 Hi, everyone. We're just going to wait a minute here to let the room fill up. Thank you for joining us. All right, it looks like our numbers are slowing down. So I think we can go ahead and get started. Hello, everyone. My name is Elena Cree. I am a manager at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, or SDSN. Welcome to our webinar today where we are featuring highlights from America's Zero Carbon Action Plan, which was recently published by SDSN USA. So today's session is going to focus on the industrial policy employment and just transition chapter of the report. The Zero Carbon Action Plan was developed over the course of the last year by the Zero Carbon Consortium, which is made up of nearly 100 researchers from across the US. The primary mandate of the project was to articulate a detailed policy pathway to get the US to reach net zero carbon by mid-century and to mitigate emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. So the report itself is anchored in an intensive modeling exercise, which was done by Evolved Energy Research. They used a backcasting exercise to determine the potential least cost pathway to decarbonize the most emissions intensive sectors across the US. So their least cost pathway for the transition serves as the basis on which the rest of the report is written. And you can find that in chapter two of the report, which we'll put in the chat here shortly. So for today, we're going to hear from three authors who work specifically to illustrate the labor transitions based on the energy and infrastructure modeling work. First we're going to hear from the lead author of the chapter, Robert Pollan. He's a distinguished university professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And Professor Pollan is going to give us a background on the methodology used and the results for the American workforce, including what the transition might look like for our fossil fuel industry workers. And we're going to hear from Ellen Scully Russ, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning at the George Washington University. And she's going to cover workforce development education and training programs that are needed to facilitate the transition. And then finally we'll hear from Janet Wicks Lim, Associate Research Professor at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who's going to talk about the tools needed for achieving equitable access to high quality jobs related to the transition. So before we begin, I'd like to let everyone know that this webinar is being recorded and will be available later today on the ZCAP website. So both the recording and actually the slides that you're seeing will be available there and we'll put the link in shortly. And then finally, also mentioning, we're going to have a Q&A session toward the end of the presentations. We ask that you use the Q&A box in the Zoom platform to enter your questions throughout the presentations. And then we're going to ask the presenters to address them in the end. So without further ado, Professor Pollan, would you like to turn on your camera and join us? Yes, thank you very much, Elena. And I also want to thank the other organizers of this project and managers. That was Elena and Cheyenne Maddox and of course Jeff Sachs. I appreciate the opportunity to work with them. And with a very large team of co-workers on this chapter, I'm very happy to have Ellen Scully-Russ and Jeanette Wicks Lim as presenters. But there were, if you read the chapter, you'll see a lot of other names as contributing in various ways. I will just point out one in particular and that's my co-worker here at UMass, Shovik Chakraborty. So our chapter, as Elena said, wants to look at the, well, just transition in general, but we want to look at the employment effects of this model that's developed in chapter two of this large study by Jim Williams and Ryan Jones, that shows the pathway through which the US economy can get to net zero emissions by 2050. So that is going to entail a lot of investments in clean energy activities such as solar power, such as wind power, such as electric vehicles, such as more efficient heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems. And so that's going to create a lot of jobs. So we're going to show the impact unemployment of what it takes to get to the zero emissions goal by 2050. And by the same token, as Elena says, there will be people who are going to be hurt because they're dependent on the fossil fuel economy now. So we're going to look at the impact on jobs for the fossil fuel economy and we're going to describe a just transition for them and briefly also talk about the impact on communities. And before I dive into the numbers, which I will in one second, I want to say that overall finding the magnitude of the job creation from the clean energy investments, it massively swamps the job losses that will happen in the fossil fuel industry. And that's a thing that we can really work with that mean we can create a lot of good jobs. And we can, we can take care of all the people and the communities that will be hurt. So let's go into the numbers. So first slide. So very briefly, as Elena said, I'm not going to go into all the details but I want you to understand that these numbers that we come out with, or you know they're not just coming out of nowhere. We have a methodology. The basic source of data is input output tables, which are basically organizing all the information on economic activity by every enterprise in the US economy. And we are able to out of that set of data, we're able to see how much employment gets created through any energy in the economy, not just clean energy, not just fossil fuel, any activity. And that's our basic source of these results what we call employment output ratios, and we get job creation through three channels. What we call direct jobs, meaning if you're building an electric vehicle, how many people are there at the assembly plant building the vehicle. Those are actually indirect jobs. Those are what we will call supply chain jobs, meaning if we're building electric vehicles well first we have to produce