Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner sends campaign money across Indiana border
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - New cable TV buy list has big surprise
Posted in:
* This excerpt from Greg Baise’s City Club speech still burns me up to no end…
Just remember as you leave, in the last seven years….
Wisconsin created 44,100 manufacturing jobs
Ohio created 75,900 manufacturing jobs
Indiana created 83,700 manufacturing jobs and
Michigan created 171,300 manufacturing jobs.Illinois created 4,600 jobs. Even Idaho created 9,100 manufacturing jobs. A state better known for its potato farms.
Idaho.
That kills me.
* The folks at the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition saw the piece and wrote a response entitled “Rich Miller is right: Illinois has a jobs crisis. We have a plan to help solve it.” OK, so flattery will get you somewhere. From the post…
When Illinois creates half as many factory jobs as Idaho (“a state better known for potato farms,” as Miller writes), you know we have a full-blown jobs crisis on our hands. In fact, in July, Illinois was tied for the third-worst unemployment rate in the country.
We believe our plan can help.
Miller is even-handed in saying that the responsibility for creating jobs is not exclusive to one party, and he calls on Illinois leaders to “step up and offer a plan.”
Once the Illinois Clean Jobs Bill (SB1485/HB2607) fully ramps up, the bipartisan plan would create 32,000 jobs over the course of a decade in every part of Illinois.
In a divided Springfield, fixing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), expanding successful energy efficiency programs, and expanding low-income energy projects is supported by Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, which includes more than 150 businesses and 60 organizations including groups advocating for environmental justice.
What it means for jobs:
> By fixing the broken RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard], Illinois can again gain solar and wind energy jobs, instead of losing them as we did last year and seeing big gains in other states.
> It would create thousands of jobs, especially in energy efficiency, that cannot be outsourced or moved overseas, let alone to other states.
> And the expanded energy efficiency component would build them in every corner of Illinois, from economically disadvantages neighborhoods in Chicago to small cities in towns across that state which have lost manufacturing jobs over the last twenty years.
The fact is: Illinois hasn’t modernized its energy policy in a way that creates jobs for nearly a decade.
This is a lost opportunity, and our losses can be measured in the gains that other states have made at our expense:
> Barely a week goes by without Iowa’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, whose state is already a leader in renewable energy, announcing a new plan for big investments and the jobs that come with them.
> In wind production, Illinois fell behind Oklahoma last year and we are poised to be overtaken next by Kansas.
> Last year, Michigan gained 700 jobs in the field of solar energy, and Ohio gained 500 jobs. Nationally, solar jobs are increasing at 12 times the rate of the overall economy.
Meanwhile, Illinois lost more than 500 jobs in wind and solar combined last year.
It’s time to reverse this trend. And it’s time to spread these gains to every community.
Go read the whole thing because there’s quite a bit more to it than what’s posted here.
Seems more feasible than the hoped for 1.4 percent solution.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner sends campaign money across Indiana border
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - New cable TV buy list has big surprise
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Renewable energy is a heavily subsidized industry, very reliant on federal subsidies for its existence. It is true that all energy relies on federal assistance to some degree. While I wouldn’t reject creating jobs in Illinois through this industry, I wouldn’t bet on it as a long term solution. Nat gas and nuclear (if given a better regulatory regime) are better, cheaper and more reliable options in the medium and long term. Barring huge advancements in solar panel productivity, nuclear is the only feasible way to produce the loads of electricity demanded by the American consumer without reducing standards of living and without adding to our high carbon outputs.
Comment by Trumpy Poo Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:05 am
With Chicago we should be the leader in wind.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:05 am
To quote a Star Trek character that looks remarkably like my late father, “Make it so”.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:05 am
The premise itself is a canard. In the last seven years, a lot of UAW workers have been called back to plants temporarily closed in 2009. The stock market bottomed in March 2009 and the pink slips to Capital goods manufacturers’ employees were flying. Illinois is simply a more diversified manufacturer, less dependent upon automobile manufacturing. Temporarily closed plants being reopened and the employees called back to work is not exactly “creatin’ new jobs”. Truth is the first victim in warfare.
Comment by yeah Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:06 am
Of course to start anything you’re going to have to staff DCEO with at least a few competent people who can build and manage a program. DCEO couldn’t run a sidewalk lemonade stand at this point.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:07 am
=== It is true that all energy relies on federal assistance to some degree.===
Yeah, like the trillions we’ve spent in the Middle East alone lately.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:13 am
“Wisconsin created 44,100 manufacturing jobs
Ohio created 75,900 manufacturing jobs
Indiana created 83,700 manufacturing jobs and
Michigan created 171,300 manufacturing jobs.
