the clean energy path to jobs and economic growth€¦ · the economic development potential of...

RenewingArizona’s Economy

Arizona PIRG Education FundTravis Madsen

Diane E. Brown

April 2005

The Clean Energy Path to Jobsand Economic Growth

Acknowledgments

The economic model forming the basis of this report was originally designed by EconomicResearch Associates in Alexandria, Virginia. The authors are extremely grateful for the firm’sexpert technical advice and assistance.

In addition, the authors would like to thank the following peer reviewers for their technical andeditorial review of drafts of this document: Stephen Ahearn, Director of the Residential UtilityConsumer Office and Chair of the Governor's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency WorkingGroup; Bud Annan, The Annan Group, former Director of Solar Programs for the U.S. De-partment of Energy; Dr. David Berry, Western Resource Advocates, former Chief of Econom-ics and Research at the Arizona Corporation Commission; Amanda Ormond, The OrmondGroup, former Director of the Arizona Department of Commerce Energy Office; and SeanSeitz, President of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association. Thanks also to Tony Dutzikand Rob Sargent with the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) and Navin Nayak atU.S. PIRG for editorial support.

This project was made possible by the generous support of the Arizona Community Founda-tion and the Energy Foundation.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those ofthe Arizona PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authorsand do not necessarily express the views of our funders or of individuals who provided review.

©2005 Arizona PIRG Education Fund

Electronic copies of this report are available at www.arizonapirg.org. For additional physicalcopies, send $10 (including shipping) to:

Arizona PIRG Education Fund130 N. Central Ave., Suite 311Phoenix, AZ 85004

The Arizona PIRG Education Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501 (c)(3) organization thatoffers an independent, articulate voice on behalf of the public interest in Arizona. Our professionalstaff combine independent research and practical ideas to defend the rights of consumers, protectthe environment, improve democracy and engage citizens in our work for meaningful results.

For more information about the Arizona PIRG Education Fund, please call our office at (602)252-9227, email us at [email protected], or visit our Web site at www.arizonapirg.org.

Cover photos (clockwise from left) courtesy of: NREL, Shell Solar, NREL, NEG Micon, NREL

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 9

The Economic Development Potential ofRenewable Energy in Arizona 11Employment Gains 12Increased Economic Output 17Reduced Water Usage 21Public Health Benefits 21Impact on Electricity Consumers 24

From Here to There: A Scenario for Clean EnergyDeployment in Arizona through 2020 26Tapping Into Arizona’s Renewable Energy Resources 26

Policy Recommendations:Renewing Arizona’s Economy 30

Methodology 32

Appendix 35A Note On Electricity Units 35Arizona’s Current Electricity Mix 35Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy: Detailed Tables 37Key Economic Multipliers for Arizona 38Definition of Clean Biomass 39

Notes 40

4 Renewing Arizona’s Economy

Executive Summary 5

Executive Summary

Investing in a clean, renewable energysupply for Arizona would generatethousands of new high-paying jobs,

boost Arizona’s economy, conserve scarcewater supplies and improve public health.

Adopting a renewable energy standardto increase electricity generation fromclean and renewable sources by at least 1percent per year (reaching 10 percent oftotal electricity consumption by 2015 and20 percent by 2020) would have a varietyof benefits compared to business as usual.Between 2005 and 2020, investing in re-newable energy would:

• Create jobs, increasing net employ-ment by an annual average of 380jobs per year, for a total of 6,100person-years by 2020;

• Increase wages by a net annualaverage of $66 million, with a totalnet present value of $570 million;

• Increase the gross state product(GSP) by a net annual average of$200 million, with a net presentvalue of $1.6 billion;

• Help rural areas, directly generat-ing over $600 million in property

taxes to fund education and otherlocal government services;

• Save water, conserving a total of 23billion gallons, enough to supply theresidential needs of Phoenix forthree-quarters of a year; and

• Reduce pollution; in the year 2020annually avoiding emissions of:

o More than 11,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (theequivalent of taking over 500,000cars off the road);

o More than 9,000 tons of soot-forming sulfur dioxide (13 percentof 2000 emissions from electricitygeneration); and

o 8 million tons of global-warminginducing carbon dioxide (theequivalent of taking 1.5 millioncars off the road).

Overall, renewable energy is an excel-lent investment that will provide strongreturns for Arizona. At the cost of a fewdollars a month, Arizona electricity con-sumers would lock in stable energy prices


for 20 to 30 years (the life of a renewableenergy installation), hedge against the riskof fossil fuel price increases, reduce de-mand and price for natural gas, and reducethe need for transmission infrastructureand increase reliability by shifting todistributed energy systems.

Investments in renewable energy, dol-lar for dollar, produce a greater net ben-efit for Arizona’s economy thantraditional technologies. According theArizona Department of Commerce, morethan half of all expenditures for energynow leave the state and are not reinvestedin local economies. In 2000, Arizona ex-ported $2.5 billion to purchase electric-ity and gas, plus nearly $3 billion forpetroleum. In contrast, fuel for wind, so-lar and geothermal energy is free, and fuelfor biomass energy can be grown at home.As a result, renewable energy keeps moremoney in the local economy, where it canhave a greater impact.

Arizona is well positioned to power itseconomy with renewable energy. In termsof raw potential, renewable resourcescould produce almost double the amountof electricity the state currently uses.These resources include:

• Solar Energy. Arizona has moreconcentrated solar energy potentialthan any other state in the U.S.,upwards of 100 million megawatt-hours annually (over 150 percent ofArizona’s current annual demand).

• Wind Energy. Windy areas northand east of Flagstaff and east ofPhoenix could generate 5 millionmegawatt hours of electricity everyyear (about 9 percent of Arizona’sannual demand).

• Geothermal Energy. Tapping intothe Earth’s heat in the southern partof the state could provide another

Construction workers prepare to install solar panels.

Cre

dit:

Shel

l Sol

ar

Executive Summary 7

5 million megawatt hours ofelectricity each year.

• Clean Biomass Energy. Using cropwastes and landfill gas to generateelectricity could generate 1 millionmegawatt hours of electricityannually.

The Arizona Corporation Commis-sion (a board of elected officials whoregulate Arizona’s electric utilities) shouldbuild on the steps it has already taken topromote clean, renewable energy.

In 2001, the commission adopted a ruleto require the state’s utilities to produce1.1 percent of their energy from renew-able sources by 2007. In 2004, the com-mission initiated a public dialogue toevaluate the possibility of increasing therequired percentage of clean energy.

In January 2005, staff advisors for thecommission released a report recom-mending extending the renewable energystandard to 5 percent by the year 2015and 15 percent by the year 2025, with 20percent coming from solar sources andone-quarter from distributed energysources. This path would produce ben-efits for the state. However, it does notfully take advantage of all of the oppor-tunities to improve Arizona’s economy,

help rural areas, conserve water, improvepublic health, and protect the state fromthe economic impact of reliance on fossilfuels.

To capture more fully the benefits ofrenewable energy, Arizona officialsshould:

Adopt an AcceleratedRenewable Energy Standard

The Arizona Corporation Commissionshould implement a program to increaseour use of renewable energy sources—including wind, solar, geothermal, andclean biomass power—by at least 1 per-cent each year, resulting in 10 percentrenewable energy by 2015 and 20 percentby 2020.

Ensure That Municipal ElectricUtilities and Electric DistrictsInvest in Renewable Energy

Municipal electric utilities (including theSalt River Project) and electric districtsare outside the jurisdiction of the ArizonaCorporation Commission. Arizona’sleaders should ensure that these entitiesparticipate in renewable energy deploy-ment as well, since their participation willenhance benefits to the state.

Introduction 9

Introduction

Arizona is uniquely suited to lead theway toward a future filled withclean and renewable energy. The

state is home to a large number of skilledworkers and high-tech expertise. It is alsohome to rich resources for solar and windenergy. In fact, Arizona sunshine isamong the most intense and best-suitedfor electricity generation anywhere in theworld.

To promote renewable energy devel-opment and build the foundation for aclean energy market, four years ago theArizona Corporation Commission set agoal of reaching 1.1 percent of electric-ity sales from renewables by 2007. Thegoal, while modest, has been enough togive a boost to several renewable energyprojects across the state.

Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) andthe City of Prescott are teaming up tobuild one of the world’s largest photovol-taic power plants. APS chose Prescott forits altitude, clear skies and cool tempera-tures, all of which improve solar effi-ciency. Over the next few years, APS willexpand the plant to 5 megawatts, makingit one of the world’s largest.

A little furthersoutheast, TucsonElectric Power hasbegun to invest innew technology aswell. The companyrecently expandedits Springerville so-lar photovoltaicpower plant to 4.6megawatts, enoughto power 700 homes for a year. Withexcellent exposure to sunlight, the site is nowthe world’s most productive solar facility.1

The question addressed in this reportis: what would be the impact to theeconomy, consumers and public health ofspeeding the introduction of clean energytechnologies to Arizona?

The answer: investing in clean energywould pay off handsomely for Arizona’seconomy. Renewable energy means morejobs, more wages, higher economic out-put, more water, less pollution, healthierpeople, and less flow of energy dollars outof state.

By accelerating the penetration of re-newable energy into the electricity market,

Pho

to: N

RE

L


the state can encourage investment insolar technology, wind turbines, geother-mal plants, and all the manufacturing,installation, servicing and financing thatgo along with them. The effects willripple outward through the economy, giv-ing it a boost.