steel we have to produce glass we have to produce rubber tires. So those would be indirect jobs, or in other words supply chain jobs. And the third is multiply induced jobs which are multiplier effects. And that's basic stuff from intro macroeconomics meaning that when you create the direct and indirect jobs, those people have incomes they have money in their pockets, they go out and spend it. And that creates more jobs in turn so that creates jobs for people serving lunch to the people in the in the plant building electric vehicle, for example. Okay, next slide please. So how do we get differences in job creation. The first thing is what we call labor intensity, how many people are working at a given work site, as opposed to how much is being spent on everything else, for example, on buildings on equipment on energy. And the second thing is how much do you pay people. So we obviously are concerned with the quality of jobs, but when you pay more and you have a given budget. Well then you will get fewer jobs so compensation is the third thing. Second thing and then the third thing is domestic content. So if we're building electric vehicles, say, in Michigan, what percentage of all the supply chain products are domestically produced versus imported and I'll show you in a second, we try to control for varying that domestic content under the premise that we want to expand domestic content and get more jobs. So this is how we generate our job estimates. It really has nothing to do with green jobs per se, or dirty jobs per se is number of jobs through spending money to produce anything in any activity. Okay, next. So when we do this we have to. We work from the Williams Jones model to establish what the clean energy activities are within the framework of the input output model that actually took by far the most time of anything else that took actually months. It doesn't show, but it took a long time. Secondly, we're looking at a framework of getting to zero emissions by 2050. So the information we have on how you produce an electric vehicle today is not going to be the same as how you produce an electric vehicle in 2042 or 2047. So we have to incorporate we have to make some assumptions about how much the production methods are going to change over time, and we do. And then the third thing is I've already mentioned, we aren't just interested in jobs, we want them to be good jobs. So focus on job quality in terms of wages, benefits, opportunities for training, equal access, and Ellen and Jeanette are going to give us a lot of useful perspective on those things. Okay, next. So basic finding that we came up with in terms of the working with the Williams Jones model to get us to net zero by 2050. And we're now we're looking at the average number of jobs created year to year 2020 to 2050 to achieve this outcome and you can see we've broken it in terms of direct indirect jobs. And then in the last two columns, we include the induced jobs the multiplier effects. And we estimate these numbers in two ways, assuming that the percentage of imports is exactly what it is right now is our first set of columns. And then we assume, well, let's say we can run this clean energy transition with 100% domestic content how much difference with that make in terms of jobs. So what you can see here is that these are basic results. The basic finding is direct and indirect jobs. We're going to get between 2.3 and 2.1 million jobs. We raise from 2.3 to 2.7 when we increase domestic content when we reduce imports. And then if we add the induced jobs the multiplier effects the spending money from these people who have jobs, we're up to about four and a half million jobs. Depending on your definition, we're looking at job creation on an average annual basis of between two and a half and four and a half million jobs through this project. As you can see here we look at it relative to the size of the labor force. So it's about one and a half percent of the labor force up to about two and a half percent of the labor force. And then we look at it from this clean energy project. So the idea that, you know, when you build a clean energy economy you're going to sacrifice jobs, quite the contrary, we're going to create millions of jobs. Next. Okay, but there will be job losses, and this is very important and we spend a lot of time focusing on that. So we look at the job losses in terms of two time periods, the 21 to 2030 time period, and then 21, 30, 2031 to 2050. Why, because in the Williams Jones model, the major contraction and fossil fuels happens in these two phases. In 2021 to 2030, basically we phase out coal. And we keep most of the oil and gas operations going. And then in 2031 to 2050, we phase out most but not entirely oil and gas. Now here's the critical measures here. What we see is, this is the total workforce as of 2018 and fossil fuels, it's two and a half million people, of which 151,000 are coal mining and related activities, oil and gas, 2.3 million. And the exercise we do though over this period, 20 to 21 to 2030, we say, okay, on an average annual basis, we're going to lose 10% of those jobs. And then we say, yes, but with demographically, some of the workers who are now employed are going to retirement, voluntary retirement. So when we combine the year to year job losses, and, and then weigh that against the voluntary retirements, what we end up in this first phase 21, 20 to 2021 to 2030, we net out 12,000 jobs loss and coal mining, and no job losses and oil and gas. Most of the job losses and oil and gas are going to come in the second phase, but just to emphasize for right now, 12,000 job losses in coal and related activities, weighed against the 4 million jobs per year on average, that are going to be coming out of the clean energy project. Next slide. Yeah. Okay, so now we're looking at the 2130 to 2050 period, and we do the same exercise for oil and gas 21, 2031 to 2050, we take into account annual job losses now over a 20 year period. And we also take into account the fact that some workers are going to come to retirement age and voluntarily retire. I don't assume everybody chooses to retire