Illinois created 4,600 jobs. Even Idaho created 9,100 manufacturing jobs. A state better known for its potato farms.”"
Those states have a GOP Governor and GA… sounds refreshing. I can’t wait for Madigan to lose power.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:14 am
The Clean Jobs article mentions two companies that make wind structures. There is another, downstate, in Clinton, that was a comeback for our area when Thrall closed its railcar production plant there- http://www.trinitytowers.com/.
They build for Midwestern sites, not just for Illinois. One of the escort drivers told me a few weeks back, that they are shipping to a site in Iowa. Many of the welders who had been out of a job when Thrall closed, were able to come back once Trinity was up and running.
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:24 am
Solar, Wind and Hydro-power somehow do not have the clout of mining companies and can’t get a 15% “depletion” accounting tax deduction fabricated by Congress for good donors. Let non-fossil fuels have a 15% deduction off of the Gross like Exxon and we will see fossil fuels go the way of the … dinosaurs.
Comment by yeah Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:25 am
So the Greens say they will create 3,000 jobs per year. Color me skeptical. Fair question is: are those job years or are those full time, long term jobs? Obviously 90% of the jobs in the renewable and energy efficiency sectors are temporary construction jobs. Once a solar panel is installed, there’s no long term employee for that panel. Same for energy efficiency: its all installation and repair. I’m very suspicious of job impact inflation when the environmentalists start talking. Much of the clean job policy stuff is smoke and mirrors. Completely different than opening a second shift at a factory.
Comment by SXSW Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:28 am
This isn’t a jobs plan, it’s a mandate plan.
If I could pass a law mandating that you buy my product, I could show you a lot of jobs gains in producing my product.
What’s the other side of the ledger? What does this cost taxpayers and/or consumer and jobs in other industries?
Comment by Huckleberry Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:28 am
Lots of folks like to argue about the generation side.
But, energy efficiency is already the cheapest form of electricity. And creates the most jobs. And causes bills to go down (simple supply and demand economics - prices come down when you need less energy as a state and region).
It is the absolute, bi-partisan, no-brainer.
Comment by Ok Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:28 am
I just read the article at the link.
They seem to imply that Ameren is the one standing in the way of the bill getting done right now by refusing to agree to the same energy efficiency targets that ComEd has.
That’s not surprising, but I can’t imagine that holds up at the end of the day.
Comment by Ok Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:33 am
“They seem to imply that Ameren is the one standing in the way of the bill getting done right now by refusing to agree to the same energy efficiency targets that ComEd has.”
Of course they won’t. More energy efficiency in southern Illinois means less money for the Ameren plants in Missouri that are supplying the power.
Comment by Ggeo Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:35 am
Good cautionary tale regarding regulated and deregulated energy markets, and how FirstEnergy in Ohio played the systems. Exelon is using some of that for their blueprints in New York (regulated) and here in Illinois (deregulated).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/coal-nuclear-electric-renewables-solar-wind-energy-climate/
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:39 am
–I’m very suspicious of job impact inflation when the environmentalists start talking.–
Kind of like I am with large Illinois companies who have EDGE agreements with the state. Only with Green energy jobs the state is not losing 215,000,000 out of our coffers as we did in 2015. But hey, a green jobs program probably won’t be monitored just like EDGE so we really won’t know how many jobs are created. But it’s worth a shot.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:40 am
just a clarification
Comment by NY is a restructured state Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:41 am
Well, there’s smart money & then there is no money! /s
Comment by WhoKnew Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:43 am
“Renewable energy is a heavily subsidized industry…nuclear is the only feasible way to produce the loads of electricity”
Trumpy Poo, welcome to the energy debate. Perhaps you should click the ads in the sidebar to learn about Exelon’s request for $1.6 billion in subsidies just to keep their nuclear plants afloat. Nukes are far from cost-effective these days.
——
“90% of the jobs in the renewable and energy efficiency sectors are temporary construction jobs”
SXSW, all construction work is temporary. Are you also skeptical of road and building construction jobs?
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:44 am
Thanks NY for that point:)
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:51 am
Nothing will happen. This is a state that can’t even do a no-brainer casino for Chicago to tap into convention money, not to mention the annual half billion tax bonanza from legal weed.
Comment by striketoo Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:57 am
Petroleum prices are rock bottom. Coal is beneath our feet. At what market price is renewable energy capable of competing in the new world of lowering energy costs?