Investing in renewable energy will alsocreate greater energy stability. Once re-newable technologies have taken a foot-hold, the state will have a strong base of

generating capacity from in-state sources,keeping more money in the stateeconomy and reducing vulnerability toprice shocks in natural gas, like those thatcontributed to California’s energy crisisin 2001.

Building Arizona’s renewable energycapacity would be a smart long-term in-vestment in affordable and clean powerfor consumers. The time has never beenbetter to invest in a clean energy future.

The Springerville Solar System.

Pho

to: T

ucso

n E

lect

ric

Pow

er C

o.

Economic Development Potential 11

The Economic Development Potentialof Renewable Energy in Arizona

S olar, wind, geothermal, and cleanbiomass technologies are oftentouted as clean and sustainable sup-

plies of electricity. However, they are alsoan economic development tool that Ari-zona can use to move its economy for-ward, particularly in rural areas.

In this report we compare the eco-nomic and public health impacts of ac-celerating renewable energy developmentin the state with continuing business asusual. Specifically, we examine the out-come of increasing the use of renewableenergy sources by at least 1 percent each

year (resulting in 10 percent of electric-ity generation from renewable energy by2015 and 20 percent by 2020). We de-fine the impact of investing in clean en-ergy sources like wind turbines and solarphotovoltaic panels in comparison to adefault path projected by the U.S. En-ergy Information Administration. Weuse an input-output economic model todescribe how changes in spending affectthe Arizona economy. See the Method-ology section on page 33 for more de-tails on the scenarios and assumptionsinvolved.

Table 1: Net Impact of Accelerated Renewable Energy Development

Measure Net Impact from 2005 to 2020

Jobs Created 6,100 person-yearsWages Paid $570 millionGrowth in Gross State Product $1,600 millionWater Conserved 23 billion gallonsAvoided Smog-Forming NOx Emissions 67,000 tonsAvoided Soot-Forming SO2 Emissions 59,000 tonsAvoided Global Warming Pollution (CO2) 48 million tons

All impacts are above and beyond the business as usual case as forecast by the U.S.Energy Information Administration. All dollar figures are expressed in net present valueterms and in 2002 values.


Implementing an accelerated renew-able energy standard would greatly ben-efit the economy and consumers inArizona while conserving scare water sup-plies and reducing air pollution frompower plants. Table 1 summarizes theresults.

Employment GainsInvesting in renewable energy would cre-ate a net increase in jobs in Arizona. Com-pared to business as usual, acceleratingthe pace of renewable energy develop-ment in the state would create a net an-nual average of 380 jobs between 2005

and 2020 and increase overall wages paidin the state by an annual average of $66million. (See Table 2.)

The majority of the new jobs createdunder clean energy policies would bewell-paying jobs in the construction, elec-tric utility and finance sectors of theeconomy. Clean energy policies producemore jobs than business as usual becausethey stimulate industries that are moreeffective at creating jobs than other partsof Arizona’s economy. For example for ev-ery $1 million spent on construction inArizona, 13.4 jobs are created. Alterna-tively, investing $1 million dollars on coalmining creates only 6.7 jobs.2 (See Appen-dix for key economic multipliers derivedfor Arizona.) Moreover, renewable energy

Table 2: Summary of Employment Impact

Measure Net Impact from 2005 to 2020

Annual Average Jobs Created 380Total Jobs Created through 2020 6,100 person-yearsAnnual Average Net Increase in Wages $66 millionNet Present Value of Wage Increase through 2020 $570 million

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 1: Cumulative Employment Increase Due to Renewable EnergyInvestment

Tota

l Em

plo

ymen

t In

crea

se(P

erso

n-Y

ears

)


investments tend to stay in the localeconomy longer than investments in tra-ditional technologies, because the fuel isfree and much of the labor is local.3 Cur-rently, Arizona exports more than half ofthe money spent on natural gas and elec-tricity out of state.4

Investing in clean energy also has in-direct impacts on the economy becauseit reduces the demand for natural gas,thus reducing upward pressure on theprice of this limited commodity. Peopleend up having slightly more money intheir pockets after paying their gas bills,which then can be spent in the localeconomy, creating more jobs.

Figure 1 shows the trajectory of thecumulative employment created by re-newable energy investment, above andbeyond the business as usual case. Figure2 shows the year-by-year impact on netwages paid to workers in Arizona, imply-ing a more rapid increase in the earningsof the average Arizona employee overtime than would be created in the business

as usual scenario. The increases in jobsand wages are driven by changes in spend-ing patterns within the economy as a re-sult of greater demand for renewableenergy technologies.

Renewable Energy CreatesSkilled, High-Paying JobsInvestment in renewable energy directlycreates quality jobs in manufacturing,construction, operation and maintenance,and finance.

ManufacturingManufacturing renewable energy systemsrequires highly skilled workers whodesign and build components of windturbines, solar panels and other tech-nologies.

Building a photovoltaic panel requirescreating cells from silicon and glass, in-stalling wires and other electrical com-ponents, and assembling them into a unit.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 2: Annual Net Increase in Wages Paid Due to Renewable EnergyDeployment

(Mill

ion

s o

f 20

02 D

olla

rs)


According to a 2002 analysis by Univer-sity of California-Berkeley ProfessorDaniel Kammen, by the end of the de-cade, manufacturing a megawatt of solarphotovoltaic panels will require nearly sixfull-time employees working for a year,given likely improvements in economiesof scale and manufacturing technology.5

Similarly, much of the work involvedin creating a wind farm goes into manu-facturing the components, which includerotor blades, structural towers, hubs,transmissions, generators and assortedelectronic controls. According to a sur-vey of wind energy companies by theRenewable Energy Policy Project(REPP), manufacturing 10 MW of windturbines requires a year of labor from 32full-time workers.6 The number of work-ers required will decline as the wind in-dustry grows and becomes more efficient.

While much of the manufacturingwork for renewable energy systems couldhappen out of state, Arizona has the po-tential to develop a powerful in-state re-

newable energy manufacturing industrythat could take advantage of the regionaland perhaps global renewable energymarket. In particular, the Phoenix andTucson areas have well-developed aero-space, semiconductor, and electronicsmanufacturing industries that could par-ticipate in a manufacturing boom for re-newable energy technologies.7 Proximityto a growing in-state renewable energymarket, as well as to America’s most con-centrated solar energy resources (whichlie along a belt from southern Californiato Texas) also make Arizona a potentiallyattractive location for manufacturing.

To take into account the fact that eco-nomic activity for manufacturing is notnecessarily tied to Arizona, we assumethat 60 percent of all expenses for renew-able technology, including financing andongoing operation and maintenance, willbe local. Currently, just under 50 percentof all expenditures for electricity andnatural gas remain in-state.8

Construction and InstallationInstallation of renewable energy facilitiestypically involves local construction firmsand general contractors, boosting localeconomies.

To install residential and commercialsolar energy systems, a broad base of pro-fessional services are required, includingengineering and design professionals,professional contractors and a network ofdistribution and support services not un-like those found with other mainstreamconstruction industries. Dr. Kammen es-timates that by the end of the decade, in-stalling a megawatt of solar photovoltaiccells will support about four full-timeworkers for a year.9 Wind farm installa-tion also requires a large amount of localworkers. Large wind farms can need upto 300 workers on site during construc-tion. These workers assemble turbines,erect towers, pour concrete, build roads,and lay cable. Unlike traditional powerWorkers assemble wind farm rotor blades.

Pho

to: N

EG

Mic

on


plants, wind farms are built quickly, usu-ally in a year or less.10

Operation and MaintenanceThe operation and maintenance needs ofa solar installation or a wind farm createpermanent, high-quality local jobs rang-ing from servicing panels or turbines toaccounting.

Solar photovoltaic panels, having nomoving parts, require relatively littlemaintenance once they are installed. Ac-cording to a survey by the Renewable En-ergy Policy Project, each megawatt ofinstalled photovoltaic capacity requiresabout 20 hours of routine maintenanceand repair per year.11 Wind farms needstaff to operate and regularly service the

Renewable Energy Facilities Create More Jobs thanCoal or Gas-Fired Power Plants

In total, renewable energy generates more jobs per unit energy producedthan fossil-fuel technologies.13 (See Figure 3.)Investment in renewable energy also generates more jobs per dollar in-

vested than investment in fossil-fueled plants. For example, the RenewableEnergy Policy Project calculates that for every million dollars invested, thesolar PV industry generates 5.6 jobs (over 10 years) and the wind industrygenerates 5.7 jobs, while over the same time period the coal industry onlygenerates 4 jobs.15

Accounting for the fact that renewable energy technologies do not re-quire exporting money out of state for fuel supplies gives them an evengreater local advantage.

Figure 3: Jobs Per Unit of Energy from Renewable and FossilTechnologies14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Solar PV Wind Biomass Coal Gas

Job

s p

er U

nit

En

erg

y (a

M/V

)


Renewable Energy Can Stimulate Rural Economies

Local JobsRenewable energy installation can create jobs in rural parts of the state. Windfarms in particular are often located in places where local economies depend onfarming, ranching, or resource extraction. Local jobs include construction andfacility installation, operation and maintenance of the facility after it is constructed,and jobs induced by the additional money the workers spend in the local economy.

