity to train in the ever increasing field of green construction 

and would not block certain training providers access simply because they choose 

not to be affiliated with organized labor. 

The advances in the technology and skill involved in green building, and the benefits of their use, is indeed a welcome trend for contractors, skilled workers and the 

end user. It is our view that the most efficient path to encouraging this continued 

growth of this sector is by giving all training providers, regardless of union affiliation, access to federal training programs so that the greatest numbers of workers 

can be trained in green jobs. In today’s tough economic times, especially in the construction industry, Members of Congress have a responsibility to provide all workers 

with training opportunities paid for by their tax dollars. 

Again, thank you for your work, and we look forward to your continued efforts 

to promote green building opportunities for all contractors. 

BREWSTER B. BEVIS, Senior Director, 

Legislative Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors. 

[Additional submission of Mr. Price follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

[‘‘7 Myths About Green Jobs,’’ University of Illinois College of 

Law, by William T. Bogart, et al, may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract—id=1357440 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and their contributions to this issue. I think the vision and the goal of all of us 

is the same: We all want a clean environment, and we want to preserve and protect and increase the number of jobs. I would suggest, 
67 

however, that all Americans are getting more and more suspicious 

of governmental activity and the intrusion of government into the 

private sector. And certainly that suspicion has been increased over 

the past couple of weeks. 

Your testimony resulted in much discussion about the benefits of 

green jobs, and I think we can all agree, that is great to hear. 

Dr. Bogart, I was struck by your comments regarding the lack 

of transparency and the different definitions of what a green job is 

and how depending on how you define that it allows for the government to pick winners and losers. Would you mind commenting on 

that, and also, what you would suggest as we try to move forward 

in properly defining green jobs? 

Dr. BOGART. Thank you. Yes. Actually, that is one of the difficulties, and it was one of the reasons we dug into this research, is 

that various groups define green jobs very differently and count different technologies as green, and the concern is that that lack of 

transparency will lead to money being wasted as people just try to 

define anything as being green. Again, to hearken back to events 

of last year, all of a sudden everybody wanted to be a bank, and 

I think that if we aren’t careful, every job turns into a green job. 

Now, that said, there is a sense in which the increasing price of 

energy over time does turn every job into a green job because businesses and consumers have an incentive to economize on that more 

expensive energy by finding new technology and by buying energy 

efficient products, and we should encourage all of those types of activities. 

Dr. PRICE. You mentioned the processes by which one might define a green job. Do you have a working definition that you use for 

green jobs? 

Dr. BOGART. Not a short one. I find it very hard to find one that 

is that short—— 

Dr. PRICE. That is clearly the challenge that we have. 

You also brought out the interesting point of a net increase in 

jobs, and I wondered if you might care to comment a little more 

on losses of jobs as a consequence of decisions that might be made. 

Dr. BOGART. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

There are two ways to see this. One, again, is if we produce the 

same amount of energy but we change sources, the people that 

were previously employed producing energy, let us say, from oil, 

coal, nuclear, will lose jobs as jobs are gained in solar, wind, or biomass. The other way to see it, and this is what we are seeing in 

the European experience, most recently with the report from King 

Juan Carlos University in Spain, is that higher energy prices drive 

businesses out of the country, and low energy prices in much of the 

United States has been an advantage for various types of producers, and also keeping consumer prices low, which is important 

for our competitiveness. 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Dr. Wolfe, I want to thank you for your testimony as well, and 

as a strong supporter of expansion of nuclear energy, I think that 

many nations of the world have proven that that is indeed a responsible way in which to proceed. I wonder if you might comment 

on the difference between the sustainable and renewable energy 

and how both of those might fit into green jobs? 
68 

Dr. WOLFE. Yes. I don’t mean to be provocative, but I have a literal problem with the word ‘‘renewable.’’ Frankly, no energy is renewable. The laws of thermodynamics say we can’t create or destroy energy. We can change its form; we can, you know, recharge 

a battery; we can do things like we can convert from potential to 

kinetic and kinetic to potential energy; but we can’t make energy. 

And so with that semantics issue aside, I view the green energies 

as being those that don’t produce pollution, that don’t produce byproducts that are harmful to human health, and that we encourage 

an energy source that is sustainable—that word I am okay with; 

it means we can do it for a long, long time without fear of running 

out of it or having someone hold us hostage because we don’t have 

it. So I prefer words like sustainable to describe the nature of the 

jobs, because renewal is technically not correct. 

But realizing that it is well-established and been used for years 

and years and years, the problem is defining even renewable. You 

know, what is that? There are a number of applications of ‘‘renewable energy,’’ that I don’t think are environmentally-friendly. I personally don’t think that using 5,000 square miles of biomass to be 

the equivalent of one nuclear power plant is being environmentallyfriendly. Likewise, I have issues with wind and solar in that regard; the land-use issues are significant. 

Dr. PRICE. I thank you for your comments, and as the chairwoman said, we will be coming around for a second round of questions. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. We will. Thank you. 

Congressman Sablan? 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for having this hearing today. 

Just a very simple question: Ms. Krepcio, help me understand 

this. A plumber, a plumber, a person who is a plumber who gets 

trained to now retrofit pipes and things for solar power, or just— 

that would be a green job, in your opinion? 

Ms. KREPCIO. Well, you know, it really does depend. Because 

right now, would you call a plumber who is installing a low-flush 

toilet a green job? I am not quite sure that I would call it a green 

job. But eventually, as the industry matures, there may be a green 

type of plumber. 

I mean, I sort of liken this to the I.T. industry. Could we have, 

when the I.T. industry and computers first emerged, have conceived of a chief technology officer or a network administrator before those types of technologies existed? And I think that is the 

same thing that we are struggling with right now, is these kinds 

of definitions, which I said right at the beginning, you know, green 

jobs will be really just traditional jobs of which someone is going 

to now install insulation that they might have ever installed, or 

they are now retrofitting buildings with Energy Star appliances. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Wolfe, in your testimony, you said you call nuclear energy 

the cleanest, safest source of energy. Is it really safe? Is that why 

people don’t want it in their backyards? I am from the islands; I 

have never seen a nuclear plant—power plant—that is why I am 

asking you, sir. 
69 

Dr. WOLFE. Yes. Well, you know, one of the popular things that 

you read in the media is that we ‘‘have to make nuclear safe if we 

are going to use it.’’ I don’t know what else we can do. We have 

operated for 50 years and never had a fatality in generating commercial nuclear power in this country. There is no other industry 

of this magnitude that can claim anything like that. Even the wind 

industry in Europe has had 14 deaths to the public from, you 

know—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Dr. WOLFE [continuing]. Windmills flying off or something. 

So—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Well, thank you—my time, I only have 5 minutes. 

But it is not renewable, is it? 

Dr. WOLFE. It is quite sustainable. 

Mr. SABLAN. My question is, it is not renewable? 

Dr. WOLFE. No. I just said a few moments ago that none of these 

technologies are renewable. They are, depending upon how you 

want to define them, sustainable. And here is the reason that nuclear is sustainable: That pellet right there out of this fuel rod will 

provide your electricity for a year that you need. Now, you compare 

that to what you see with fossil fuels, which would take—we would 

have to fill this room with coal, you know. So, I mean, so this is 

a sustainable—— 

Mr. SABLAN. I am not against nuclear power, I am just asking 

a question. It is not renewable? 

Dr. WOLFE. Nuclear is not renewable and no other energy source 

is renewable. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. 

And I have no more questions, Chair. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Kline? 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank the witnesses for being here today, for your terrific testimony. I am fascinated by the discussion that has come up over 

what is a green job. I mean, I guess I had that question, but I see 

virtually everybody, it seems like, at the table has the same sort 

of questions. 