we do incorporate information the data that we have on the percentage of voluntary retirements. Anyway, what we come out with in this second phase is about 34,000 jobs loss per year. Again, 34,000 jobs loss per year in the phase to with the contraction of oil and gas relative to 4 million jobs on average being created. Okay, next slide. Now we are very focused on the numbers aren't large, right, it's about 12,000 people losing their jobs per year in phase one, and about 34,000 in phase two, we want to make sure each and every one of those workers has a just transition. We're trying to just transition in terms of these three critical features income support retraining, which Ellen is going to talk about more, and relocation income support we assume that anybody who loses their job is going to move into a new job and earn the same wage. If the new job doesn't pay the same, the government program will make them whole retraining. I'll leave that to Ellen but this is obviously if people need to move into new employment areas especially in this rapidly expanding clean energy economy, they need to have the skills, and then relocation we assume some people have to move. Anyway, when you add those up. So what we're looking at in phase one 2021 to 2030 a billion and a half dollars per year total. And in the phase to 3.8 billion total. Now these numbers. This is less than 1 100 of 1% of the average GDP over these periods. These are trivial amounts that can go to supporting the workers that are going to face displacement through this necessary clean energy transition. It's a critical project. Okay, next fit next slide please. I think we also want to look at the impact on communities, because there will be not only the jobs lost in the people, but we are going to see impacts on communities. And again, these impacts matter a lot in the specific communities, but they are a very small and concentrated number of communities. And so that within those communities, we can think about disproportionate support in terms of clean energy in terms of land reclamation and repurposing projects. So just to give you a sense of it, what we have here. We are the states in the United States with 3000 or more employees and coal. So 3000 is again a trivial number, and there's only five states, where there's more than 3000 people working in the industry and as you can see, there's only two states in the United States and Wyoming, in which these this share at constitutes more than 1% of the labor force. So again, we can target West Virginia, Wyoming, and the other states to support them in terms of land reclamation, repurposing. Okay, next. And the same story here with oil and gas of course oil and gas is much bigger industry, but even still what we show here are the share of states with 15,000 or more employees in 2019. And as you can see it's only seven states, and there's only what's a more than these 12345 that are over 3% of the workforce. So, yes, it's going to be a major transition in these states, no doubt. It's manageable numbers. And again, it's something that we can focus on and deliver a just transition in these regions. Next. Okay, so then we want to look at job quality I can't go through all of it, but I just want to give you a broad sense. First, critically in compensation, what we're looking at and I just considering these three areas invest activity in vehicles electric vehicles, equipment and refrigeration, and we're looking at a range of about 70 to $80,000 per year. I have these other data you can see it in the paper but let's just focus on that for now. Yeah, next. And then we also look at other features, including educational levels, and critically what we're also concerned about and what you're next going to talk about more is the representation in terms of communities are people of color and percent female, and the percentage in terms of people of color is about at the national average, but we want to expand those opportunities, but in particular their percentage of female employment and clean energy is extremely low. And so we want to, if we're building up this economy the clean energy economy we have to open it up for people of color and females next please. Let's compare that with fossil fuels. And this is critical. Just on compensation fossil fuel average wage is almost 110,000 you saw it was like 70,000 with the clean energy. So let's acknowledge that these jobs right now are better jobs by wages. And so that when we talk about this transition, we have to recognize yes, it's not a lot, large number of people that are going to lose their jobs, you know, 12,000 30,000, but they're pretty good jobs. And so that for transitioning them into other things, we have to acknowledge this and make sure these people are made whole that is the principle behind the just transition. In terms of the communities of color and female the profile is about the same. It's not any better in the fossil fuel economy. We have to make it better in the clean energy economy. In order to this be a just transition for all people having access to these new opportunities next please. So, finally, I'll just end on this and then turn it to Ellen. There's some interesting survey evidence done on in the expansion of the clean energy economy. There are new skills that people need to be able to be comfortable with. And according to this survey data that was done of firms that are hiring in these areas of energy efficiency, solar electricity and wind electricity. We have a very high proportion of employers saying that they actually have a hard time finding qualified people. And as you can see, these numbers are 7080% are saying that they're having a hard time finding people. Now, maybe you say well that's employers I just like to complain. Maybe, but these are still significant numbers, and they reflect the fact that part of this transition is creating a lot of new opportunities in new activities, and people need to have the training to get to move themselves into these activities. We have to open up these activities for people of color and women, and we have to make sure that the wages are going to be commensurate with