Landowner RoyaltiesRural landowners who lease their property for a wind facility can create an addi-tional source of income. Unlike the income from a typical harvest, paymentsfrom wind energy are steady and year-round. The Union of Concerned Scien-tists estimates a typical farmer or rancher with good wind resources could in-crease the economic yield of their land by 30-100 percent.16

Although wind farms occupy large areas, the actual physical footprint of eachwind turbine is small. A landowner could lease up to 10 percent of his or her landarea for the construction of wind turbines, while continuing to use the rest forother purposes. Lease terms vary, but they typically represent 2.5 percent ofgross revenue from electricity sales.17 Assuming a contract price for electricitygenerated from wind power of 3 ¢/kWh, a single 1.5 MW turbine would bringthe landowner $3,285 each year.18 In the case of land owned by a local govern-ment or Indian tribe, leasing income could be funneled into local schools andservices.

Under the scenario evaluated in this report, energy produced by wind farmsin Arizona through 2020 could supplement rural landowner income by $34 mil-lion, benefiting farmers, ranchers, local governments, Indian tribes and the fed-eral government.

Local Tax IncomeRenewable energy equipment raises the property tax base of a county, creating anew revenue source to support education and other local government services.

Increases in the tax base from installing renewable energy facilities will belargest in rural counties where the wind and solar resources are often greatest.Although the direct impact to the statewide tax base will be relatively modest,new wind farms and solar installations can make a big difference to small com-munities. For example, the installation of 400 MW of solar photovoltaic panelsin Wellton would add about 11 percent to the Yuma County tax base, and install-ing 500 MW of wind turbines outside St. Johns would add roughly 6 percent tothe local tax base in Apache County.19

Renewable energy facilities are taxed at 20 percent of their depreciated cashvalue under a state law active until 2012, an incentive to stimulate developmentof renewable energy sources.20 Assuming that the law is not extended, the re-newable energy development scenario evaluated here would funnel over $600million into local government coffers through 2020.21


turbines throughout their roughly 30-yearlifetimes. A recent survey of large windfarms in Texas found that every 100 MWof capacity requires six full-time employ-ees to operate, monitor, and service theturbines.12

FinanceIn contrast to traditional fossil-fuel tech-nologies, renewable energy systems havelarge up-front costs followed by minimalongoing expenses. Fossil fuel plants havemuch larger ongoing expenses for fuel,which is free in the case of solar, windand geothermal energy. As a result, re-newable energy projects require largeloans up front. As the wind farm or solarenergy plant generates electricity overtime, it gradually pays off the initial debt.This expenditure creates jobs in the bank-ing and finance sector.

Spillover EffectsEach dollar spent on renewable energycreates impacts that ripple outwardthrough the local economy, extending farbeyond the direct creation of jobs at en-ergy facilities.

For example, workers at a manufactur-ing plant need raw materials and equip-ment. Their work in assembling turbinessupports jobs in equipment manufactur-ing and component supply. Contractorsat a construction site need concrete andheavy equipment, and their work sup-ports additional jobs supplying theseneeds. In addition to these indirect jobs,workers spend some of their wages in thelocal economy, purchasing goods andservices like groceries and housing andsupporting additional workers.

Energy Price EffectsRenewable energy also has an impact byreducing the demand for other energysources.

For example, renewable energy reduces

demand for natural gas and slows theupward pressure on natural gas prices. Asa result, people and industries that de-pend on natural gas will have slightlysmaller bills than without natural gas con-servation efforts. These savings can thenbe reinvested in other parts of theeconomy, rather than spent on high-priced fuel imported from out of state.This additional spending creates jobsthroughout the economy.

Recent studies estimate that for every1 percent reduction in national naturalgas demand, natural gas prices fall by 0.8percent to 2 percent below forecast lev-els.22 A national renewable energy stan-dard would produce natural gas billsavings with an estimated net presentvalue as high as $73 billion from 2003 to2020.23 Reduced natural gas demanddriven by state-level policy in Arizonawould produce a more modest reductionin gas prices, but would still produce ben-efits for the state.

Increased Economic OutputIn addition to creating jobs and increas-ing wages paid in the state, acceleratedrenewable energy development would

Farmers and ranchers can make additional income byleasing their land for wind farms.

Pho

to: N

RE

L


The Benefits of Solar Energy for Homeowners

Individual homeowners stand to benefit from increased use of solarenergy. Several Arizona utilities have a policy of allowing the ownersof solar photovoltaic systems to sell electricity back to their utility

through the electric grid.24 Salt River Project and Tucson Electric Powerallow home owners to run their electricity meters backward during peri-ods when their solar system generates more electricity than they are us-ing, crediting them for the energy they produce at full retail value. ArizonaPublic Service Co. allows solar owners to sell electricity back to the util-ity at a reduced price (the utility’s avoided cost).25 Home solar ownerswho benefit from these policies will pay smaller electricity bills over time.The money saved thus becomes available for other family needs and canbe fed back into the local economy.

Electricity consumers who do not own solar panels also benefit fromsolar energy, because solar reduces peak demand for electricity duringdaylight hours. For example, one study of the electric system in the Mid-Atlantic region in the summer of 2000 found that the output of solar PVinstallations was worth 24 ¢/kWh in terms of the economic value of re-ducing peak load, effectively reducing the need to construct additionalpower plants. At the same time, the wholesale market price for electricitywas 5 ¢/kWh.26 In other words, solar PV helps to keep the price of elec-tricity from spiking during periods of peak demand. Everyone who usesthe electric grid shares in these benefits.

Customer-owned, customer-sited solar systems are also a good dealfor ratepayers who contribute funds to a renewable energy developmentprogram. Through cost-sharing with customers, development dollarsspent on these projects increase the potential for achieving broad pen-etration of solar technology into the market. Strong support for customer-based programs as a key component of a renewable energy standard willlead to broader success.

A home fitted with rooftop solar panels.

Pho

to: G

E S

olar


increase the overall economic outputof the state. The renewable energydevelopment scenario considered herewould increase the gross state product(GSP) by an average of $200 million peryear, with a net present value of benefitsby 2020 of $1.6 billion. Figure 4 showsthe trajectory of the annual impact onGSP over time, in constant 2002 dollars.

GSP is the traditional measure of ba-sic economic activity within the state. Itis a measure of the goods and servicesproduced within the state in a given year.Clean energy policies improve the GSPbecause they increase the amount ofmoney kept within the local economy.For example, one dollar invested inArizona’s electric utility sector creates$0.812 worth of economic output.

Alternatively, one dollar invested in Ari-zona natural gas distribution creates$0.476 worth of output.27

Investments in renewable energy, dol-lar for dollar, produce a greater net ben-efit for Arizona’s economy thantraditional technologies. According to theArizona Department of Commerce, morethan half of all expenditures for energynow leave the state and are not reinvestedin local economies. In 2000, Arizona ex-ported $2.5 billion for electricity and gas,plus nearly $3 billion for petroleum.28

In contrast, fuel for wind, solar, andgeothermal energy is free, and fuel forbiomass energy can be grown at home.As a result, renewable energy keeps moremoney in the local economy, where it canhave a greater impact.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 4: Annual Net Increase in the Gross State Product Due to RenewableEnergy Investment

(Mill

ion

s o

f 20

02 D

olla

rs)


Table 3: Water Requirements of Energy Generation Technologies31

Water ConsumptionEnergy Technology (gallons per MWh)

Coal-fired simple cycle power plant,once-through cooling 290 to 320

Coal-fired simple cycle power plant,re-circulating cooling system 690

Natural gas combined cycle power plant,once-through cooling 100

Natural gas combined cycle power plant,re-circulating cooling system 180

Nuclear power 820

Solar PV, residential Negligible

Solar PV, central utility 25

Solar Thermal32 1,100

Wind Negligible

Biomass, once-through cooling 350

Geothermal (water is typically drawn fromhigh-mineral content areas deep undergroundand is not suitable for other uses) 0 to 1,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

Figure 5: Estimated Annual Water Savings from Renewable Energy Use

An

nua

; Wat

er S

avin

gs

(Mill

ion

Gal

lon

s)


Reduced Water UsageRenewable energy has the additional ben-efit of conserving water. This benefit isespecially important given the arid, dryclimate of Arizona, and the growingdemand placed on water supplies by apopulation growing at six times the na-tional rate.29

Traditional power plants dependheavily on a constant supply of water toproduce steam and provide cooling.30

Some of the water is released to the at-mosphere and irreversibly consumed,thus unavailable for other uses. In con-trast, renewable energy technologies,with the exception of solar thermal powerplants, use very little water. For example,water use for a central utility solar PVsystem is limited to that required to peri-odically wash dust off of the panels. Table3 shows the consumptive water use ofdifferent types of energy systems.

Assuming that the average new fossil-fueled plant in Arizona would consume300 gallons of water per MWh produced,the renewable energy scenario evaluated

here would conserve more than 23 bil-lion gallons of water between 2005 and2020. (See Methodology for details onprojected technology deployment.) Toput that in perspective, the whole stateof Arizona now uses about 20 trillion gal-lons of water in a typical year, more thanthree quarters of which goes to agricul-ture. A typical household in Phoenix usesaround 180 gallons per day.

In other words, over the next 15 yearsrenewable energy could save enough wa-ter to supply the residential needs of thehalf-million families in Phoenix for three-quarters of a year.33 By 2020, the statewould save enough water to supply theannual needs of 52,000 Phoenix-areahouseholds. Figure 5 shows the projectedannual water savings.