Ms. Krepcio, I noticed you sort of highlighted that for a bit— 

what is a green job and a job that is a regular job today, or a nongreen job today could be a green job tomorrow, and a great example 

of if a plumber comes in and puts in a pipe for a low-volume flush, 

is that a green job? And yet, at the same time, you had numbers— 

percentages and statistics: You said that 5 percent of the green jobs 

were in the renewable area and 95 percent were in the efficiency. 

Well, how do you arrive at such a number if we don’t know what 

one of those is? 

Ms. KREPCIO. Well, I used the statistics from the American Solar 

Energy, and those—and as, you know, when I think one of the 

things this panel points out is a lot of different places have a lot 

of different estimates, and I think it is very important. I mean, our 

research shows that consistently people are saying—organizations 

are saying—energy efficiency jobs are much more greater than renewable energy jobs. 

But you are absolutely right. There is not a consensus, as I said 

in my testimony, and there is not a federal standard. So I think 
70 

it is great to have these kinds of conversations and dialogues, but 

my guess is there may never be a immediate consensus because 

could—as I said earlier, could they have come to a consensus on, 

what are those kind of job numbers in the information technology 

field? And it is an evolving area, clearly. 

Mr. KLINE. Right. Thank you. And I appreciate, frankly, the clarity. Even though it is an unclear subject, I appreciate your clarity 

in explaining its unclearness. That is sort of the world that we are 

in here today. 

Ms. KREPCIO. What an academic. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. If we accept the notion that we need 

green jobs and that there is an evolving, growing, green industry, 

do you think—I will ask two or three of you this question—that 

those—that the job training for those ought to be available for all 

American workers? 

Ms. KREPCIO. Well, I certainly think that the nation is poised to 

ensure that there are training available for all workers who want 

those kinds of trainings. I think that the American public and the 

American workers are probably grappling with—I know my neighbors, colleagues, and friends are going, ‘‘I would like to get into the 

green industry, but by the way, what is that green industry?’’ 

And so that is one of the reasons why the Heldrich Center is suggesting that we—that the workforce development systems build a 

collaborative workforce model, because you need to listen to employers; you need to know where the market is going; you need to 

understand policy. And all that is changing quickly, and so therefore, if you want to get in the ground you need to have all these 

kinds of people talking together. 

And the workforce system now isn’t great for having educators 

talking with community-based organizations, putting out information about where jobs are, but I think we are at a point that if we 

want this industry to succeed we need to do a much better job of 

having that collaborative conversation and be able to get that information out to workers so they know where to go to get the training 

that they need. And sometimes, as I said, they don’t need the training right away; they just need to understand maybe some very basics about what is installation and what is a low-flush toilet. And 

eventually, as the industry evolves, they might need some more 

credentials or training. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you. In fact, you said in your testimony 

that we need to include employers in this discussion, and your 

quote is, ‘‘Employers are the best and most up-to-date source of information on which certifications and levels of education are required for a particular green job.’’ But under the current law, the 

Green Jobs Training Program and the Workforce Investment Act, 

unless you are a union workforce, you are excluded. And it just 

seems to me that if we really want to expand the job opportunities 

for the entire American workforce, that we ought to open it up for 

all American workers and not restrict it to only union workforces, 

and thereby, in a lot of ways, cutting out employers from the discussion. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. KREPCIO. I think it is very important that all workers have 

access to all kinds of jobs across the country. And one of the 
71 

things—and I think in California, you know, we have seen great 

promise in pre-apprenticeship programs, because a lot of workers— 

and we have seen this in some programs in New Jersey—really 

need—and as I said in my testimony, they need basic academic 

skills. 

Some people don’t have the skills to be able to pass the, you 

know, code requirements for being a carpenter, or a plumber, or 

whatever. And so I think it behooves us to really look at pre-apprenticeship programs so entry-level workers, and workers in lowincome communities, and disadvantaged workers, and you know, 

and my people with disabilities have access to all those kinds of 

jobs. We need every American worker to be working, and therefore, 

we need to find some way to get them into that pipeline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you very much. I will be encouraging all my 

colleagues to join on my Green Jobs Improvement Act so that we 

can include all workers. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congresswoman Shea-Porter? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

Ms. Sherman, you were talking about the kinds of buildings that 

you construct, and let me make sure that I have this right: You can 

now construct buildings that produce 50—require 50 percent less 

energy? 

Ms. SHERMAN. That is correct. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. And you expect us to continue to 

progress in this area? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Absolutely. I mean, as I said, we are hoping that 

we will eventually build buildings that produce more energy than 

they consume, so actually give energy back to the grid. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. That is the great news. And I have to 

say that I don’t understand why so many people in this country 

brag about our past technology achievements while they deride and 

criticize our present technology achievements and absolutely doubt 

this future. So when we are looking at this, we know that our future is here and it is now. 

So, Dr. Wolfe, I paid very close attention to your testimony because I live in New Hampshire, and not too far from Seabrook 

Plant, I am sure you are familiar with it—bankrupt, a lot of problems. We now have to deal with an extra expense on our electric 

bill. So when you were talking about it being the cheapest form 

and cost savings, you know, I had to question that. 

But I wanted to talk about some other things about least expensive. If we built these nuclear power plants, would you be wanting 

loans from the U.S. taxpayers? 

Dr. WOLFE. I am sorry, would I be—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Wanting loans? Would the nuclear industry 

build their own or would they come to the taxpayer to build? And 

what is the default rate, please—you know the default rate when 

they use taxpayer money? 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, okay, there are a lot of issues there. One is, 

would I be in favor of loan guarantees, I assume, for nuclear construction? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. 
72 

Dr. WOLFE. I certainly would be. I think that is the smart thing 

for the taxpayer to do; I think it is unlikely it would ever cost them 

anything. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. But they didn’t really ask for the kind 

of money that I think nuclear industry would ask. And do you 

know what the default rate is on these loans? 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, we haven’t built one in 30 years, so I mean, 

you know—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. It is over 50 percent. 

Dr. WOLFE. It is over what? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Congressional Budget Office estimated over 

50 percent for a default rate, which means that this would not be 

the least expensive if the U.S. taxpayer has to take on the cost for 

doing this. And again, I see my electric bill every month and I 

know what happened, so I do have a personal interest in this. 

But I also wanted to move on about creating jobs. The Bureau 

of Labor Statistics said that it will only create about 27,000 jobs 

and some of them, as you indicated, would come from elsewhere. 

And considering our unemployment rate is over 8 percent right 

now and we have lost millions of jobs, is this really a big job-creator when all these people sitting here are also hiring people, but 

at a faster rate? 

Dr. WOLFE. I think you are talking about the new nuclear opportunities. There are also the replacement opportunities that I described; I think one-third of the workforce is going to retire in the 

next 5 years. We also have the peripheral of businesses that supply 

the nuclear industry, which aren’t counted in those job estimates. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Can you tell us how many jobs you think 

would be generated? Everybody here has pretty much indicated 

something about jobs. Could you name a number? 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, I think the number you used is from a study 

that I have read—the 27,000. The multiplier on those I would probably want to defer to Dr. Bogart or someone that is more into those 

multiplier figures, but it is typical that job creation will result in 

two to five additional jobs in the industries, and those are the 

kinds of numbers that I would expect. 

Now, that says we are going to build—I think it is based on 17 

power plants. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Which would take how long before you actually can start building? 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, unfortunately, the system we have, if you just 

think of it today you will probably be 7 years before you can start 

building a power plant. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. 

Dr. WOLFE. However, there are ways to shorten that period of 

time. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But still, we are talking 6 or 7 years before 

we actually have the jobs, and how long—— 

Dr. WOLFE. Except for new builds. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And once they have started to build, how long 

before a plant would actually go online. 

Dr. WOLFE. A plant can be built from the time you break ground 

in about 31⁄2 to 4 years, assuming there is no delay in the process. 
73 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So we are talking a long range outlook. We 

are looking nine to 10 years before—whereas, the people sitting 

here are really grappling with the issues and being able to produce 

solutions today. 