what people deserve. And that's the role that we're going to talk about next in Ellen and Jeanette's presentations. Thanks. Thank you, Bob. Ellen, do you want to turn on your camera and Mike and join us I know we're having a little bit of technical up your muted sorry dear. Can you hear me. Yes, you can. You sound good. Thank you. Welcome. Good. Good. Sorry about that. Good afternoon, everybody. Pleasure to join you here today. I'm going to share a little bit about about my work in workforce development. I also had the opportunity to conduct a couple of case studies of the two energy training partnerships funded under the Obama administration and have some lessons learned from those studies that I'd like to share. First, I just really want to contextualize this conversation in where where I think the policy and the politics might might be these days related to to this issue. We saw in 2009, a story of activity under the Obama administration as we all know, big investments in in the green industry. Some based on some of the assumptions that Robert just shared and other assumptions that were were economic assumptions and goals that were were present at the time. All of that as we know died under the Trump administration, but we can rest assured and pretty much bet that in the build back better agenda of Obama and excuse me of Biden and Harris we're going to we're going to see equal if not more investments in this area as well as the training. So I think I think the lessons learned from the last time or are very important because I think they're going to be part of the part of the story and part of the narrative. So we can see that the magnitude of the investments, including the investments in education and training, over one billion across the administration and various programs and various agencies, specifically 500 million for energy training coming out of the Department of Labor to actually fund regional partnership in the green energy sector to be providing a job training and wraparound services to help workers move into green jobs as they became available. And simultaneously or a few years later we saw a lot of bad press related to these investments. Many of the firms that receive large amounts of economic investments of millions of dollars, many of them closed as you might remember, because they just could see their businesses off the ground. The energy training partnerships did not perform well via the DOL criteria. You know, they did not train a year, they were able to train many of the people that they set out to train, but they couldn't place them in green jobs and so therefore they were out of compliance with a lot of their performance measures. And that was across the board that wasn't just some of the partnerships, many of them were having those issues. And so if you, if you, if you Google, you know the Obama green jobs initiative, you're going to, you're going to see things like in the headline failure slow to sprout. And that was the case. That was the case. And I think that there are some systemic reasons for that that we can can learn from in this particular cycle of green jobs investment. Next slide please. So, so based on that particular scenario, as well as other challenges, the context today is that we're living with the legacy of some of the problems in the past, where many of the assumptions around the scale and magnitude of the green economy, never materialized. So the green economy as predicted back then was not brought to scale. Many of the, the investments in say, for example, weatherization skills development for the weatherization efforts coming out of the construction industry. The consumer demand never really picked it up. So you had a bunch of folks who were trained in weatherization skills. But when they weren't when they weren't put to work and weatherization project. They had nowhere else to go, because they were only trained in weatherization skills, they weren't trained in something broader that could be leveraged for other work, for example, the construction industry. We also didn't factor in the fact that many of the other industries that were being invested in, such as manufacturing and housing, for example, were really hit hard by the recession. Obviously, lots of unanticipated events that could really interfere with some of the training plans and targets that that you'll see in a minute while I'm spending some time on this because these are variables that are so important when planning education and training programs and asking people to make the risk the investment of time and money in training is where there's really no job there yet. So we see that, for example, in the clean energy investments, their conversion projects are great. But unless there's something to follow on that actual conversion work and new jobs and new industries taking hold, those skill trade jobs that were involved in the conversion work will soon go away and there's not much to replace them. Many green jobs require a large measure of education and skill, real foundational skills that many of the folks who will be coming out of the fossil fuel sector do not have. And yet our education and training investments do not allow for the long term training that many of them are going to need. And then the uncertainty, this is a big finding in my case study work and speaking with employers, they really wanted to continue in moving forward in their plans to move into the green job sector. But the broader regulatory environment was so uncertain that it made their own personal investments really, really risky. And so the fact that we didn't have, for example, standardized tax incentives that were sort of a matter of law, that they were only in place for a couple of years, really made some of the solar folks really, really sort of gun shy, not being able to pick a winner between sun and wind was also a big problem in some of the reasons where these partnerships were taking hold. So I guess my point is here, these contextual challenges really matter. Next slide please. Because in many efforts that we saw, especially with the ETP and other industries that are presumed to be