Public Health BenefitsIn addition to economic benefits andwater conservation, investing in renew-able energy could create a cleaner,

A coal-fired power plant smokestack.

Pho

to: K

enn

Kis

er


healthier future for the state. Our analy-sis did not capture all of the public healthand environmental benefits resultingfrom clean energy development. How-ever, we did examine how clean energyinvestment would affect power plant emis-sions of soot, smog and carbon dioxide.

The renewable energy developmentscenario considered here would signifi-cantly reduce soot and smog pollution,which damages public health; and reducecarbon dioxide emissions, the leadingcause of global warming.

Reduced Pollution andImproved Public Health

Soot and SmogCoal and natural gas-fired power plants emitair pollution. For every megawatt-hour of

Coal-fired Power and Mercury

M ercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and other in-dustrial sources are making the fish in our lakes, rivers andstreams unsafe to eat. Burning coal releases mercury into the air that

eventually contaminates rivers and lakes, where bacteria convert it to a highlytoxic form that bioaccumulates in fish. In 2000, Arizona’s coal-fired powerplants emitted over 1,400 pounds of mercury.48

Mercury is a neurotoxin that is particularly damaging to the developing brain.In early 2004, EPA scientists estimated that one in six women of childbearingage in the U.S. has levels of mercury in her blood that are sufficiently high toput one in six babies born each year at risk of learning disabilities, develop-mental delays and problems with fine motor coordination, among other prob-lems.49

U.S. EPA tested fish across the country for mercury content in 1999. Of 35largemouth bass caught in lakes in Arizona, 100 percent had unsafe levels ofmercury contamination.50 As a result, the Arizona Department of Environ-mental Quality has issued fish consumption warnings for 140 acres of lakes inthe state.51

Renewable energy sources do not emit mercury pollution.

electricity generated, the average Arizonapower plant emits one pound of soot-forming sulfur dioxide and two poundsof smog-forming nitrogen dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide forms fine soot particlesin the atmosphere. When inhaled, theseparticles become lodged deep in the lungswhere they cause a variety of health prob-lems, including asthma, bronchitis, lungcancer and heart attacks.34 Soot pollutionfrom power plants is responsible for sig-nificant harm to public health in Arizona.According to a study by Abt Associates, afrequent consultant to the U.S. EPA, sootin Arizona causes nearly 2,000 asthmaattacks and 11,000 missed work days dueto respiratory illness.35

Fossil-fueled power plants also emitnitrogen dioxide, one of the primaryingredients in smog. Smog makes lungtissues more sensitive to allergens andless able to ward off infections.36 It scars


airway tissues.37 Children exposed tosmog develop lungs with less flexibilityand capacity than normal. During highsmog days, otherwise healthy people whoexercise cannot breathe normally.38 Overtime, smog exposure can lead to asthma,bronchitis, emphysema and other respi-ratory problems.39 Most of the Phoenixmetro area does not meet federal healthstandards for smog.40

In contrast, solar, wind and geother-mal energy do not emit pollution. As aresult, displacing fossil-fueled energysources to supply some of Arizona’s fu-ture energy needs would reduce futureemissions significantly:

• By 2020, the scenario evaluated herewould reduce smog-forming nitro-gen dioxide emissions by nearly11,000 tons per year. This is theequivalent of removing over 500,000cars from the road.41

• It would also avoid over 9,000 tons ofsoot-forming sulfur dioxide emis-sions, the equivalent of 13 percent of2000 emission levels.42

Reduced Global Warming PollutionEvery megawatt-hour of electricity gen-erated in Arizona produces 1,430 poundsof carbon dioxide, the leading culprit inglobal warming.

Global warming poses a serious chal-lenge to Arizona’s future. Pollutioncaused by the burning of fossil fuels is thechief culprit in raising the average tem-perature of the earth, posing severe po-tential threats to mountain snow-packand the state’s water cycle, grassland andforest ecosystems, and public health.

According to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, over the last century,the average temperature in Tucson hasincreased more than 3 degrees Fahren-heit.43 Should the concentration of

greenhouse gases continue to increaseover the next century, temperatures couldincrease significantly. According toJonathan Overpeck, the director of theUniversity of Arizona’s Institute for theStudy of Planet Earth, some models pre-dict an average temperature increase inthe desert southwest of 10 degrees Fahr-enheit or more.44

Arizona is already struggling with along-term drought that has hurt itseconomy, costing the cattle ranching andrelated industries $2.8 billion in 2002.45

The drought and changing weather pat-terns have drained the regions two big-gest reservoirs, Lake Mead and LakePowell, to half their full capacity.46 Fur-ther alterations in water supplies, forests,grasslands and other ecosystems couldcause further severe disruptions in society.

The renewable energy deploymentscenario evaluated here could reduce car-bon dioxide emissions by 8 million tonsannually by 2020, the equivalent of retiring1.5 million cars from the road.47

Nuclear WasteSpent nuclear fuel is one of the most dan-gerous substances ever created by man-kind. It remains highly radioactive forhundreds of thousands of years and wouldcause extensive public health damage ifreleased into the air after an accident orterrorist attack.

Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear powerplant burns through 200 nuclear fuel as-semblies every year, producing roughly50 tons of nuclear waste with no safe wayto dispose of it.52 The federal governmenthas proposed disposing of high-levelwaste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Evenwithout the considerable safety issuesraised by shipping the waste on publichighways and the fact that Yucca Moun-tain can not safely contain the waste un-til it is no longer dangerous, this solution


faces political obstacles that may wellprove insurmountable.

Renewable energy does not producenuclear waste.

Impact on ElectricityConsumersDeveloping clean energy supplies wouldbe accompanied by a gradual increase inthe price of electricity, offset by reducedupward pressure on the price of naturalgas used by industry and in the home.Overall, the net annual consumer invest-ment would average $260 million. For theaverage residential customer, this willtranslate into an average increase inmonthly energy costs of $3.70. (SeeAppendix for a detailed chart of estimatedimpact on residential electricity bills.)

Several factors must be kept in mindwhile interpreting this cost increase. First,this increase is projected against forecastspartially based on natural gas prices fromthe Energy Information Administration(EIA) that are optimistic at best. Recent

EIA projections have underestimated therise in natural gas prices; current prices,for example, are significantly higher thanthose projected by EIA for the next 15years.53 The natural gas spot market isnotoriously volatile, and there is no indi-cation current prices will decline.

Natural gas prices have doubled sincethe mid-1990s, and are not likely to de-cline anytime soon. Limitations in sup-ply coupled with increased demand couldkeep prices persistently high, and evenbrief interruptions in supply can causewild price swings. Production of naturalgas in the U.S. has not kept up with in-creased demand. Between 1989 and 2002,natural gas consumption in the U.S. in-creased by 17 percent. During the sameperiod, domestic production of naturalgas increased by only 10 percent, whilethe number of producing gas wells in theU.S. increased by 40 percent.54 In short,more wells are being drilled, each well isproducing less gas, and consumption –particularly in the electric sector – con-tinues to increase. The overall economiccost of the natural gas crisis between 2000and 2004 has been estimated at as muchas $111 billion.55 While future importsof liquid natural gas (LNG) from over-seas may help to keep prices lower thanthey would be if we depend solely ondomestic production, LNG itself is sub-ject to a variety of problems that couldlead to price impacts, including vulner-ability to accidents or terrorist attacks andincreased dependence on potentiallyunstable areas of the world for energyimports.

In contrast, renewable energy comeswith a price guarantee, and will helpshield the state from spikes in natural gasprices, such as those triggered during theCalifornia energy crisis in 2001.

Overall, renewable energy is an excel-lent investment that will provide strongreturns for Arizona. At the cost of a fewdollars a month, Arizona electricity con-


Balanced Energy Policy and Energy Efficiency

Policies encouraging energy efficiency should also be a part of a balancedenergy supply mix. Reducing demand has the same effect on the supply/demand balance as increasing supply, but without the negative impacts of

energy production and use. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, energyefficiency measures implemented since the 1970s have reduced our energy useby 40% from what it would have been. This has translated into energy bills atleast 40% lower.

In most cases, demand management options are also cheaper and faster toimplement than supply-side options. The California Public Utility Commis-sion calculated that energy efficiency programs administered by the state’s utili-ties from 1994–97 came at an average cost of 1.6 ¢/kWh, about a third of thetypical cost of energy from new fossil fuel power plants.56 And while largefossil-fired power plants take 2–5 years to get online, savings from conserva-tion measures can be realized in months. These savings can last as long as orlonger than new power plants in the case of durable equipment and buildings.

There are great opportunities for energy conservation and energy efficiencyimprovements in each of the main sectors of energy use — transportation,industrial processes, and buildings & appliances. Vehicle manufacturers havemade great strides in fuel economy technology, yet have not brought many ofthese technologies to market. Industry is slowly integrating whole system de-sign into their factories and using more efficient motors and pumps. Buildingcodes and appliance standards have the potential to greatly reduce energy con-sumption in commercial and residential buildings. Energy conservation andefficiency programs also benefit consumers. After the initial expense of pur-chasing better appliances or installing better meters that allow them to useenergy more wisely, consumers benefit from smaller utility or fuel bills. Re-search by the RAND Corporation has shown that energy efficiency improve-ments over the last 25 years have saved Californians billions of dollars — up to$1,300 per person — and gave the entire state economy a 3% boost.57

sumers would lock in stable energy pricesfrom renewable sources, hedge the riskof fossil fuel price increases, reduce de-mand and price for natural gas, and

through the use of distributed energy,reduce the need for transmission infra-structure and increase electric systemreliability.


