CHAPTER 1 6 . EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

16.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 16

- 1 16.2 METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16

- 1

16

- iCHAPTER 16. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT AN ALYSIS

16.1 INTRODUCTION

DOE ’s employment impact analysis estimate s indirect national job creation or job elimination resulting from possible new standards, due to reallocation of the associated expenditures for purchasing and operating equipment. DOE will conduct this analysis for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). DOE will estimate national impacts on major sectors of the U.S. economy, using publicly available data.

Energy conservation standards can impact employment both directly and indirectly. Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at the plants that produce the covered products , along with the affiliated distribution and service companies, resulting from standards. DOE will evaluate direct employment impacts in its manufacturer impact analysis, as described in c hapter 12

. The employment i mpact analysis described in this chapter covers indirect employment impacts which may result from expenditures shifting between goods (the substitution effect) and changes in income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect) that occur due to the i mplementation of standards.

DOE expects new or amended energy conservation standards to decrease energy consumption, and therefore to reduce expenditures for energy. The savings in energy expenditures may be spent on new investment and other items. The st andards may increase the purchase price of products , including the retail price plus sales tax, and may increase installation
costs.

Using an input

- output model of the U.S. economy, the employment impact analysis seeks to estimate the year

- to

- year effect o f these expenditure imp acts on net national employment. DOE intends the employment impact analysis to quantify the indirect employment impacts of these expenditure changes.

16.2 METHODOLOGY

To investigate the combined direct and indirect employment impacts, DO E will use the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)’s “ Impact of Sector Energy Technologies ” (ImSET 3.1.1 ) model. 1 PNNL developed ImSET

, a spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy that focus es on 18 7 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy

use , for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

. ImSET is a special

- purpose version of the U.S. Benchmark National Input

- Output (I

- O) model, which has been designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy saving technologies that are deployed by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In comparison with the previous versions of the model used in earlier rulemakings, this version allows for more complete and automated analysis of the essential features of energy efficiency investments in buildings, industry, transpo rtation, and the electric power sectors.

16-1The ImSET software includes a c omputer

- based I

- O model with structural coefficients to characterize economic flows among the 18 7 sectors. ImSET’s national economic I

- O structure is based on the 2002 Benchmark U.S. table

, specially aggregated to 18 7 sectors. 2

DOE intends to use the ImSet model to estimate changes in e mployment in the overall U.S. economy resulting from changes in expenditures in the various sectors of the e conomy. DOE designed the employment impact analysis to estimate the year

- to

- year net national employment effect of these different expenditure flows.

16-2REFERENCES

1. Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET: Impact of Sector E nergy Technologies , 2005. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, WA. Report No. PNNL

- 15273.

2. Lawson, A. M., K. S. Bersani, M. Fahim

- Nader, and J. Guo, Benchmark Input

- Output Accounts of the U. S. Economy, 1997

. Survey of Current Business , 2002: pp. pp. 19

- 117

16-3