And I have another question I am going to ask you. You talked 

about it being safe and the greenest, and could you and I go on a 

field trip to Chernobyl today? 

Dr. WOLFE. That is a very, I think—it is not appropriate to the 

U.S. experience. Chernobyl was a very different kind of machine, 

a very different kind of technology, and a very different kind of culture. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. But it is still a problem that we are left 

with. I have a problem in New Hampshire: We have no place to put 

those spent rods right now. And I think we have a problem with 

storage; we have a problem with our technology. And I would have 

to argue it is not the greenest of the green. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Congressman Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I might just pick up where 

the Representative left off. 

Where do they store yours, and fuel in—you say South Carolina 

is proud of how much they do it—where is it stored? 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, if they are in state it is pretty much where 

everybody’s is, which is onsite at the plant site. 

Mr. PAYNE. And this question never arises from South Carolinians that there is—it has been mentioned that their potential 

dangers would be storing of this spent fuel? 

Dr. WOLFE. I am not sure what potential dangers you refer to. 

However, I have personally visited recently such a site. The casks 

are sitting there on a parking lot, and it represents all of the fuel 

from 1984 at the McGuire Nuclear Plant in North Carolina. It is 

a few casks sitting there, and they could obviously handle several 

decades’ more in that same location if they need to. It would be 

preferable to have a different solution—— 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, why is the big debate about where is it going 

to be stored permanently? You know, you said somewhere out in 

Nevada. Nevada said, ‘‘Bring it out here.’’ I mean, you know, it 

seems to be this, you know, in your judgment—you are a scientist; 

I am not—that there is, you know, like storing milk. There is no, 

I mean, it is—I would be 1000 percent supportive of all the nuclear 

energy in the world, I mean, just have it all—bring it all to New 

Jersey—if I thought that it was just the safest kind of residue, you 

know. 

So I am a little confused at sort of the cavalierness, ‘‘There is no 

problem,’’ and there has not even seemingly been a discussion 

about a potential problem with storage over a period of time. 

Dr. WOLFE. Well, there are many facets to the issues you are 

raising, and I know a lot of people are concerned about. There are 

technical solutions to all of those new questions. The issues we 

have are not whether or not we have technology to solve those 

issues; it is more about the political will to choose a solution. And 

there are multiple solutions. 
74 

Mr. PAYNE. And you are not concerned about the potential dangers? 

Dr. WOLFE. I am not. I used to run a business or an organization 

that designed those casks, and they are not going to be penetrated. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. So like I said, it is as safe as safe can be, in 

your estimation. I mean, I just am asking your opinion. 

Dr. WOLFE. Okay. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Ringo, do you have this—— 

Mr. RINGO. Well, Congressman, thank you very much. Congressman, I grew up in Louisiana in the infamous Cancer Alley, where 

there are petrochemical plants separated by poor communities, and 

I am not opposing Dr. Wolfe’s position on—I have no position on 

nuclear. But we must create alternative energy sources and pursue 

alternative energy sources that are both people-and environmentally-friendly. 

Those people that live in close proximity to those facilities have 

a history of being disproportionately impacted—primarily poor people and people of color. So we must pursue energy sources that are 

environmentally-and people-friendly, and they are out there. And 

no better source of alternative energy than conservation, than energy efficiency. 

Those are not harmful to the environment. Those energy efficiency practices are not harmful to neighbors that live just across 

the fence line from petrochemical plants or any type of facility. 

So I urge the U.S. government, the Congress, to encourage alternative energy practices that are going to be environmentally-friendly. And yes, there are practices that are out there. 

Mr. PAYNE. Right. And finally, it seems like my time is running 

out. You know, several of the European countries that do so much 

in nuclear energy and other toxic—you know, they ship it down to 

some poor African country because they have—country needs income. So they don’t keep it in their country, even. I am not talking 

about their neighborhoods, but they ship it down to the poorest African country they can find that is willing to accept anything they 

can simply for income. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

You know, just to the panel, we have been hearing today, you 

know, the definition of what is a green job. From my perspective— 

I come from West Central Illinois—I have counties in my congressional district that have 11 to 12 percent unemployment, so I am 

not here today and worried about what the definition of a job is; 

I am much more concerned about putting people to work. And you 

can call it what you want to call it. And, you know, from start to 

finish, as you mentioned, somebody that installs windows and then 

moves up—— 

Dr. Bogart, just one of the things I just want to take a little bit 

of an issue with here on the—in your first question you mentioned 

that the net increase in jobs that I think my friend from Georgia 

was mentioning producing an emerging green energy sector, and 

that there is a potential loss—— 

I would like to, for the record, Madam Chair, if I could, enter a 

working paper series from Robert Pollin from the University of 
75 

Massachusetts Amherst entitled, ‘‘Responses to Seven Myths About 

Green Jobs,’’ and, ‘‘Green Jobs Myths’’—— 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

Response to ‘‘Seven Myths about Green Jobs’’ and ‘‘Green Jobs Myths’’ 

Two new papers purport to debunk ‘‘myths’’ about recent students on the employment effects of investments in the clean energy economy. The full 97 page version 

of this work is titled ‘‘Green Jobs Myths’’ and the 21 page summary paper is titled 

‘‘Seven Myths about Green Jobs.’’ 1

These papers are written as a response to what they term the ‘‘rapidly gaining 

popularity’’ of four studies that attempt to show the employment gains that can 

emerge from investments in building a clean energy economy in the United States. 

The four studies to which they refer are U.S. Metro Economies: Current and Potential Green Jobs in the U.S. Economy, published by the U.S. Conference of Mayors; 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, published by the American Solar Energy 

Society; Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World, 

published by the United Nations Environmental Program; and Green Recovery, copublished by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.2

These papers offer a few useful correctives on some detailed points regarding the 

links between green investments and jobs. But overall, they end up accomplishing 

exactly the opposite of what they intend. They attempt to identify and puncture 

‘‘myths,’’ on the green economy, but instead offer no challenge to the central explanations as to how investing in the green economy will provide significant benefits 

throughout the U.S. economy. 

I was the lead author of Green Recovery, and my co-authors were Heidi GarrettPeltier, James Heintz, and Helen Scharber. I am also the Co-Director of PERI, and 

all three of my co-authors are also with PERI. This paper was a relatively brief interim report within an ongoing research program, on which we work closely with 

colleagues at CAP, particularly the managers of the project at CAP, Bracken Hendricks and Kit Batten (though Dr. Batten has recently taken a new position at the 

Department of the Interior). 

The two ‘‘Myths’’ papers combine criticisms of our paper, Green Recovery, with 

those of the other three studies. They also discuss some issues of their own choosing, beyond the immediate themes on which our study and the other three concentrate. Within this structure, at no point do they offer a sustained point-by-point 

refutation of Green Recovery or any of the other three studies. They rather begin 

their summary paper by listing the ‘‘seven myths’’ and the ‘‘facts’’ that they claim 

will refute those myths. However, in the body of both the shorter and longer papers, 

they do not return to that basic structure of ‘myths vs. facts,’ but rather offer three 

broad themes, ‘‘defining ‘green jobs,’ ’’ ‘‘mistakes in economic analysis,’’ and ‘‘ignoring 

technical literatures.’’ These are all obviously very broad issues. As such, it will help 

us to focus the discussion if I respond to their claims regarding each of the seven 

myths. 

Their Myth #1: ‘‘Everyone understands what a ‘green job’ is.’’ 

Their Fact #1: ‘‘No standard definition of a ‘green job’ exists.’’ 