It’s 2016-not 2006. Renewable energy is not viable without massive government bailouts. We have more petro-energy than ever before. Right here in the US. It is a new world. Justifying wind and solar is a stretch in this new world.
Lower carbon footprint? We got natural gas like never before. Costs? Prices are depressed for oil and gas around the world.
Iowa fights for ethanol, which is heavily subsidized and crappy. It is right out of 1979.
Wind? Solar? Pipe dreams requiring a completely different market which no longer exists.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:14 pm
“fixing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), expanding successful energy efficiency programs, and expanding low-income energy projects”
If it comes with deregulating EPA standards, I’m out. Clean, air, water & soil are important to our health. If it does not contaminate water and soil, I say bring it on.
Comment by Mama Retired Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:14 pm
Thanks Rich for posting about renewable energy and energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is not about subsidies; every study whether performed by the private sector or the government shows that EE saves money. The jobs for EE are not temporary. A strong commitment to EE creates and maintains a vibrant industry with thousands of good paying jobs.
Critics of renewable energy want to complain about federal subsidies (which are being phased out over the next 5 years) but refuse to acknowledge that no form of energy has received as much federal and ratepayer subsidies as nuclear power. Why are neighboring states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota investing in renewable energy and creating thousands of jobs, while Illinois is losing solar and wind jobs?
Poll after poll shows that the public wants more investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Illinois should be the Midwest leader clean energy. Smart investment in a clean energy future will produce thousand of jobs.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:20 pm
Senator Clay Davis,
See, “if given a better regulatory regime”.
Welcome to Hooked on Phonics.
Comment by Trumpy Poo Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:25 pm
Energy Efficiency investments are a no brainer. The best investment for cost effectiveness and job creation. Solar and Wind without federal subsidies are more questionable.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:26 pm
Sure… mandate the purchase of high cost renewable energy instead of using the competitive market. I’m sure that manufacturers who use a lot of energy would be happy to pay higher electricity costs.
Ask the Clean Jobs Coalition why they want to double down on RPS and energy efficiency when they couldn’t meet their own goals originally.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:27 pm
The clean energy fan boys overstate their case, as usual. Peak oil? Never mind calling us to account for that false prediction. Wind and solar will provide 20% of our electricity by 2020? Yet another prediction based on fantasy. Their jobs numbers are complete figments of their zealous imaginations.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Poo Trumpy, the ILGA isn’t debating nuclear safety regulations, so the regulatory scheme is irrelevant. They’re debating whether nuclear plants need a $1.6 billion ratepayer subsidy.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:02 pm
Senator Clay Davis,
I limited comments to whether or not clean energy initiatives and projects will remain a rich source of jobs in the future. Given their tenuous viability absent federal subsidies and favorable EPA regulations (which can and will be overturned by the next GOP president), I made the argument that most of our energy production should come from nat gas and nuclear (if given a better regulatory regime), especially if we want to reduce our carbon emissions in any significant way.
Comment by Trumpy Poo Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:10 pm
** Barring huge advancements in solar panel productivity, nuclear is the only feasible way to produce the loads of electricity demanded by the American consumer without reducing standards of living and without adding to our high carbon outputs. **
Indeed. Wind and solar are viable for supplemental energy only. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear are the only options for a continuous source of electricity in this part of the country.
Comment by DGD Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:19 pm
Anon 12:27 nailed it. The existing mandates, efficiency and renewable, aren’t being met but hey, let’s double them because….
The ideological position of the environmental movement was nicely summarized by an earlier commentator who said all efficiency is good. Golf clap for him but he’s proposed an irrevelent strawman. The debate is whether to raise electric rates more than $500 million per year to have the utilities run the same efficiency programs that are failing or to let industrial and commercial users make their own efficiency investments at their facilities. If ComEd and Ameren get their way, it will be the former and we’ll be throwing good money after bad. If it’s the later more efficiency will happen, at a lower cost, without a rate hike. Guess which one is being “debated” by ComEd and their new green friends at CUB and NRDC?
God I’m sick of the Illinois way.
Comment by SXSW Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:27 pm
Poo Trumpy,
And I limited my comments to whether or not nuclear energy will remain a rich source of jobs in the future. Given Illinois nuclear plants’ tenuous viability absent state subsidies and favorable EPA regulations, I made the argument that most of our energy production should come from nat gas and wind.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:29 pm
All the railing in this thread against subsidies for clean energy and saying we should let the market decide - ok, then let’s properly price the external costs of carbon pollution. Because we as a society are already starting to pay those external costs and it’s only going to get worse: http://xkcd.com/1732/
Until we get a carbon tax in place nationwide, clean energy subsidies is the second best option.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:34 pm
Assume you’re a competent businessperson in the clean energy field. Your size and competence entitle you to borrow some of that easy money the Federal Reserve has placed out there. Other fed agencies are ready to lavish more on you. Energy travels inter-state on a grid. You have choices where to locate. You’re very familiar with a profit-loss statement, and you prefer the profit side of the ledger. You also understand that some your competitors operate outside of Illinois.