growing or on the verge of growing. A lot of the trading investments are just out ahead of the job. And that's problematic because the programs get geared up for a variety of different kinds of presumed training needs. People are recruited and they're trained and then they have nowhere to go. And that's very disheartening for the learner and the worker. But it also is very frustrating for the training provider because they geared up to do something that just doesn't work out. And so you have the legacy of this problem in many of the communities that receive green job assessment. And that in and of itself is going to be, I think, something that needs to be factored in, in terms of really mobilizing efforts around the job transition agenda, particularly when it comes to training. The other real challenge that I think many of us who do work in workforce development in the United States know is that the actual workforce development system itself, the education and training system, is quite disjointed and very sort of scattered in terms of its ability to actually respond to opportunities in a growing or shrinking economy on the regional, state, regional, local level. We have a real mix that when it comes to the capacity of communities to respond quickly and effectively to a shifting skills mix in the economic arena and the emerging job. And so absent some real policy interventions to address that problem, particularly in the communities that we have targeted here, the training challenge is going to be very, very difficult to address. I think another thing that we want to acknowledge is that the workforce development system and the adult ed system in this country really is in need of a total rehaul on the policy and programmatic level. We do not invest in long-term training in education for adults and for workers. There are very few opportunities for workers to learn on a continuous basis while they earn. Apprenticeship is a great model for that, but it hasn't really been taken up outside of the construction industry in any systematic way. There are many other ways and models out there. Again, they're not, they're not really very widespread. And I think if you really want to talk about a just transition for people who have had a decent job in the fossil fuel industry, we're going to have to figure out how to allow for them to continue to work in a meaningful job while they it's not for them going to work for them personally, emotionally, socially for them to step out of the workforce or however long it's going to take for them to develop the new skills that they need, then to find a job. I think we need to make it seamless for them. And I think we could also see that the learning would be enhanced and expedited if that were the case. And two other things I want to say about the training challenge is our methodology for actually workforce planning on any level of the system that you want to talk about, local, regional, industrial, state or national. Just really can't keep up with the demand of a rapidly changing economy, you know, sort of workforce development plans are often based on a series of assumptions, not unlike economic assumptions, not unlike what we what we hear in this particular plan, but when we get down on the ground, and we really see how, how these various jobs morph and change and when and how they actually appear and disappear. It's very, very complicated. And so to take sort of higher level predictions and assumptions and bring them down to the local level. It doesn't work in that way. I think we have to work from the top down in the bottom up. We really have to have methodologies that allow for us to account for a wide range of variables that really matter for the supply and the demand of filled labor in any given area. And, and to think about it more sort of cyclical and nonlinear than okay we're going to do this assessment of the job here. Then we're going to pass that information over to the educators. They're going to develop a curriculum and the certification regime, and then they're going to start training workers, and workers are going to get certified and then we'll place them. That's how we think about job trains today. That doesn't work in a rapidly changing, evolving, complicated transitions such as the one that we outlined here. So we really do I think need to get smarter about the workforce planning and training methodologies that we use. We need to get out into firms, talk to employers, involve unions, involve workers, involve educators, all at the same time to really think about how to make sense of the changes that are going on. What are the immediate skill needs? What are the longer skill needs? And start addressing the longer skill needs now. We have a window of opportunity where the predictions are that we really won't be seeing a lot of job loss until 19, 20, 31. We should be working now in those communities to build robust workforce development systems to improve the K through 12 system to develop more alignment between K through 12 to the workforce development systems of the adult education system. So that the workforce is prepared moving into 19, excuse me, 20, 31 with the basic skills that they need to learn any of the technical skills required of the new jobs that may replace the fossil fuel jobs in those communities. So we really have to think about community interventions, rather than training interventions at this particular point in time, because training will result from that from that understanding. But if we lead with we're trying to develop training, we're going to get so bogged down in the past that we're training people for that we're going to lose sight of the bigger picture and the dynamics that are creating the need for an ongoing new skill formation system in the first place. So, so really the point is here, you know, training is not the silver bullet. Yes, people are going to need training and they're going to need retraining, they're going to need certification. But there's so much more work that needs to go into making those programs and strategies effective. And the good news is that we have some time to do it now. But