We can dispense with this issue readily. Despite the fact that they choose to 

present their point in a sophomoric, unprofessional tone, (‘‘everybody understands 

* * *’’ Who is the ‘‘everybody’’ to whom they refer?), I nevertheless agree with them 

on substance. In fact, at no point in Green Recovery do we make reference to the 

term ‘‘green jobs.’’ In a recent press story, I am quoted as follows: 

Exactly what a ‘‘green job’’ is, though, most people aren’t quite sure yet. ‘‘There’s 

no such thing; that’s my definition,’’ said Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political 

Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ‘‘I’m 

greatly in favor of investing in things that will promote a clean environment, fight 

global warming, and those investments will all create jobs, and I don’t really care 

what color they are.’’ 3

I have been quoted making similar statements in other media stories. What is at 

issue here? Of course, there are basic commonalities between the focus in Green Recovery on green investments and job creation and the terms ‘‘green jobs’’ or ‘‘green 

collar jobs.’’ In all cases, we are clearly referring to initiatives that can successfully 

link policies to promote both a clean environment and the expansion of decent job 

opportunities. Moreover, the term ‘‘green jobs’’ obviously has wide resonance among 

sectors of the public—as well as the Obama administration—in suggesting the broad 
76 

range of initiatives that will have to be undertaken to build a clean energy economy 

over time. 

Despite these commonalities, it is nevertheless the case that we face serious problems in attempting to establish a single operational definition of the term ‘‘green 

jobs.’’ For example, if a truck driver is delivering solar panels to a construction site, 

should that count as a ‘‘green job?’’ What if, the next day, the same truck driver 

delivers pumping equipment to an offshore oil drilling project? Even within the 

project to install solar panels on rooftops, we would of course consider the electricians and roofers doing the installation as having green jobs. But what about the 

secretaries and accountants in the back office? 

This last observation raises a concern that is particularly relevant as regards the 

approach we took in Green Recovery and related work. That is, how should we consider jobs that are not directly involved in improving environmental conditions, but 

are indirectly involved? The accountants and secretaries at the back office of a construction company are two examples of this consideration. But the issue is actually 

still broader. In this research, we are focused not just on the jobs that are directly 

created by investments in energy conservation and renewables, but rather the total 

number of jobs created, including jobs that are both indirectly created (jobs created 

for suppliers of energy producing firms) and ‘‘induced’’ (jobs created when those 

newly employed by green investments in turn spend their newly acquired wages). 

We are also concerned to distinguish the proportion of jobs—direct, indirect, and induced—created in the domestic U.S. economy, as opposed to the jobs created in 

other countries when our environmental investments create an increased demand 

for imports. 

In short, there are many useful points and positive policy ideas associated with 

the high level of attention now being given to the concepts of ‘‘green’’ and ‘‘greencollar’’ jobs. But in the work my co-authors and I have done, we have found it more 

constructive to not attempt to define these terms or rely on them in any substantive 

sense. Their Myth #2: ‘‘Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.’’ 

Their Fact #2: ‘‘Green job estimates in these oft-quoted studies include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods 

and services for consumption.’’ 

Green Recovery offers arguments and evidence to demonstrate that investments 

in energy efficiency and renewable energy will create employment through the three 

channels mentioned above, i.e. direct jobs, indirect jobs, and induced jobs. Indeed, 

the central finding of our work is that investments of a given dollar amount in energy efficiency and renewable energy—concentrating on building retrofits, public 

transportation and freight rail, and smart grid electrical transmission systems in 

the efficiency area, along with renewable energy investments in solar, wind, and 

biomass fuels—will produce roughly three times more jobs than spending the same 

amount of money within the oil, natural gas and coal industries. That is, within the 

context of the U.S. economy in its present structure—and as derived from the Department of Commerce U.S. Input-Output Accounts—spending $1 million within the 

clean energy areas with 70 percent of funds for energy efficiency and 30 percent for 

renewables, will create about 17 jobs. Spending that same $1 million within the fossil fuel industries will create about five jobs. The authors of ‘‘seven myths’’ make 

no attempt to directly refute this central empirical finding. 

They also do not make clear how they distinguish ‘‘productive employment.’’ Two 

ideas are suggested through their ‘factual’ claim regarding ‘‘huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.’’ First, they claim to know that investments in the green economy produce more ‘‘clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions’’ than investments in alternative economic activities, including, presumably, investments in fossil fuels and lobbying firms guiding credit to fossil fuel firms, and the like. But they 

offer no systematic evidence to support this claim. They also claim to know that 

‘‘clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions’’ do not ‘‘produce goods and 

services for consumption.’’ Let us consider, for example, secretaries employed at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, an agency engaged in pollution control. Are the 

authors suggesting that these secretaries are not providing a ‘‘productive’’ service? 

Is their work less ‘‘productive’’ than that of secretaries working for an oil company 

producing a product that damages the environment? The authors offer no explanation. 

Their Myth #3: ‘‘Green job forecasts are reliable.’’ 

Their Fact #3: ‘‘The green job studies made estimates using poor economic models 

based on dubious assumptions.’’ 

The authors here are actually raising two distinct questions. The first question 

is, Are green job forecasts reliable? I will speak only to the figures reported in Green 
77 

Recovery. Those figures, in fact, are not forecasts at all. They are figures generated 

directly from data from the Commerce Department’s surveys of businesses within 

the United States, and organized systematically within their input-output model. 

Within the given structure of the current U.S. economy, these figures provide the 

most accurate evidence available as to what happens within private and public enterprises when they produce the economies’ goods and services—i.e. how many 

workers do they hire, and what are the materials they purchase? Our methodology 

is to work within this detailed survey evidence and data set, and to pose simple 

questions within it: e.g. if we spend an additional $1 million on building retrofits, 

how will businesses utilize that million dollars to actually complete the service of 

the retrofit? 

Through this approach, we have been able to make observations as to the potential job effects of alternative energy investment strategies, at a level of detail that 

is not available through any alternative approach. The authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ 

offer no evidence that any alternative to the U.S. input-output tables can provide 

more reliable evidence on the detailed workings of the U.S. economy. 

Now to the second question: Does our model constitute an example of ‘‘using poor 

economic models based on dubious assumptions?’’ There are certainly weaknesses 

with our use of the input-output model. The most important are that it is a) a static 

model; and b) a linear model. But these deficiencies need to be considered in the 

context of alternative approaches that, in my view, have even more serious weaknesses. Consider these points: 

1. Static model. We are making estimates as though everything is happening at 

a fixed point in time. A more realistic picture of the economy would of course have 

to recognize that the spending effects of a government recovery program will take 

place over time, and that these timing effects are important. Adding a time dimension would make the model ‘‘dynamic,’’ in the technical jargon. 

The problem here is how to incorporate a time dimension in an effective way. This 

issue has plagued econometric forecasting efforts for a long time, and there is no 

sign of the problem abating. The dismal record of even the most prestigious forecasting models even over the past year attests to the issue. 

Consider two highly relevant and interrelated cases in point. First, few, if any, 

economic forecasting models predicted that, by June 2008, crude oil would be selling 

at $140 a barrel. This would include forecasts generated less than one year before 

crude hit $140 a barrel.4 Once the price of crude oil did rise to $140 a barrel, few, if any forecasters then predicted that the price would collapse to $35 a barrel only 

six months later. More generally, almost no economic forecasts predicted that the 

U.S. economy would enter into a recession in December 2007 of historic severity. 

This includes even the forecasts that were published after the recession had already 

begun.5

In principle, a dynamic model does offer a more complete picture than a static 

model as to how the economy operates over time. But because dynamic forecasting 

models are so unreliable, I think it is preferable to work within a simpler framework, and draw out assessments of how transitions over time affect the results within this simple framework. 

2. Linear model. Our model assumes that a given amount of spending will have 

a proportionate effect on employment, no matter how much the level of spending 

changes, either up or down. For example, the impact of spending $1 billion on an 

energy efficiency project will be exactly 1,000 times greater than spending $1 million on the exact same project. 

The most significant consideration here is that we take no account of potential 

supply constraints in moving from a $1 million to a $1 billion project. Under some 

circumstances, this could be a significant deficiency in the model. But under current 

conditions in the U.S. economy, with widespread slack in the midst of a severe recession—i.e. with deep and worsening unemployment and with private-sector lending and investment almost flat—we are on pretty safe grounds with our assumption 

that supply constraints will not exert a major influence how the spending on green 

recovery impacts the economy. 