Arizona is experiencing rapid growthin population and energy use. TheEnergy Information Administra-

tion (EIA) forecasts 2.5 percent annualgrowth in electricity sales in the regionthrough the next decade and a half.58

If we do not act decisively, Arizonacould pass up the potential to grow itseconomy through renewable energy andinstead meet additional demand withmore unstable, dirty and dangeroussources of electricity, despite the prob-lems they create. Arizona currently gen-erates almost all of its electricity fromtraditional technologies, including coal-fired, natural gas-fired or nuclear powerplants. In fact, Arizona generators pro-duce 50 percent more than in-state needs,and export electricity to other states, ag-gravating local environmental problems.(For details, see Appendix.)

Well-designed energy efficiency pro-grams in Arizona and other nearby statescould mitigate demand growth or evenlevel it off completely. However, evenwith efficiency programs in place, Ari-zona will need new power sources toeventually replace dirty coal-fired power

plants and dangerous nuclear plants asthey are retired.

In this report we examine the outcomeof meeting about two-thirds of Arizona’sprojected growth in electricity consump-tion (as predicted by the EIA) with re-newable energy technology. (See Figure 6.)

Tapping Into Arizona’sRenewable EnergyResourcesArizona is blessed with a large amount ofuntapped renewable energy resources,including more solar energy potentialthan any other state in the U.S. and goodpotential for wind power. In terms of rawpotential, renewable resources could pro-duce almost double the amount of elec-tricity the state currently uses.

These resources include over 300 daysper year of concentrated sunshine, areaswith high average wind speed and areasin the southern half of the state wheregeothermal heat rises relatively close tothe surface of the earth. As shown in table

From Here to There:A Scenario for Clean EnergyDeployment in Arizona through 2020

A Scenario for Clean Energy 27

4, Arizona’s clean energy resources havethe potential to produce over 100,000GWh per year of electricity, while elec-tricity sales in the state currently reacharound 55,000 GWh per year.59

Table 4: Arizona’s RenewableEnergy Resources60

Energy Source ElectricityGenerationPotential(GWh / year)

Solar 101,000

Wind 5,000

Geothermal 5,000

Biomass 1,000

Solar EnergyIn terms of raw resources, Arizona is thesolar energy capital of the United States.With over 300 days per year of sunshine

and a dry, arid climate, Arizona is ideallysuited for generating electricity from thesun.

There are two major solar energy tech-nologies used to generate electricity: so-lar photovoltaic cells (solar PV), and solarthermal systems.

Solar PV technology takes the energyof the sun’s rays and transforms it directlyinto electricity. Flat-plate solar PV sys-tems can be installed in a centralizedpower system managed by a utility com-pany, or mounted on the rooftops ofhomes and buildings distributed across anurban area. PV cells can even be built intobuilding materials like roofing or siding.Some solar PV systems use concentrat-ing lenses to increase the energy of thelight reflected on the cells before turn-ing it into electricity.61

Solar thermal systems use the sun’sheat to generate electricity. Sunlight,sometimes concentrated by mirrors, heatsa liquid that is then used to move a pis-ton or turbine and generate electricity.California has nearly 10 operating solarthermal power plants using parabolic

Figure 6: A Scenario for Renewable Energy Deployment

Ari

zon

a El

ectr

icit

y D

eman

d (

GW

h)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

Electricity Sales Forecast

Renewable Energy


trough mirrors to focus sunlight on col-umns of liquid. Arizona Public ServiceCo. just installed a similar facility northof Tucson. Other types of solar thermalpower plants include large power towerswith a field of mirrors and smaller-scaledish systems with Stirling engines. Fu-ture solar thermal systems will achieveincreased efficiency and output throughthe use of energy storage systems thatallow electricity generation even duringperiods of low sunlight.62

Solar power in Arizona has the poten-tial to produce over 100,000 GWh ofelectricity per year.63

Wind EnergyArizona has moderate wind resources,concentrated north and southeast of Flag-staff, as well as in the Kingman area.

Wind energy is harnessed with windturbines, which can be hundreds of feettall and reach generation capacities of 1.5MW or more. Modern wind turbines takeadvantage of technology from lightweightaerospace materials to innovative low-speed

generators. New innovations continue toimprove their efficiency and will enablethe effective use of wind in areas withslower average wind speeds in the nearfuture.65

Wind energy could produce up to 5million MWh per year in the state. 66

Biomass and Geothermal PotentialBiomass and geothermal together holdmodest potential to supply electricity inArizona, up to 6 million MWh per year.

Geothermal systems use the earth’sheat to generate electricity. The mostcommon geothermal systems tap under-ground reservoirs of hot water to gener-ate steam, turn a turbine, and produceelectricity. Suitable locations for geother-mal plants are characterized by relativelyshallow access to the earth’s heat and arefound most frequently in the southernhalf of the state.68 These resources couldgenerate as much as 5 million MWh ofelectricity per year.

The category of biomass encompassesmany types of “waste-to-energy” tech-nologies and energy crops used to gener-ate electricity. As an arid state withrelatively little agriculture, biomass inArizona has correspondingly low poten-tial as an electricity source. However, Ari-zona could profit from burning landfillmethane to generate electricity, insteadof allowing it to leak into the atmosphere,where it acts as a potent global warminggas. Other opportunities exist to use cropbyproducts as fuel. Altogether, biomassin the state could produce about 1 mil-lion MWh of electricity per year.69

Some types of biomass technologiesshould not be considered clean or renew-able, including municipal solid waste,rubber tire and construction debris incin-erators, which can release dangerous pol-lutants from the combustion of plasticsand chemicals. For a definition of accept-able biomass fuels, please see page 39.

A solar-thermal power plant.

Pho

to: N

RE

L

A Scenario for Clean Energy 29

Figure 8: Wind Energy Resources in Arizona67

A site with wind class four or above is well-suited for a wind turbine, while new technologiespromise to make class three sites more accessible in the near future.

Figure 7: Annual Solar Radiation Intensity in the Southwest – Ideal for SolarPower64

Flagstaff

Phoenix

Tucson

Wind Class

12345-7


Investing in renewable energy wouldgive a boost to Arizona’s economy, cre-ate thousands of jobs and increase

wages, and save water, all while improv-ing public health.

The Arizona Corporation Commis-sion (a board of elected officials whoregulate Arizona’s electric utilities) hastaken several steps to promote clean, re-newable energy, but much more remainsto be done.

In 2001, the commission adopted a ruleto require the state’s utilities to produce1.1 percent of their energy from renew-able sources by 2007. Last year, the com-mission initiated a public dialogue toevaluate the possibility of increasing therequired percentage of clean energy.

In January 2005, staff advisors for thecommission released a report recom-mending extending the renewable energystandard to 5 percent by the year 2015and 15 percent by the year 2025, with 20percent coming from solar sources andone-quarter from distributed energysources. This path would produce ben-efits for the state. However, it does notfully take advantage of all of the oppor-tunities to improve Arizona’s economy,

Policy Recommendations:Renewing Arizona’s Economy

help rural areas, conserve water, improvepublic health, and protect the state fromthe economic impact of reliance on fossilfuels.

To capture more fully the benefits ofrenewable energy, Arizona officialsshould:

1. Adopt an AcceleratedRenewable Energy StandardThe Arizona Corporation Commis-sion should implement a program toincrease our use of renewable energysources, including wind, solar, andgeothermal power, by at least 1 per-cent each year, resulting in 10 percentrenewable energy by 2015 and 20 per-cent by 2020.

A clean energy standard set at this levelwould be reasonable and achievable. Itwould create economies of scale, spurinnovation, and establish dedicated mar-kets to support the deployment of renew-able energy technologies and diversifyArizona’s electricity supply. Renewableenergy industries would be able to buildfrom this initial boost to achieve higher

Policy Recommendations 31

levels of market penetration with less as-sistance in the future.

Arizona’s current modest renewablesrequirement does not have an enforce-ment provision. Utilities that fail to meetthe requirement face no consequences.The accelerated program should haveaccountability provisions to ensure thatutilities meet the requirement.

The renewable energy standard shouldalso ensure that unacceptably dirty ordangerous forms of energy are not in-cluded. For example, municipal solidwaste incineration should not be includedin the definition of “biomass” or consid-ered renewable.

Finally, the renewable energy standardshould require utilities to acquire all cost-competitive renewable energy resourceswhen searching for new capacity to meetelectricity demand. In other words, therenewable energy standard should not actas a cap on renewable energy development.

Four of the states that border Arizonahave already taken similar steps to kick-start their renewable energy markets andrealize the economic development, pub-lic health and environmental potential ofrenewable power. Most recently, Colo-rado voters passed a renewable energystandard in the 2004 elections, ensuringthat their electric utilities will invest incleaner energy supplies and improve therural economy. Nevada has passed a re-newable energy standard that increases 2percent per year through 2013, with astrong program to promote solar energy.New Mexico recently set a renewable

energy standard of 10 percent by the year2011. Finally, California has the most ag-gressive renewable energy program in theUnited States, and is moving to take ad-vantage of a global market for clean en-ergy technology.