Why would you invest in Illinois?
Comment by Cook County Commoner Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:53 pm
“failing or to let industrial and commercial users make their own efficiency investments at their facilities” - sxsw
Nobody is preventing industrial and commercial customers from making efficiency investments at their facilities. Lots do. When they do, it saves them money, and it saves us money.
There is literally nothing stopping them from doing it. What you and the industrials are asking for is to receive all the benefits without paying for the costs.
And then saying - trust us, we’ll do some stuff, too, just look the other way.
Comment by Ok Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:06 pm
Is it just me or does their writeup really go out of it’s way to avoid explaining what constitutes their “fix”?
Let me guess: does it require, directly or indirectly:, requiring current fossil fuel energy providers or transmission companies to buy energy from alternate generators at or above their production costs rather than at market costs and then allow those excess costs to be passed on to end users?
Comment by Steve Schnorf Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:16 pm
Meaningless statistical noise.
Illinois has a far smaller proportion of its economy in manufacturing than these other states, and in far different manufacturing sectors. Illinois, for example, saw no big crash in 2008 and 2009, while Indiana and Michigan and Ohio absolutely cratered and are bouncing back from a deep low. Give me a decadal chart broken down by sector and by all Midwestern states, not just the eastern half of the Midwest, and then I might pay some attention.
Until then, brownie points to the first politician that comes out and points out how Illinois coddles big business but strangles small business. I’m still waiting.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:34 pm
Baise appears to be using as a benchmark the depths of the Great Recession.
If it’s true that state politicians “created” manufacturing jobs since that crash, were those same state politicians also responsible for the massive manufacturing job losses prior to then?
Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked in 1979. It’s been on a long slide since due to global competition and technological advances.
But if you believe state politicians can “create” manufacturing jobs, tell them to get to work on income stagnation, which has been a problem for the 99% for 40 years.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/7231000-lost-jobs-manufacturing-employment-down-37-1979-peak
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:47 pm
A lot of heads in the sand here. Illinois has not recovered all the jobs lost since 2000, the country is passing us by while the usual suspects make excuses.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 3:20 pm
“Ok” at 2:06 - I think you might be missing the point between mandates and voluntary expenditures.
Comment by SXSW Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 3:38 pm
From Idaho dept of labor: “Over the decade from 2004 to 2014, occupations in science, engineering, math and information technology have growth by 11.3 percent in the United States. Over that same time period, however, the same occupations have grown by only 0.4 percent in Idaho. To a large extent, Idaho has been left behind a national boom in technology jobs. This may go a long way in explaining why Idaho’s incomes remain lower than the national baseline.”
Comment by Liberty Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 3:41 pm
“Why would you invest in Illinois? ”
What state are you from?
What is wrong with investing in IL???
Comment by Mama Retired Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:51 pm
All this focus on manufacturing job creation. What about poverty reduction? Of the states mentioned in the post above, only Wisconsin has a lower poverty rate than Illinois according to 2014 data. All the other states cited as having created more manufacturing jobs have higher poverty rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 5:52 pm
I will personally buy a bus ticket for Baise to go to Idaho, so long as he stays there.
Comment by DuPage Dave Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 7:13 pm
Illinois poverty rate has been growing for years.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 7:44 pm
Income growth in Illinois is near bottom of the barrel.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 7:48 pm
@ Ron. The Googles will help:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/sqpi_newsrelease.htm
Illinois income is growing moderately well as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in June 2016.
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 8:36 pm
Also, check out the Pew Trust report on total jobs created. Illinois generated 5x the jobs of Idaho since the great recession.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/5/13/which-states-have-the-most-job-growth-since-the-recession
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 8:39 pm
Scamp, using facts against Ron is almost ubfair. It really puts him at a disadvantage. He rarely disputes facts, though
Comment by steves schnorf Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 10:22 pm
Ahhhh. The fact averse population is a tough audience.
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 10:27 pm
32000 over ten years is 3200 per year which is less than the 4600 per year Illinois is doing in the article per Rich.
Comment by Math Wiz Wednesday, Sep 14, 16 @ 5:53 am