A variation on the problem of linearity in our model is to recognize that the 

model, in the technical jargon, is a ‘‘partial’’ rather than a ‘‘general’’ equilibrium 

model. The model does not take account of, for example, feedback effects of prices 

of solar panels when demand for these panels rises due to the stimulus program. 

Again, a more fully specified model would take account of such factors—that is, if 

the stimulus program leads to increased demand for solar panels, prices of the panels will rise, all else equal. Then for a given level of spending, fewer panels will be 

purchased at higher prices/panel. This will then mean that a given level of spending 

on panels will likely mean that fewer jobs will get created to build, deliver, and install the panels. 
78 

But here again, the forecasting record of more fully specified ‘‘computable general 

equilibrium models’’ is not encouraging. Moreover, again, the fact that we are operating within an economy with widespread slack means that these feedback effects 

are likely to be weak. 

Overall, I am confident that our relatively simple input-output framework provides the basis for as accurate a set of job forecasts as can be obtained through the 

existing available models and modeling techniques. The authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ 

disagree. They offer brief general impressions as to what the features might be of 

an alternative model. But they provide no evidence showing how an alternative 

model will perform more effectively than our own. They also make no attempt to 

consider the pitfalls facing such models, suggesting perhaps that they are unaware 

that these alternative models have severe limitations. 

Their Myth #4: ‘‘Green jobs promote employment growth.’’ 

Their Fact #4: ‘‘By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green 

jobs described in the literature actually encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable 

situations. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference in the economy—such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests—will generate stagnation.’’ 

The green investment agenda that we advance in Green Recovery does indeed 

‘‘promote employment growth’’ in the precise way that we have defined that term— 

that is, the employment levels in a portfolio of clean energy areas generates about 

three times more employment than spending within traditional fossil fuel industries. As described above, we derive these findings directly from the U.S. input-output model. Despite the limitations of that model—of which I am aware and describe 

above—this still provides the most accurate framework for establishing the relative 

employment effects of alternative spending targets. The authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ 

offer no evidence to suggest otherwise. 

But are the jobs generated by the clean energy agenda ‘‘low paying’’ in ‘‘less desirable situations.’’ Are we erroneously ‘‘promoting more jobs instead of more productivity’’? 

On the issue of pay levels, we were quite explicit in Green Recovery on the breakdown between high- and low-paying jobs, as well as on future job opportunities. We 

wrote: 

Green investments generate not only significant numbers of well-paying jobs with 

benefits but also a relatively high proportion of lower, entry level jobs that offer career ladders that can move low-paid workers into better employment positions over 

time.6 The average pay for employees associated with green investment areas is 

about 20 percent less than the average for those connected to the oil industry. But 

this number is deceptive because a green investment program will create roughly 

triple the number of good jobs—paying at least $16 dollars an hour—as the same 

level of spending within the oil industry. A green infrastructure investment program 

creates more jobs at all wage levels than spending within the oil industry because 

of both higher labor intensity and greater domestic content—resulting in average 

wages that are lower than the oil industry but spread across a greater number of 

jobs created (pp 11-12). 

If the green investment agenda creates three times the number of good jobs as 

spending within the oil industry, how is it, as the authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ suggest 

that all the jobs created by green investments are ‘‘low paying’’ in ‘‘less desirable 

situations?’’ They do so only by ignoring the evidence we have provided. 

Are jobs within the green economy low productivity jobs? This is a serious question, deserving careful consideration. If we begin with the standard definition of 

labor productivity as output/worker, it then follows by definition that, if clean energy jobs on average operate at higher labor intensity, this means they produce less 

output/worker. 

Yet, aside from this conventional definition of labor productivity, three other considerations are crucial here. First, by raising overall employment, the green investment agenda is giving new opportunities to previously unemployed workers. This 

raises the productivity level of millions of workers from zero to a positive number. 

Second, the green investment agenda is creating new opportunities for underemployed workers—and thereby raising their productivity from a lower to a higher 

level. Third, given the crisis of global warming, we need to begin incorporating environmental effects in the measurement of output and productivity. That is, spending 

on fossil fuels creates the output ‘‘good’’ of, for example, electrical power. But it also 

creates the output ‘‘bad’’ of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This point has 

long been recognized in discussions of the environmental costs of economic growth, 

and is included in virtually every introductory economics textbook. The authors of 

‘‘Seven Myths’’ make no reference to such considerations. 
79 

Their Myth #5: ‘‘The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying 

on local production without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.’’ 

Their Fact #5: ‘‘History shows that individual nations cannot produce everything 

its citizens need or desire. People and countries have talents that allow specialization in products and services that made their ever more efficient, lower-cost producers, thereby enriching all people.’’ 

There is nothing in Green Recovery that suggests that the U.S. economy should 

‘‘rely on local production.’’ On the other hand, both the current economic and the 

long-term environmental crisis do in fact suggest the need for ‘the world economy 

to be remade.’ Indeed, there is little controversy across the political spectrum as 

well as the economics profession on this need. The only real question is not whether 

the world economy should be ‘‘remade’’ but what exactly is the best approach for 

remaking it. 

There are certainly benefits to be gained through international trade. The economics of the ‘‘Asian Tigers,’’ including now most dramatically China itself, attest 

to this. However, recognizing these benefits does not lead inexorably to an endorsement of unfettered free trade across all countries under all circumstances, as the 

‘‘Seven Myths’’ authors seem to believe. 

The U.S. economy has run a persistent trade deficit for over forty years, which 

has had destabilizing effects, most clearly through the build up of huge dollar reserves by our trading partners. We have also experienced serious political difficulties due to our reliance on foreign oil imports. The green investment agenda offers 

a major opportunity to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. More specifically, as we 

describe in Green Recovery, the domestic content of green investments is significantly higher than with fossil fuels specifically, and the oil industry in particular. 

This, along with higher labor intensity, are the two major factors creating relatively 

more jobs through the green investment agenda than through fossil fuel production. 

There are two primary ways through which the green investment agenda raises 

domestic content. The first is through reducing oil imports. The second is from the 

fact that most energy-efficient investments are naturally location specific. That is, 

homes located in Silver Spring, Maryland can only be retrofitted by workers in Silver Spring. Similarly, the electrical grid system in Maryland can be upgraded only 

in Maryland. Clearly, the simple reality of location-specific activities has nothing to 

do with the creation of trade barriers. 

The higher domestic content of the green investment agenda—as well as the net 

job creation effects in general—have another major benefit, which is that they offer 

a counterforce to the pressures on U.S. workers from global outsourcing. The potential effects of global outsourcing on U.S. workers were explored forcefully in Foreign 

Affairs magazine in 2006 by the Princeton economist and former Vice Chair of the 

Federal Reserve Alan Blinder. Blinder argued that, increasingly, services that can 

be carried over the internet—including the telephone operators in India with whom 

we are already familiar, but also back-office accountants, lawyers, engineers, and 

laboratory technicians as well as their support staffs—can be effectively supplied by 

employees in poor countries that work for, say, one-fifth the wages of their U.S. 

counterparts. These would be in addition to the manufacturing jobs that have long 

been forced to compete with China and other low-wage producers. Blinder’s conclusion was that something like 20—30 percent of all jobs in the United States today— 

between 30 and 40 million jobs in total—are vulnerable to these outsourcing pressures. The single most effective way to counter these pressures is for employment 

creation to be set as a centerpiece of U.S. public policy. The green investment agenda cannot fulfill this role on its own, but it can move us a good distance in the right 

direction. The authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ ignore this consideration within U.S. trade 

policy, despite its prominence in both academic and policymaking circles. 

Their Myth #6: ‘‘Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.’’ 

Their Fact #6: ‘‘Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of 

their customers/markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.’’ 