Arizona should join these states withan accelerated plan to invest in clean, re-newable energy.

2. Ensure Municipal ElectricUtilities and Electric DistrictsInvest in Renewable EnergyMunicipal electric utilities (including theSalt River Project) and electric districtsare outside the jurisdiction of the ArizonaCorporation Commission. Arizona’sleaders should ensure that these enti-ties participate in renewable energydeployment on an accelerated sched-ule as well, since their participationwill enhance the benefit to the state.

Pho

to: C

. Dec


The Arizona PIRG Education Funddeveloped an Arizona-specific en-ergy and economic model to project

the specific economic and public healthimpacts of renewable energy deploymenton an accelerated schedule. The modelemploys input-output economic prin-ciples and is based on statistics that de-scribe the production and exchange ofgoods and services within the various sec-tors of the Arizona economy, as providedby the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.(MIG), with all dollar results reported asthe equivalent of 2002 values.70 When se-lecting assumptions, we consciously choseconservative values, and the results aregenerally consistent with a large numberof state-level studies that have been car-ried out previously.71 This approach al-lows a meaningful comparison of baselineprojections of energy consumption andprices with changes driven by clean en-ergy policies.72

Establishing theDefault PathWe first established a baseline forecast forenergy development in Arizona from

2005 to 2020. This default path served asthe point of comparison with the cleanenergy alternative.

In general, the baseline forecast wasestablished using the most recent statis-tics from the U.S. Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) for Arizona’s elec-tricity sector, forecast to 2020 using thetrajectory set in the regional tables ofEIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2004.73 Forexample, EIA forecasts a 2.5 percent an-nual growth rate for electricity sales inthe mountain region, which, when ap-plied to Arizona, yields the electricitysales forecast shown in Figure 6.

We made similar forecasts for electric-ity prices, natural gas consumption, coalconsumption, power plant heat rates andpower plant environmental performance,based on EIA data.

Macroeconomic forecasts for Arizonaunder the business as usual path, includ-ing GSP, employment and wages, werecalculated from EIA’s Annual Energy Out-look 2004, scaled to Arizona using the stateand U.S. economic forecasts published byWoods and Poole Economics, Inc.74 Ingeneral, EIA forecasts assume that futureelectricity needs will be supplied by a mix-ture of current fossil-fired technologies and

Methodology

Methodology 33

new fossil technologies like gasified coal.We additionally assume that the Palo

Verde nuclear power plant will remainoperational during the time frame of theforecast and that no additional nuclearplants will be installed.

Describing the CleanEnergy ScenarioWe developed a plausible scenario forclean energy deployment that would bedriven by a renewable energy standardrequiring 10 percent of electricity salesto come from clean and renewablesources by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.The scenario assumes the following:

• Solar technologies will initiallysupply 8 percent of the requiredrenewable energy and graduallyincrease to 20 percent of the requiredrenewable energy as the technologiesmature and costs decline;

• Wind energy resources will bedeveloped relatively quickly untilproduction reaches 5 million MWhper year.

• Biomass and geothermal generationwill increase until production reachesroughly 1.5 million MWh/year and 2million MWh/year, respectively.

• The balance of resources will comefrom out of state, because givenavailable transmission, only somelow-cost renewable energy could beimported into Arizona to meet thestandard; and

• Capital costs and operation, mainte-nance and fuel costs of each technol-ogy will decline as the technologiesmature.75

Figure 9 graphs the development of amix of technologies stimulated by theclean energy standard. Future growthbeyond this point would be dominatedby solar energy technologies, whichwould have excellent momentum afterthe initial stimulus driven by the cleanenergy standard. To the extent that tech-nology advancements in wind power al-low development of areas with sloweraverage wind speeds, wind power couldplay an expanded role in Arizona’s futureas well.

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

Wind

Solar PV

Solar Thermal

Biomass

Geothermal

Out of State

Figure 9: Arizona Clean Energy Scenario

An

nua

l Gen

erat

ion

(G

Wh

)


Modeling the Impact ofClean Energy Developmentin ArizonaRenewable energy deployment wouldrequire a change in investments in tech-nology, energy prices, energy expendi-tures, and program costs. We estimatedthese expenditures based on the antici-pated capital, operations, maintenanceand fuel costs for renewable energy tech-nologies. We then mapped the change inexpenditures and prices into theIMPLAN-derived state energy and eco-nomic model to estimate macroeconomicimpacts as compared to the baseline“business as usual” scenario. Investmentin renewable energy supplies based inother states was assumed to have zero im-pact on the Arizona state economy. For amore complete description of the state-specific models from which the Arizona-specific model was derived, see the shortworking paper, “Modeling State EnergyPolicy Scenarios,” available from PIRG.76

Key AssumptionsKey assumptions used in the economicmodeling are as follows:

Generation Costs:See Table below.

Local Impacts:To take into account the fact that eco-nomic activity for manufacturing is notnecessarily tied to Arizona, we assumethat 60 percent of all expenses for renew-able technology, including financing andongoing operation and maintenance, willbe local.

Local Program Spending 0.60

Local Investment 0.60

Local Respending /Savings Ratio 0.75

Price Dynamics:We assumed that the renewable energystandard would have the effect of reduc-ing upward pressure on the price of natu-ral gas, and reducing the price for coal.However, since prices for these fuels areset by a regional and national market,while the policy affects fuel demand onlyin Arizona, the impacts are much smallerthan those for a national renewable en-ergy standard as described on page 17.To the extent that other states adopt re-newable energy standards and reducetheir fuel demand, it will have positive im-pacts on Arizona’s economy. The effectof policies established in other states orat the federal level are not modeled in thisreport.

Generation Costs Renewables Utility Base New FossilTechnology(eg. Clean Coal)

Investment ($/kW) $1,120 $700 $1,200

O&M ($/kWh) $0.012 $0.008 $0.006

Fuel Cost ($/kWh) $0.008 $0.017 $0.014

Capacity Factor 0.305 0.52 0.8

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) n/a 9600 9200

Learning Rate per year 0.98 0.98 0.98

Initial Cost ($/kWh) $0.082 $0.048 $0.045

Air Emissions Rate 0% 100% 18.2%

Appendix 35

Note On Electricity Units

Megawatts (MW) are the standardmeasure of a power plant’s gen-erating capacity, or the amount

of power it could produce if operating atfull speed. Utilities measure their abilityto supply demand on the grid at any onetime in terms of MW. One MW equals1,000 kilowatts (kW). One thousand MWequals one gigawatt (GW).

Power plant output and electricity con-sumption over a fixed length of time aremeasured in terms of megawatt-hours(MWh). For example, a 50 MW powerplant operating at full capacity for one hourproduces 50 MWh of electricity. If thatplant operates for a year at full capacity,it generates 438,000 MWh of electricity(50 MW capacity x 8,760 hours/year). Togive a sense of scale, an average householduses about 10 MWh of electricity each year.

Most plants do not operate at full ca-pacity all the time; they may be shut downfor maintenance or they may be operatedat only part of their maximum generat-ing potential because their power is notneeded or their power source (such as

wind) is not available. The actual amountof power that a plant generates comparedto its full potential is reported as its ca-pacity factor. Thus a 50 MW plant witha 33 percent capacity factor would pro-duce 144,540 MWh of electricity in a year(50 MW x 8,760 hours/year x 33% ca-pacity factor).

Arizona’s CurrentElectricity MixOver 99% percent of Arizona’s electric-ity comes from dirty, dangerous, and un-sustainable sources, including largehydropower dams and power plants fu-eled by coal, natural gas, or radioactiveuranium.

Figure 10 shows the fraction of thestate’s electricity supplied by differentenergy sources over the last seven years.As shown in the figure, coal-fired powerplants remain the largest source of elec-tricity in the state, accounting for 40 per-cent of all generation. The Palo Verdenuclear power plant ranks as the second-largest source of electricity, generating 30

Appendix


percent. Since 1998, natural gas has be-come a much more significant part of thestate’s energy mix, now accounting for 20percent of electricity generation. Hydro-power generation produces about 8 per-cent of the state’s electricity. Only 1percent of electricity comes from othersources, including renewable energytechnologies.

Arizona generates roughly 50 percentmore energy than it needs. The excess

energy is exported to neighboring states.However, electricity use within Arizonahas been climbing rapidly, faster than in-state electricity generation. Arizona’selectricity demand climbed 3.9% be-tween 1993 and 2002, as compared to2.1% for in-state generation during thesame period.78 (See Figure 11). The salesgrowth scenario used in this report fol-lows a more modest 2.5% annual growthrate in electricity sales.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 10: Sources of Arizona’s Electricity from 1998 Through 200377

Over 99% of Arizona’s electricity comes from fossil fuels, nuclear power, or harmful largedams. In the last five years, natural gas has become a significant source of electricity inArizona, exposing consumers to greater fluctuations in energy prices due to dwindling supplies.

