Economics

State Could Create 1 Million New Jobs in Transition to Clean Economy

As California transitions to a greener economy, new jobs can be created while other jobs will be lost.

Published

5 years ago

June 16, 2021

Isabelle Price

Headshot of Robert Pollin

As California’s economy reopens, numerous labor union representatives at a news conference on June 10 demanded a safe and equitable transition to the green economy for workers.

Union members made their demands virtually at the conference, also sharing their thoughts on a new related report on California jobs by researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

The research, led by economics professor Robert Pollin, says California can create 1 million new jobs a year through 2030 by investing in energy efficiency, clean renewable energy, manufacturing/infrastructure, and land restoration/agriculture.

“Our study shows how to get there,” Pollin said.

As California transitions to a greener economy, new jobs can be created while other jobs will be lost.

The report says $76 billion is needed to create 416,000 jobs in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy while $62 billion is needed to create 626,000 jobs in manufacturing/infrastructure and land restoration/agriculture.

Pollin said about 112,000 workers are employed in California’s fossil fuel and bioenergy industries and about 58,000 are expected to lose their jobs by 2030 as those two industries contract and coal use ends.

The damage may be most severe in Kern, Contra Costa, and Los Angeles counties, where 50% of all fossil fuel job losses will occur when the state’s fossil fuel industry contracts, according to the study.

But about 350,000 a year can be created with the investments that Pollin’s team suggests.

About 320,000 of those will be created in Los Angeles County.

Some of the money from the $138 billion to be invested would go toward helping those out of work train and relocate, if needed, to new jobs, according to the report.

About half or $70 billion of the total investment would come from public coffers while the other half would come from private investors.

If President Joseph Biden gets the American Jobs Plan passed, it could provide $40 billion a year for clean energy and infrastructure investments in California, covering about 60% of the $70 billion that may need to come from public funding.

“The Congressional THRIVE Agenda would provide about $100 billion per year for the clean energy, infrastructure/manufacturing and land restoration/agriculture programs we describe,” the researchers said.
Also, the state can borrow to supplement federal funding.

Union members who spoke at the news conference were excited about the prospect for 1 million new jobs, but they want them to be good-paying, union jobs.

Some union members were sober about the prospect of the fossil fuel industry coming to an end.
Norman Rogers, vice president of the United Steelworkers Local 675 said working at a refinery it’s hard not to see the writing on the wall with cars like the Prius and Teslas on the road.

“Now is the time for an equitable transition,” he said.

He wants to make sure workers nearing retirement, those at the mid-career level and newcomers are taken care of.

Dave Campbell, secretary-treasurer for Local 675, said they are prepared to take Pollin’s work to Gov. Gavin Newsom to discuss “securing the funding for this disaster relief and recovery package for fossil fuel workers, in this budget cycle.”

Isabelle Price

Posts by Isabelle Price

Up Next

Buddy Bolden: The Forgotten Father of Jazz

Don't Miss

City Selects Ayodele Nzinga as Inaugural Poet Laureate

Isabelle Price

Click to comment

Business

California Launches Study on Mileage Tax to Potentially Replace Gas Tax as Republicans Push Back

Under current law, California depends heavily on revenue from the gas tax to fund roads, highways, and infrastructure, but those revenues are projected to shrink as electric vehicle use grows and overall gasoline consumption drops. The mileage study would look at a “road charge” system where drivers pay based on how many miles they drive, rather than how much gas they buy.

Published

18 hours ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City is the author of AB 1421. File photo.

By Tanu Henry, California Black Media

California lawmakers are moving forward with a study to explore a mileage-based tax as a potential replacement for the state’s traditional gas tax — a shift supporters say is driven by declining fuel tax revenues as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

The research, tied to Assembly Bill (AB) 1421, would extend and support work by the state’s Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee through 2035.

The bill does not yet enact a new tax. Instead, it extends the study and advisory work until 2035 and would have the Legislature receive findings and recommendations, with a report due by Jan. 1, 2027.

Republicans in the California Legislature have been vocal in their opposition. Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora criticized the proposal.

“We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation. Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive,” Flora said. “Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.”

The plan has drawn broader GOP criticism from leaders outside the Legislature as well. California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called a mileage fee “absolutely outrageous” and said, if elected, he would veto the tax, adding that tracking and charging drivers for every mile is unacceptable.

Supporters say the study is a pragmatic response to long-term funding challenges.

On the Assembly Floor on Jan. 29, Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), the bill’s author, said that California’s transportation funding is “becoming less stable, less equitable, and less sustainable as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and zero-emission vehicles.”

“Drivers using the same roads often pay different amounts for that use,” Wilson continued. “Low income and rural commuters who must drive farther and less efficient vehicles can pay more while others contribute less despite roadway impacts.”

Wilson and other supporters contend that a per-mile road charge could ensure that all drivers contribute fairly to the costs of maintaining roads, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.