This Myth/Fact pair has little connection to the content of Green Recovery. The 

programs proposed in Green Recovery include direct government spending programs, tax incentives for businesses, and loan guarantees for private lenders who 

will support business investment in green activities. The majority of total spending 

proposed in Green Recovery is channeled to private businesses through tax incentives and loan guarantees. In addition, Appendix 2 is devoted in full to analytic 

issues associated with maximizing the effectiveness of our proposed loan guarantee 

proposal. We were pleased that the Obama recovery program closely reflects this 

priority for private business initiatives. Moreover, private businesses will also benefit directly through the public spending features of both the program we presented 

in Green Recovery and the Obama plan, through new opportunities for government 

construction projects and the spending stimulus being injected into private markets. 
80 

It isn’t clear how these business incentive programs could be construed, in the terms 

used in ‘‘Seven Myths’’ as ‘‘ignoring incentive effects’’ or ‘‘market hostility.’’ 

Green Recovery does briefly discuss one government mandate program, which is 

a cap-and-trade measure to require reductions in greenhouse emissions. The need 

for a carbon cap—or some variation on this, such as a carbon tax—emerges precisely 

through the failure of the free market to incorporate into market prices the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels. Again, such material is standard fare in virtually all introductory economics textbooks. But the authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ do not 

consider this even though their discussion around ‘‘Myth 6’’ would have been an obvious place for such a discussion. 

Their Myth #7: ‘‘Wishing for technological progress is sufficient.’’ 

Their Fact #7: ‘‘Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands.’’ 

It is hard to take seriously assertions of this nature. Who has stated anything on 

the order of ‘‘wishing for technological progress is sufficient?’’ Certainly, nothing 

close to any such claims were expressed in Green Recovery. 

In fact, there was a specific reason why, in Green Recovery, we proposed that 70 

percent of the allocation for all green investments be channeled to energy efficiency 

measures as opposed to 30 percent for renewable energy. That is precisely because 

the technologies for achieving energy efficiency are known, relatively simple for the 

most part, and provide short-term, high-probability, paybacks. In Green Recovery, 

we work through the investment and payback opportunities available through a 

$2,500 retrofit of an average-sized U.S. home, based on data available through the 

EPA as well as through my University of Massachusetts colleague Professor Paul 

Fisette. Professor Fisette is one of the country’s leading experts on the materials 

science issues associated with building retrofits. We showed in our discussion that, 

relying on simple, available and affordable technologies, the $2,500 retrofit would 

lower home energy costs by about one-third. This would mean a payback for the initial $2,500 investment within three years (p. 15). 

A wide range of such opportunities are clearly available now in the area of energy 

efficiency, using known technologies. The renewable energy technologies are more 

uncertain at present. That is why we proposed channeling a smaller overall proportion of green investment funds into these areas. The amounts we proposed will be 

enough to accelerate research and commercialization in renewable energy over the 

next decade, while energy efficiency remains the leading edge of the green investment agenda. 

Again, I don’t see how this approach advanced in Green Recovery could somehow 

be construed as ‘‘wishing for technological progress is sufficient.’’ It would be more 

constructive if the authors of ‘‘Seven Myths’’ were to consider the arguments and 

evidence that were actually advanced in Green Recovery. That would have enabled 

us to perhaps conduct a healthy debate on these matters of great importance. That 

is simply not possible on the basis of the unsubstantiated claims they have chosen 

to make. 

ENDNOTES

1The four authors of both papers are Andrew Morriss, William Bogart, Andrew Dorchak, and 

Roger Meiners The longer version of this report is at: http:// 

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/morriss-green-jobs-myths.pdf; 

the shorter version is at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract—id=1357440# 2 U.S. Metro Economies: Current and Potential Green Jobs in the U.S. Economy is available 

at http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/GreenJobsReport.pdf; Renewable Energy 

and Energy Efficiency is available at http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com— 

content&view=article&id=465&Itemid=58; Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, 

Low-Carbon World is available at http://www.unep.org/labour—environment/PDFs/Greenjobs/ 

UNEP-Green-Jobs-Report.pdf; and Green Recovery is available at http://www.peri.umass.edu/ 

green—recovery/ 3See Emily Badger, Miller-McCune Business, ‘‘What Shade of Green Best Suits the Economy,’’ 

http://www.miller-mccune.com/business—economics/what-shade-of-green-best-suits-the-economy-910.print, 1/22/09. 4Three prominent forecasts published in 2007 of where crude oil prices would be in 2008 in- clude JP Morgan, in August 2007, estimating $59.75 a barrel; Goldman Sachs, in September 

2007, estimating $85 a barrel; and the U.S. Energy Information Agency, also in September 2007, 

estimating $71.17 a barrel. Crude oil prices in the U.S. market are reported at: http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm 5This general problem of making accurate economic forecasts was captured well by former 

Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan’s unintentionally amusing observation made at the 1999 

annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank that ‘‘The fact that our 

econometric models at the Fed, the best in the world, have been wrong for fourteen straight 

quarters does not mean they will not be right in the fifteenth quarter’’ (Martin Mayer (2001), 

The Fed, p. 180). This approach is consistent with the conclusions reached by Lawrence Sum-
81 

mers in his outstanding paper, ‘‘The Scientific Illusion in Empirical Macroeconomics,’’ Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 93:2, 1991, pp. 129-48. 6 In fact, a high proportion of the low-paying jobs created by green investments will be in construction and manufacturing, where career ladders are substantially more effective than in service-sector areas—such as hotel and restaurant workers—associated with household consumption. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. 

How would you respond to Mr. Ringo’s point that most green jobs 

can’t be outsourced because they would have to be, you know, serving technologies and systems here in the United States. Yet I 

have—you know, we have seen a lot of jobs in this country move 

overseas. 

I lost 1,600 people from Galesburg, Illinois to Reynosa, Mexico 

when Maytag closed their doors. You know, I would love to see 

those people have the opportunity to work. And again, as I—to go 

back to work—and again, as I said, you can call it a green job or 

you can call it a red job or whatever—a spotted job, I don’t care 

what you call it, but these people desperately need to work. 

And I am wondering if you would agree with me that whatever 

these jobs that are created would be—U.S. jobs—they would outweigh any potential job loss, and would you agree with me on that? 

Dr. BOGART. Congressman, that is a great question. I think the 

issue is whether or not that job loss is also U.S. jobs. If these are 

jobs that are being created at the expense of other U.S. jobs that 

are being lost, then it is hard for me to completely agree with that. 

I would agree with Ms. Krepcio that we do want to extend the 

training very broadly and look for those types of opportunities, and 

to encourage growth and entrepreneurship as demonstrated by the 

panelist to my right. I think that is exactly what we should be 

doing in the United States. So I would agree with you about that. 

Mr. HARE. Okay. 

And Mr. Ringo, I was glad that you mentioned the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, also known as MEP. I have had 65 

clients in my district; it generates $126.8 million dollars in sales, 

created 836 jobs in my congressional district. And I testified before 

the Budget Committee about the need to double this amount, to 

double the critical program for fiscal year 2012. 

How much would—in your opinion—would we need to expand 

MEP funding for it to be more effective, and what is the best way 

to develop a green mission or focus for MEP and its clients? 

Mr. RINGO. I think—— 

Mr. HARE. Can you turn your mic on? I am sorry. 

Mr. RINGO. I believe you are correct that it should be doubled. 

We have just got to create these opportunities, and the bottom line 

is—and I fully agree with you with respect to trying to figure out 

what the definition is—the bottom line is, we have got Americans 

that are out of work. 

Mr. HARE. Absolutely. 

Mr. RINGO. We have got to figure out ways to put people back 

to work again. The fact of, ‘‘Well, we are going to lose jobs by creating new jobs,’’ look, there are enough people out of work that if 

we create jobs in America, stimulate our American economy with 

new jobs, we must diversify our energy portfolio. 

