Our friend Emily Zanotti sent along the following on what the “Tailoring Rule” means for Washington State. Democratic State Representative Jeff Morris writes in the Seattle Times:
WITH 9.1 percent unemployment in Washington state, we need to do everything we can to support existing jobs and boost industries that will create new jobs.
However, a new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency — the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule — is expected to hurt between 11,000 and 26,000 green jobs and more than 130 renewable-energy projects. The Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will regulate emissions from the production of renewable biomass power the same as emissions from the production of fossil-fuel power, removing incentives for development and use of biomass, causing needed “green-collar” jobs to disappear and investment in new technologies to dry up.
A new study released by Brooks Mendell of Forisk Consulting, one of the nation’s leading forestry researchers, shows the economic impact of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule on our nation’s economy. According to his findings, we’ll not only lose the jobs and renewable-energy projects, but we’ll also lose $18 billion in capital investment in biomass and other forestry-related industries. Considering that Washington state has more than 10 million acres of private forests — which account for 110,000 jobs statewide — we need to be supporting, not stalling, investment in forestry-related industries and jobs if we want to combat our high unemployment.
Mendell isn’t the only academic who has expressed concerns with the EPA’s targeting of biomass power — he just has the numbers to prove it now. This past summer, 10 Washington state scientists joined more than 90 colleagues from around the nation to send a letter to Congress concerned with the implications of the little-known (and scientifically inaccurate) plan to declassify biomass as a renewable power source.
“The EPA Tailoring Rule … is not consistent with good science and, if not corrected, could stop the development of new emission-reducing biomass energy facilities,” they wrote. “This is counter to our country’s renewable energy and climate mitigation goals.”
The rest here.