Figure 11: Historical Growth in Arizona Electricity Demand

An

nua

l Gen

erat

ion

(G

Wh

)El

ectr

icit

y Sa

les

(GW

h)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

() Other

Hydropower

Natural Gas

Nuclear

Coal

Appendix 37

Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy: Detailed Tables

Table A1: Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Development Scenario by Year

2005 0 $0 $0 0.02006 1,863 $69 $118 0.02007 2,529 $99 $183 1742008 3,496 $140 $273 5002009 4,253 $177 $363 1,0172010 4,873 $212 $455 1,7392011 5,367 $246 $550 2,6552012 5,696 $277 $644 3,7932013 5,903 $306 $740 5,1622014 5,961 $334 $836 6,7742015 7,098 $389 $982 8,6332016 7,420 $430 $1,110 10,9142017 7,508 $468 $1,239 13,5272018 7,340 $504 $1,368 16,3832019 6,926 $537 $1,496 19,4812020 6,165 $567 $1,620 22,882

Table A2: Public Health and Consumer Impacts of Renewable Energy Development

2005 0 0 0.0 $0.002006 0 0 0.0 $0.722007 531 479 0.3 $1.072008 1,489 1,337 1.0 $1.552009 2,955 2,654 1.9 $2.002010 5,006 4,492 3.3 $2.432011 7,600 6,839 5.0 $2.842012 10,762 9,714 7.1 $3.222013 14,503 13,093 9.7 $3.612014 18,877 17,017 12.7 $3.982015 23,909 21,489 16.3 $4.782016 30,117 26,996 20.8 $5.402017 37,525 33,441 26.3 $6.002018 46,085 40,930 32.6 $6.572019 55,769 49,321 40.0 $7.122020 66,666 58,641 48.4 $7.62

CumulativeWater Savings

(BillionGallons)

Total NetJobs Created

(Person-Years)

Increase inWages Paid(Net PresentValue, Million2002 Dollars)

Increase in GrossState Product(Net PresentValue, Million2002 Dollars)Year

Total NOxEmissionsAvoided(Tons)

Total SOxEmissionsAvoided(Tons)

Total CO2EmissionsAvoided

(Million Tons)

Estimated Increasein Energy Costs for

the AverageResidential

Electricity User(2002 $/month)Year


Key Economic Multipliers for Arizona

Table A3: Type 1 Multipliers for the Arizona Economy79

Agriculture 16.2 0.332 0.755 1.54%

Oil and Gas Extraction 11.4 0.188 0.626 2.66%

Coal mining 6.7 0.364 0.750 2.66%

Other Mining 8.4 0.379 0.798 2.66%

Electric Utilities 3.9 0.256 0.812 2.80%

Natural gas distribution 5.1 0.241 0.476 3.40%

Construction 13.4 0.467 0.708 2.00%

Manufacturing 8.3 0.416 0.647 2.30%

Wholesale trade 9.9 0.473 0.886 1.50%

TPU 13.6 0.542 0.784 2.80%

Retail Trade 19.5 0.489 0.900 1.50%

Services 17.0 0.463 0.837 0.40%

Finance 10.6 0.421 0.800 1.50%

Government 11.5 0.504 0.945 0.40%

SECTOR

Type IMultiplier

Employment(Per $MM of

Final Demand)

Type IMultiplier

Compensation(Per Dollar

of FinalDemand)

Type IMultiplier

Value-Added(Per Dollar

of FinalDemand)

LaborProductivity

Growth(Percent/

Year)

Appendix 39

Definition of Clean BiomassSome technologies categorized as “biomass” are actually toxic and should be avoided,including waste and tire incineration. Arizona PIRG Education Fund considers thedefinition of clean biomass to be:

A. Any plant-derived organic matter available on a renewable basis

B. Non-hazardous plant matter waste material that is segregated from otherwaste materials and is derived from:

1. an agricultural crop, crop by-product or residue resource

2. waste such as landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings or small diameterforest thinnings, but not including:

a. municipal solid waste

b. recyclable post-consumer waste paper

c. painted, treated, or pressurized wood

d. wood contaminated with plastic or metals

e. tires

C. Gasified animal waste

D. Digester gas

E. Biogases and biofuels derived, converted or processed from plant or animalwaste organic materials

F. Landfill methane.

Any biomass combustion must meet the best available control technologies for emis-sions. Preference should be given for gasified biomass technologies.


1. Tucson Electric Power Company, Greenwatts,(Real Time Display of Springerville Output),available at www.greenwatts.com, viewed on 19February 2005.2. Multipliers derived from: MinnesotaIMPLAN Group, 2002 Data for the State ofArizona, Stillwater, Minnesota, 2005.3. For example, Arizona consumes 600 timesmore natural gas than it produces: U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, Energy Information Adminis-tration, Arizona Natural Gas Summary, down-loaded from EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator atwww.eia.doe.gov on 19 February 2005.4. Mark Hope, Arizona Department of Com-merce, 2000 Energy Dollar Flow Analysis for theState of Arizona, August 2002.5. Daniel Kammen and Kamal Kapadia,Employment Generation Potential of Renewables to2010, 2002.6. Renewable Energy Policy Project, The WorkThat Goes Into Renewable Energy, November2001.7. Center for Business Research, Arizona StateUniversity, for the Arizona Department ofCommerce, High-Technology Activities in Arizona,September 2003.8. See note 4.9. See note 5.10. Texas SEED Coalition and Public Citizen,Renewable Resources: The New Texas EnergyPowerhouse, September 2002.

11. See note 6.12. See note 10.13. Reports using a variety of methods andconditions all reach the same conclusion. SeeDaniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, andMatthias Fripp, University of California,Berkeley, Putting Renewables to Work: How ManyJobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? 13April 2004; see also Skip Laitner and MarshallGoldberg, for Land and Water Fund of theRockies, National Renewable Energy Labora-tory and Arizona State Energy Office, ArizonaEnergy Outlook 2010, Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy Technologies as an EconomicDevelopment Strategy, July 1997.14. Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, andMatthias Fripp, University of California,Berkeley, Putting Renewables to Work: How ManyJobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? 13April 2004.15. See note 6.16. M. Brower, et al., Union of ConcernedScientists, Powering the Midwest: Renewable Electri-city for the Economy and the Environment, 1993.17. Lease payments range between 2% to morethan 10% of yearly gross revenues, dependingupon competing land uses (National WindCoordinating Committee, The Effect of WindEnergy Development on State and Local Economies,Wind Energy Series #5, January 1997, availableat www.nationalwind.org); an assumed leasepayment of 2.5% is common (see National

Notes

Notes 41

Wind Coordinating Committee, The Effect ofWind Energy Development on State and LocalEconomies, Wind Energy Series #5, January 1997;AWEA, Texas SEED Coalition and PublicCitizen, Renewable Resources: The New TexasEnergy Powerhouse, September 2002).18. AWEA estimates that Pennsylvania farmerscould earn $2000-$3000 per turbine per year,possibly assuming smaller capacity turbines.AWEA, Wind Energy Is Good for Pennsylvania’sEconomy, downloaded from www.awea.org/pennsylvania/documents/economy_pa.PDF, 15February 2004.19. Assuming that the facilities are installed at2005 prices, that 25% of the value of the facilityis taxable, and that the tax incentive cited in note20 is applied. In 2000, Apache County had a netassessed primary valuation of $324 million andYuma County had a net assessed primaryvaluation of $537 million. Arizona Departmentof Revenue, 2000 Annual Report.20. Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 42,Chapter 14, Title 155.21. Tax income is reported in $2002 dollars,representing total payments from 2005 through2020. The value reported here follows from therenewable energy development scenariodescribed in the methodology section andassumptions that each facility depreciates on alinear schedule over a 25 year useful life, that25% of market value is the assessed value, andthat the average property tax rate is 12.5% of theassessed value per year. Market value is 20% ofthe depreciated cash value through 2011. After2011, valuation reverts to the standard applied toother electricity generating facilities: in the firstfour years the market value is a fraction of thedepreciated cash value: 35% in year one, 51% inyear two, 67% in year three, 83% in year four,and 100% in the following years. See ArizonaRevised Statues, Section 42, Chapter 14, Titles151 to 158.22. Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger and Matt St.Clair, U.S. Department of Energy, LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory, Easing theNatural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Pricesthrough Increased Deployment of Renewable Energyand Energy Efficiency, LBNL-56756, January 2005.23. Ibid.24. For details, see Database of State Incentivesfor Renewable Energy, www.dsireusa.org.25. National Conference of State Legislatures,Energy and Electric Utilities, Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, Arizona State Fact Sheet, 2004.