It doesn’t mean that we need to shut the doors on certain petrochemical plants because we come up with new alternatives. What 
82 

we do need to do is expand our energy portfolio so we are not so 

single-dimensional with respect to our energy and take the necessary steps that it takes in a major way to put American manufacturers back to work again. 

And if we need to increase the amounts of investment that we 

are making through the government to guarantee those increases 

in job numbers, then we need to go as far as we need to go. We 

need to get people back—— 

Mr. HARE. And one last quick one; I am out of time, almost. I 

also think we need to invest in our community colleges. I have a 

community college in my district that is training people to work in 

biodiesel and ethanol factories, and it doesn’t do any good to have 

a factory if you don’t have a trained workforce. I have John Deere, 

who is looking for welders, and I have a community college that is 

trying to get a welder program, and these are people who are looking for work. 

So if we invest in our community colleges to train people to go 

to work, they are going to have the opportunity to have a job, and 

these are probably going to be long-term, sustainable jobs. Again, 

you can call it whatever you want to call it, but they are going to 

call it a paycheck and being able to buy a home and put their kids 

through school. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. We are going to have a second round, if 

you folks are willing. 

Dr. Bogart, you were talking about the definition of green jobs 

being difficult and not transparent and we should not waste 

money. I would like to take that to another place, where we are 

talking about making coal clean and nuclear safe. And there is a 

limited amount of investment in this new, upcoming industry 

called the green industry, not just for the United States but for the 

world. And there will be a lot of competition. 

Do you think it is wise to invest in cleaning up coal and making 

nuclear safe, or should we be investing in solar and wind and windows, and the kinds of things that we know we can do immediately? 

Dr. BOGART. Here is why I would agree with Mr. Ringo: I think 

we do need to take a very broad portfolio view, and my concern is 

more about an overly narrow definition that leads people to try to 

squeeze themselves into a box that doesn’t fit. I think we should 

be looking at all those possibilities because we need to do things 

in the short run that are immediate; we also need to keep planning 

for the future and investing for the future so that over the next few 

years technologies that we haven’t even thought of have room to 

grow and develop here. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Ringo? 

Mr. RINGO. I do want to reiterate, as we talk about that broad 

view, about that broad portfolio, that those items that are to be a 

part of that portfolio must be environmentally-and people-friendly. 

I want to be very clear about that. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Right. 

Ms. Sherman? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Yes. I wanted to speak a little bit to the issue of 

the loss of the job in one industry being replaced by another job. 
83 

You know, if that job was going away because that industry doesn’t 

make sense anymore because the technology is changing and the 

world is shifting—you know, in Oregon we were a very resourcebased economy, and you know, some of those jobs just went away 

because that resource-based economy in some respects, you know, 

can’t work the same way anymore. 

So I would sort of disagree. I think some of those jobs might have 

gone away regardless of the fact—you are not just replacing a onefor-one. You really are getting something. 

And then on the training and the community colleges, you know, 

the way everyone has talked about green jobs being so broad, from 

entry-level to, you know, Ph.D.s, scientists, the education and 

training piece has that same spectrum where you are talking about 

technical programs in community colleges and associate degrees 

and certificates. So there is, you know, automotive degrees that 

then look at green automotive programs and so forth, all the way 

up to 4-year graduate schools, you know, and Ph.D.s again, who 

are your scientists. I think there is a real connection between that 

spectrum. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. To just follow on to that, if anybody 

would like to respond, one of the witnesses said that community 

college—or, colleges and employers weren’t talking together. That 

is totally not true in my district, north of the Golden Gate Bridge. 

I mean, our community college is working with the industry and 

our 4-year university is working with industry. Would anybody like 

to respond to that? 

Well, let us go with Ms. Krepcio. 

Ms. KREPCIO. I think it really depends on what part of the country—in some parts of the country educators, post-secondary community colleges, K-through-12 are working well with industry; in 

other parts of the country there is room for—there certainly is 

room for improvement. I think that the workforce system in this 

country has been okay in trying to work with educators and industry people to put people into jobs that are currently there. 

I think the challenge in the green jobs movement is predicting 

the jobs of the future so that we have a ready-trained workforce. 

And I think that is why we are recommending these very interactive collaboratives. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Price? 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to make a few comments about some of the discussion 

that has already occurred. I think it is important to follow up on 

my colleague’s comments from New Hampshire about the default 

rate for nuclear power plants. If one were to read the transcript so 

far, one would be left with the notion that 50 percent of the nuclear 

power plants in this nation have defaulted, which simply isn’t true. 

It is important for people to appreciate that this estimate came 

from the Congressional Budget Office, which has a great history of 

being off by hundreds and sometimes thousands of percent. And 

what they use—they use this figure, the 50 percent default rate, 

in their financial modeling for the future in order to get money for 

something else to balance the budget. The CBO does things in a 

static way as opposed to a dynamic way, so it ought not be given 
84 

much credibility certainly by this committee, and I know it isn’t 

across the nation. 

Secondly, nuclear safety: There is a great reason why we haven’t, 

as a nation, tackled the issue of what to do with the spent fuel 

rods, and that is because we haven’t had the political will to be 

able to do it. And right now, Senator Reid is standing in the way 

of that and this administration is standing in the way of that for 

appropriately storing, safely storing the spent fuel rods in Yucca 

Mountain has been a challenge for decades, as all of you know, but 

I think it is important to bring that to light. 

Let me go back to where I started, and that is the vision that 

we all have. We all want a clean environment, and we want to create and preserve jobs. I am with my friend, Mr. Hare, I don’t care 

what you call them. But I do know that when we are talking as 

a committee and we are talking as a Congress about where we are 

going to put taxpayer resources, we better be able to define what 

we are going to do. 

So from an energy standpoint, whether it is nuclear, or wind, or 

solar, or clean coal, or new technology, or conservation, we ought 

to do it all. We ought to do it all, which is what my side of the aisle 

has been pushing for years, and last August spent the entire month 

here on a quite House floor without any lights and without any 

microphones trying to bring a highlight to the sense that the American people have, and that is that we need a sane energy policy, 

which means do it all. 

All also includes safe nuclear technology. It is not often that the 

United States looks to France for leadership and guidance, but in 

the area of nuclear power we certainly should—80 percent-plus of 

their energy has been supplied by nuclear power for decades—for 

decades. And I just want to highlight Dr. Wolfe’s statement about 

the safety: not a single fatality. Not a single fatality in over 50 

years of the nuclear industry in the United States. 

I do want to follow up, though, on a comment made by my colleague from Minnesota, Colonel Kline, who talked about some language in the current proposal that would require that any individual, to be eligible for federal monies in the area of green jobs, 

would have to be a member of a union. Understanding that 84 percent of the jobs out there in private industry are non-union jobs, 

and 84 percent of the nation’s workforce might be eligible, given 

this broad definition that we want to have of green jobs, do any of 

you believe it is appropriate to confine the use of the definition of 

green jobs to union jobs only? Anybody believe that is appropriate? 

Mr. Ringo? 

Mr. RINGO. May I respond to that? 

Dr. PRICE. Sure. 

Mr. RINGO. I believe that—and it is important—that we recognize the value and the role that organized labor has played in securing and guaranteeing good jobs. 

Dr. PRICE. I understand that perspective, but the question is 

should we, as a Congress—we are going to be asked to define 

this—should we, as a Congress, require union membership in order 

to be eligible for monies—taxpayer monies—for green jobs? 

Mr. RINGO. If there are guarantees that people that are nonunion are going to have good-paying jobs with good benefits. 
85 

Dr. PRICE. And I would agree. That is a different discussion, 

though, as opposed to a definition of green jobs. 

Anybody else believe that we ought to require—— 

Ms. SHERMAN. Well, I would just echo what Mr. Ringo said in 

that I think it is a shortcut to somehow know that those kind of 

benefits, and the living wage, and the family wage are part of 

the—— 

Dr. PRICE. But the question is, should—under the definition of 

green jobs, should it say union membership? 

