Big Solar vs. Big Labor

Union labor has been suffering over the last few decades, strained in the face of free trade agreements and outsourcing. Now a new green-collar economy is on the rise, rife with potential for jobs that cannot be outsourced and a voracious demand for skilled tradesmen. Unions are pressing for a large stake in that economy. Photo credit: CURE

Nationally, that push has led to a so-called blue-green alliance, in which unions and environmental groups have teamed up to press the clean energy issue — environmentalists get clean energy and an army of “enforcers” while unions get high-quality green collar jobs and increased membership. It is a win-win situation. But in California, America’s solar frontier, that alliance is being tested. Tensions are beginning to rise, and accusations tossed about, as union leaders press hard for inclusion in the many large-scale energy projects on the state’s docket.

The tension in California rises from implications that labor organizations, under the guise of environmental stewardship, are attacking and delaying only those large solar projects that refuse to sign a project labor agreement. In fact the unions — as part of California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) — have been quite effective in halting solar projects, much to the ire of well known solar firms such as Ausra, which was met with a slew of environmental “data requests” before a proposed solar plant could go forward.

Contrarily, when BrightSource Energy, which pledged to hire union-friendly contractors, wanted to move forward on an even bigger solar power plant in California’s Mojave Desert, CURE made no complaint. This apparent double standard has set off a fight between Big Solar and Big Labor in California, a fight that could set the stage for renewable energy construction nationwide.

Big Solar vs. Big Labor

The unions want in on the rising green economy. They want a solid foothold on their way to regaining some muscle in blue collar politics and policy. Big Solar wants to maximize profit by limiting labor costs. It is a battle of economic proportions, with environment being wielded as a sword by labor groups and solar companies alike.

Leaders of CURE insist that they hold the environment in high regard on any project, union or non-union, professing that they work with companies who hire union friendly contractors but must fight against those who will not. That fight has garnered support for unions from many environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.

The default judgement for environmental groups seems to be that, self-serving or not, Big Labor’s pressure on Big Solar projects is promoting the general good.

Union scrappiness, however, is not gaining favor among industry groups such as the Associated Builders and Contractors of California, whose state government affairs director, Kevin Dayton, calls coercive union tactics “greenmail.” Companies such as Ausra and groups such as Mr. Dayton’s even claim that unions are a threat to the solar power movement as a whole.

“The future of solar energy is jeopardized by these unions holding up construction,” said Mr. Dayton, noting that project labor agreements can raise costs on a project by 20 percent.

Or as some might see it, they want to pay non-union employees 20 percent less (factoring in healthcare, pensions, etc.). As Bob Balgenorth, chairman of CURE, put it: “You only have so much land that can accept solar power plants. So the question is, should that land be used for low-paid jobs or should that land be used for high-paid jobs?”

Blue Vs. Green?

That is where the strain exists between union groups and big solar companies. The strain in the “blue-green alliance” is rising from environmental groups caught in the middle. On one hand the labor unions’ strict attention to environmental detail is gaining powerful allies, but some environmental groups, in the rush to expand our renewable energy infrastructure, are siding with business groups. The source of tension is not hard to find.

Still environmental groups are reluctant to speak out against labor groups directly, most notably CURE, because of the long partnership between Union and Environment. CURE members also build conventional power plants in California and have played a key role in assuring that these plants meet set emissions requirements. In other words, union labor has served as a sort of front-lines regulator of California energy projects. In fact, I would posit that the so-called strain in the blue-green alliance is a bit overblown. All evidence from the New York Times article (source for this post) points to an industry-union tension, and while some environmental groups may side with business, most hold true to their essential mission.

At the same time I would challenge environmental groups to remain independent enough to ensure that the union is holding up the environmental end of its bargain. This writer is generally pro-union labor because I believe that organization is the best way to ensure an all-inclusive green economy, enabling people of all economic stations to live comfortably and healthily, with the full potential to support and educate their family. But by no means should labor groups be given a free ticket like many corporations essentially have had over the last 30 years.

A blue-green alliance should not imply complacency on all things blue or green, and a cooperative advance of employee and environmental rights is not so difficult — good friends keep an eye on each other, even while watching out for each other.