26. William Marcus and Greg Ruszovan, JBSEnergy, Inc., prepared for the National Associa-tion of Energy Service Companies and Pace LawSchool Energy Project, Mid-Atlantic States CostCurve Analysis, 18 September 2002.27. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002 Data forthe State of Arizona, Stillwater, Minnesota, 2005.28. See note 4.29. Juliet Eilperin, “Arid Arizona Points toGlobal Warming as Culprit,” The WashingtonPost, 6 February 2005.30. Ellen Baum, et al. Clean Air Task Force andthe Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, TheLast Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the AridWest, April 2003.31. Ellen Baum, et al. Clean Air Task Force andthe Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, TheLast Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the AridWest, April 2003; Ole von Uexküll, RockyMountain Institute, Exploring The RelationshipBetween Energy and Water, RMI Newsletter,Spring 2005; based on PH Gleick, “Water andEnergy” Annual Review of Energy and Environ-ment 19:267–299, 1994.32. Figures apply to the Luz System type ofsolar thermal power plant.33. Phoenix-area households use about 180gallons per day of water, and the city of Phoenixhosts 465,834 households; Household figurederived from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000Census data for Phoenix.34. C. Pope et al., “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmo-nary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure toFine Particulate Air Pollution,” Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 287: 1132-1141,2002; A. Peters et al., “Increased Particulate AirPollution and the Triggering of MyocardialInfarction,” Circulation 103: 2810-2815, 2001; J.Samet et al., The United States Health EffectsInstitute, The National Morbidity, Mortality, andAir Pollution Study, Part II: Morbidity andMortality from Air Pollution in the United States,Research Report Number 94, June 2000; JoelSchwartz, “Particulate Air Pollution andChronic Respiratory Disease,” EnvironmentalResearch 62: 7-13, 1993; D. Abbey et al., “Long-term Ambient Concentrations of Total Sus-pended Particles, Ozone, and Sulfur Dioxideand Respiratory Symptoms in a NonsmokingPopulation,” Archives of Environmental Health 48:33-46, 1993; Joel Schwartz et al., “ParticulateAir Pollution and Hospital Emergency RoomVisits for Asthma in Seattle,” American Review ofRespiratory Disease 147: 826-831, 1993;


J. Schwartz et al., “Acute Effects of Summer AirPollution on Respiratory Symptom Reporting inChildren,” American Journal of RespiratoryCritical Care Medicine 150: 1234-1242, 1994.35. Abt Associates, Power Plant Emissions:Particulate Matter-Related Health Damages and theBenefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios(June 2004).36. M. Gilmour et al., “Ozone-EnhancedPulmonary Infection with StreptococcusZooepidemicus in Mice: The Role of AlveolarMacrophage Function and Capsular VirulenceFactors,” American Review of Respiratory Disease147: 753-760; I. Mudway and F. Kelley, “Ozoneand the Lung: A Sensitive Issue,” MolecularAspects of Medicine 21: 1-48, 2000.37. M. Lippman, “Health Effects of Ozone: ACritical Review,” Journal of the Air PollutionControl Association 39: 672-695, 1989; I. Mudwayand F. Kelley, “Ozone and the Lung: A SensitiveIssue,” Molecular Aspects of Medicine 21: 1-48, 2000.38. W. McDonnell et al., “Pulmonary Effects ofOzone Exposure During Exercise: Dose-Response Characteristics,” Journal of AppliedPhysiology 5: 1345-1352, 1983.39. R. McConnell et al., “Asthma in ExercisingChildren Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study,”The Lancet 359: 386-391, 2002.40. Arizona Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Air Quality Plans: 8-Hour Ozone,downloaded from www. www.azdeq.gov on 31March 2005; Arizona Department of Environ-mental Quality, Time Line for Maricopa CountyNonattainment Area State Implementation Plan(SIP) Actions under the Clean Air Act Amendmentsof 1990, Revised 24 June 2004.41. Calculation based on a model year 2000vehicle with a NOx emission rate of 38.2 poundsper year: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Average Annual Emissions and FuelConsumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,April 2000.42. 2000 emission levels of NOx: over 100,000tons; 2000 emission levels of SO2: over 70,000tons; Source: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, E-Grid Database, Version 2.01, May2003.43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Global Warming-State Impacts: Arizona, Office ofPolicy, Planning, and Evaluation, September 1997.44. Mitch Tobin, “A Warmer Arizona andSouthwest Chill Scientists to the Bone,” ArizonaDaily Star, 16 February 2005.

45. See note 29.46. Ibid.47. Calculation based on a model year 2000vehicle with a carbon dioxide emission rate of11,450 pounds per year: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Average Annual Emissions andFuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and LightTrucks, April 2000.48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E-Grid Database, Version 2.01, May 2003.49. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Robert P. Clickner,and Catherine C. Bodurow, “Blood OrganicMercury and Dietary Mercury Intake: NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999and 2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112(5), 562-570, April 2004; Kathryn R. Mahaffey,U.S. EPA, Methylmercury: EpidemiologyUpdate, presentation before the Fish Forum,San Diego, January 2004.50. U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Clear TheAir, Reel Danger: Power Plant Mercury Pollutionand the Fish We Eat, August 2004.51. USPIRG Education Fund, Fishing forTrouble, How Toxic Mercury Contaminates OurWaterways and Threatens Recreational Fishing,June 2003.52. 200 fuel assemblies: Arizona Public ServiceCo. 2003 Environmental Health and Safety Report,downloaded from www.pinnaclewest.com/main/pnw/AboutUs/commitments/ehs/2003/environmental/emissions/reporting/default.htmlon 17 February 2005.53. EIA projects an even trajectory for wellheadnatural gas prices, beginning at $3.50 (2002dollars) per thousand cubic feet, and risinggradually to $4.01 in 2014 and $4.40 in 2025.However, in December 2004, prices reached$5.84 in 2002 dollars, already well aboveprojections. Annual prices have exceeded the2025 projection since 2003. Projections: U.S.Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Annual Energy Outlook 2004 withProjections to 2025, January 2004; Actual Prices:U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Prices,Accessed through the Natural Gas Navigator on3 March 2005, available at www.eia.doe.gov.54. Consumption from Energy InformationAdministration, U.S. Department of Energy,Annual Energy Review 2002, 24 October 2003,Table 6.5. Production and number of producingwells from Energy Information Administration,U.S. Department of Energy, Natural GasNavigator, accessed February 2004.

Notes 43

55. Paul Cicio, Industrial Energy Consumers ofAmerica, 41 Month Natural Gas Crisis Has CostU.S. Consumers Over $111 Billion, 19 December2003.56. California Public Utilities Commission,Office of Ratepayer Advocates, The PublicPurpose Energy Efficiency Surcharge: Trends andPatterns in the Costs and Benefits of Utility Adminis-tered Energy Efficiency Programs, 8 March 2000.57. RAND Corporation, The Public Benefit ofCalifornia’s Investments in Energy Efficiency,March 2000.58. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Annual EnergyOutlook 2004 with Projections to 2025, Supple-mental Table 8: Energy Consumption by Sourceand Sector (Mountain), January 2004.59. Energy Information Administration, U.S.Department of Energy, Current and HistoricalMonthly Retail Sales, Revenues, and AverageRevenue per Kilowatthour by State and by Sector,downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html on 16 February 2005.60. Land and Water Fund of the Rockies,Northwest SEED, Greeninfo Network,Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to theRegion’s Resource Potential, 2002.61. U.S. Department of Energy and the ElectricPower Research Institute, Renewable Energy Technol-ogy Characterizations, Chapter 6, December 1997.62. Ibid.63. See note 60.64. Map generated using data from the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, downloadedfrom www.nrel.gov/gis on 15 February 2005.65. See note 61.66. See note 60.67. See note 64.68. See note 60.69. Ibid.70. See note 27.71. See e.g., Argonne National Lab andEnvironmental Protection Agency, Engines ofGrowth: Energy Challenges, Opportunities, andUncertainties In the 21st Century, January 2004,available at www.4cleanair.org/ members/committee/ozone/EnginesofGrowth.pdf;Environment California, Renewable Energy andJobs: Employment Impacts of Developing Markets forRenewables in California, July 2003; Kammen, D.,and Kapadia, K., University of California,Berkeley, Employment Generation Potential of

Renewables to 2010, 2002; Hewings, G., Yanai,M., Learner, H., et al., Environmental Law andPolicy Center, Job Jolt: The Economic Impacts ofRepowering the Midwest, 2002; Tellus Institute,Clean Energy: Jobs for America’s Future, October2001; Union of Concerned Scientists, RenewingWhere We Live: A National Renewable EnergyStandard Will Benefit America’s Economy, 2002and 2003; Skip Laitner and Marshall Goldberg,for Land and Water Fund of the Rockies,National Renewable Energy Laboratory andArizona State Energy Office, Arizona EnergyOutlook 2010, Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Technologies as an Economic DevelopmentStrategy, July 1997.72. For an overview of how this methodologymight be typically applied, see Laitner, S.,Bernow, S., and DeCicco, J., “Employment andOther Macroeconomic Benefits of an Innova-tion-Led Climate Strategy for the UnitedStates.” Energy Policy, Volume 26, Number 5,April 1998, pp. 425-433. For an example of astudy that applies this same modeling exercisewithin a state level analysis, see, Nadel, S.,Laitner, S., Goldberg, M., Elliott, N., DeCicco,J., Geller, H., and Mowris, R., AmericanCouncil for an Energy Efficient Economy,Energy Efficiency and Economic Development inNew York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Wash-ington, DC, 1997.73. Energy Information Administration, U.S.Department of Energy, Individual State Data:Arizona, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/main_az.html, 19 February 2005;Energy Information Administration, U.S.Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook2004 with Projections to 2025, SupplementalTables: (Mountain Region), January 2004.74. Woods & Poole Economics, Arizona: 2004Data Pamphlet, Washington, DC, 2004.75. See note 61.76. Modeling State Energy Policy Scenarios, aworking document prepared for U.S. PIRG byEconomic Research Associates, Alexandria, VA,January 2005.77. Data derived from: U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration,Form EIA-906 and EIA-920 Databases, January -December 2003, downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov on 17 February 2003.78. Energy Information Administration, U.S.Department of Energy, State Electricity Profiles2002: Arizona, available at www.eia.doe.gov.79. See note 27.

Har

riet

Eck

stein

Gra

phic

Des

ign

Arizona PIRG Education Fund130 N. Central Ave., Suite 311Phoenix, AZ 85004

Phone: (602) 252-9227Email: [email protected]

the clean energy path to jobs and economic growth€¦ · the economic development potential of...

Documents