Ms. SHERMAN. But how do you know—— 

Dr. PRICE. The question is, should you say ‘‘union membership’’? 

Ms. SHERMAN. But it does matter, because—— 

Dr. PRICE. Does it make any difference as to whether or not that 

individual is building something or contributing something that 

will be environmentally-sensitive and sound? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Well, only because if you are trying to create family wage jobs and you don’t have another way to measure it or another way to guarantee it, the union, I think, has been a shortcut 

way to get there, to make sure those are family wage jobs with 

benefits, which is the other piece, I think, that has been really an 

important part of the conversation. 

Dr. PRICE. Madam Chair, with all due respect, I would suggest 

that family wage jobs and unionization and the like is a different 

discussion and a different debate for this committee. But in terms 

of the definition of green jobs, I think that the American people believe that whether or not one is a union member doesn’t—ought not 

restrict one to taxpayer money for the subsidization of green jobs. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. You have been heard, sir. 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Well, let me just assure my friend from Georgia that 

when we pass the Employee Free Choice Act, the President signs 

it into law, we will have a significantly higher amount of people in 

the labor movement, and so the point may very well be moot. 

Dr. PRICE. Gentleman—will my friend yield? 

Mr. HARE. No. I just want to get to Mr. Ringo, a question here. 

You mentioned that we don’t make most of the systems involved 

in producing clean energy here in the United States. In fact, you 

know, with half of America’s existing turbines were manufactured 

overseas. We ranked fifth among countries that manufacture solar 

components, and even though the solar cells were born in America, 

which to me is incredible. 

So I would like to know from you, how does this happen, and 

what can we as the Congress do, or we as a nation do to bring the 

production back to the United States? You know, we are shipping— 

it seems to me we are shipping jobs overseas and we have this 

crazy system here where we actually give tax breaks to people to 

leave instead of giving them credits or doing things to keep existing 

companies here that have been here, played by the rules. 

And, you know, as I said about Maytag, it took $9 million in 

state money, the employees—union employees—took three wage 

concessions, and yet, they bolted for Sonora, Mexico, leaving 1,600 

people out of luck. So how are we going to get these things back, 

and what are we going to do, in your opinion? 
86 

Mr. RINGO. The United States graduates about 70,000 scientists 

a year from U.S. universities. China graduates 300,000 scientists 

a year from Chinese universities. I think the best start is education. We have got to begin to educate people—young people, Kthrough-12—and even, especially, we talked about the community 

college systems. 

We have got to invest into those community college systems, the 

green jobs training, because community college—folks don’t leave 

San Francisco to attend a community college in Pittsburgh. Community colleges embrace people within the community, and you 

grow and empower people within the community. 

So I believe that once we begin to change, we begin to change 

the thought processes of the American people with respect to energy consumption and energy production, and why it is important, 

and how important it is that we can stimulate our economy 

through new green jobs and good jobs, then people will begin to accept the value of their involvement. 

It is sort of like, I mentioned to Congressman Payne earlier, in 

the minority communities of this country and poor communities of 

this country, people have not been engaged in the green movement 

over the years because their priority has been focused on next 

month’s rent. But now, when people begin to see the value of involving—in getting involved in green and how it can stimulate 

their quality of life, they tend to get involved. So we have got to 

invest in educating our people into seeing the value of—— 

Mr. HARE. Well, I think you just hit the key word: We need to 

invest. I mean, what this Committee—and I have often said, and 

I will talk about expense—what are you going to spend on education? It is not what we are going to spend on education, it is 

what are we going to invest in education? We have a country that 

spends more to put one person in a federal penitentiary for 1 year 

than we do on a child for K-through-12. 

We don’t give the kinds of funds that we want to our community 

colleges to train people for these jobs. We can talk all of this green 

technology and jobs—sustainable jobs—but when we are making 

the wind or whatever, when we are making these products overseas. 

And I just have to tell you, you know, pardon my rant, but I am 

a little bit tired of seeing a nation as great as this that can’t manufacture a camera made in this country, a VCR, a television set anymore that used to have Venus and a number things in my home 

state—it is gone. And we are on the verge of losing the very base 

that built this nation. 

And so from my perspective, what I want to see us do is invest. 

And you hit the word, Mr. Ringo, right on the—that is exactly what 

this is. You know, if we have got money to throw at the banks, 

then we have got money to invest in our students and young people, and invest in the types of jobs that we are talking about here 

today regardless of where they are from. Because the ultimate goal, 

I think, of this nation is to get people back to work so they can put 

their kids through school, have health care, be able to afford a 

house, and at the end of the day be able to retire with a pension. 

And, you know, they are not asking to live and drive a Lexus; they 
87 

just want to keep their Ford pickup and be able to put their kids 

through school. This is not rocket science. 

And so, I appreciate you all being here today, and this investment that we make in this country—that is the bottom line. That 

is what we should be doing, as a Congress, is investing in our people. And I think that whether—as I said before, whatever you call 

these jobs, whatever color you want to name them, let us get this 

country back to work again. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Hare. 

Mr. Price, for closing remarks? 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the witnesses again for their testimony and revisit my opening statement: We all want a clean environment. The 

vision that we have is to create and protect jobs across this nation. 

There is unanimity of opinion on that, and we ought to embrace 

the common opinion and common perspective that we have and 

move forward as opposed to cloud it. 

I can’t let the comments of my friend go without my comment, 

though, and that is, he says we can’t create—we can’t manufacture 

a camera or a television in this nation, and those jobs are gone. It 

is true that they are gone. Why are they gone, would be an appropriate question to ask in this nation, and we have asked that. It 

is not because the workers aren’t there; we have the highest-quality workers in the world. 

I would suggest, as many of my colleagues would, that it is because of specifically federal taxation, regulation, risk of liability, 

federal rules that make it so that jobs move offshore. So I would 

also agree that we ought to invest in our people by sound policy. 

I would also make the comment that my friend talks about Card 

Check, which is, as people know, the Secret Ballot Destruction Act; 

it would remove the secret ballot from the ability to have a secret 

ballot for the formation of a union. I would point out that a recent 

study by Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the nonpartisan 

LECG Consulting, shows that that bill alone would cost 600,000 

jobs in this nation in the first year—600,000 jobs. 

So I would hope, Madam Chair—I want to thank the witnesses. 

I would hope that we would coalesce around those items upon 

which we can agree, and I think that we can if we work positively 

and cooperatively together and not cloud the issue of a clean environment and green jobs, which I believe ought to be an expansive 

definition that actually incorporates all those folks—the folks that 

are putting the caulk in the window and the like—because that is 

the only way we are going to be able to create real jobs in this nation. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. I was told that I 

didn’t have to give you closing remarks, and I said, ‘‘Oh, yeah I do.’’ 

Well, maybe I won’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Yes, I do. I would never not. 

Thank you all for attending. This was a great hearing. It was 

really something. 
88 

And your availability as witnesses tells us how important this is 

to you as well as it is to us. What we have heard today makes it 

absolutely clear that we need to form a consensus around the definition of green jobs, and we know that in the end it will be defined 

in partnership with the Department of Labor, and that we are 

going to ensure that green jobs enhance our environmental quality. 

And we know there are existing jobs; we know that there are jobs 

that are being created; there are good jobs that create a pathway 

for workers into sustainability so they can raise their families and 

send their kids to college and retire in dignity. That is our goal. 

If it means they have to be union workers to make that happen, 

so be it, but I think that if we set the standard we will make it 

happen so that we aren’t investing in a technology, a future, an industry in this country that leaves the workers poor. That can’t happen, and we won’t let it happen. 

So let us work together. I appreciate you. I appreciate you, Congressman Price. And we have got a ways to go; it is very obvious. 

But we are on our way. 

So thank you very much for being here. I need to say that as previously ordered, members will have 14 days to submit additional 

materials for the hearing record. Any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the Majority staff within 14 days. 

And without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