I think it's going to require an all out effort with that being the focus in mind from the start, rather than thinking about it comes sort of late 20s right before the real need hit. So next slide please. So the lessons learned from my research of the employment of the program is that training helped. But what really moved the dime on the on the job quality and the job creation was that the employers actually develop new work systems based on high quality job and and high skill standards. Then they were ready. If you could do like one more minute sorry to interrupt you just conscious of time here but thank you. Sure. And then built and built from the built from the ground up. So I think I can, I can stop there and thank you. Thank you for your interest and attention. Thank you Ellen so sorry to interrupt you there. Just making sure that we have time for our last speaker and a few questions. I appreciate that. No problem. Thank you. Jeanette would you like to join us floor is yours. Great thank you can you hear me and see me. Yes, you sound good. Okay, so in my portion of this presentation, I'll be speaking about institutions and policy tools that can help ensure that the employment generated from the zero carbon action plan will be high quality and that access to these high quality jobs is equitable. You know these are important considerations particularly given the persistent disparities in the US labor market by gender and race. Next slide please. So for example we can see this in today's rates of unemployment. These, the numbers that you see on the slide are from the latest report from the Department of Labor their latest jobs report that came out last Friday. In the top panel of the slide we can see how the unemployment rates among black men and women are much higher and have increased much more over the duration of the coven pandemic, then their white counterparts. The unemployment rates among black men and women range between nine and 12% this past October, compared to about 6% among white men and women. Moreover, the unemployment rates among black men and women rose by about four to 6% percentage points over the past year, compared to about 3% 3% points among white men and women. Additionally, as you can see in the lower half of this slide, you can see the fall off the recent fall off in labor force participation rates and that's the share of people who are active in labor force either working or looking for jobs. And this fall off has been notably greater for black men and women, as well for white women, as compared to white men. In the bottom panel of the slide that the fall offs are significant for those three groups I just named. And it's important to note that these fall offs in labor force participation rate that is the rate of workers who are dropping out of labor force really have the effect of obscuring how trouble the unemployment situation is. Just Bob described earlier, the zero carbon action plan has the potential to create directly and indirectly in the range of 2.5 million plus jobs. We also know that the average compensation, including paying benefits of these jobs will range widely, and that these newly created jobs will tend to have lower average compensation levels, and the jobs lost from the fossil fuel related sectors. Finally, we also know that women are substantially underrepresented among the types of jobs created across the spending and investment areas of the zero carbon action plan. So achieving equitable access and high quality jobs through the zero carbon action plan will require serious focus from policymakers. Okay, next slide please. So this brings me to labor unions and labor standards. The institutions in place to promote good pay and decent working conditions will help determine whether the investments and spending related to the zero carbon action plan will generate high quality jobs. We know this from past experience that labor unions and labor standards can serve this role. This is illustrated by the findings of a 2014 study titled environmental and economic benefits of building soul in California study by economist Peter Phillips of Utah University. In this study he compared the contrasting situations in Arizona in California with regard to the quality of utility scale solar installation jobs. He first observed that in California utility scale solar installation. Sorry utility scale solar installations typically generated high quality jobs with good pay benefits and career ladders in Arizona similar solar installations typically generated jobs with low pay few benefits and high turnover. And what he concluded from his study is that these different outcomes related to a combination of complementary labor market institutions that existed in each state. So first there's the issue of union density in California, high union density amongst construction craft workers raise the quality of construction jobs in general. And this was not the case in Arizona with where union density was low Phillips attributed this in part to Arizona's right to work law, a state policy that tends to weaken the strength of unions. And a law that California has not adopted. Next, there are prevailing wage laws prevailing wage laws basically establish the minimum wage rates that can be paid on publicly funded construction projects. All states are covered by prevailing wage law, which requires that federally funded construction projects projects pay what prevails in the local labor market. What this meant is that in California, due to its high union density and construction crafts prevailing wages effectively meant union negotiated pay levels were adopted in federally funded projects. And in contrast, in Arizona, due to its low union density and construction crafts, non union pay levels instead, instead prevailed, including in the utility scale solar installations that Phillips observed. So in other words, labor standards such as prevailing wage laws reinforce the ability of unions to push employers to take a high road approach to their employment policies. And I also want to clarify here that while this research focuses on the role of traditional unions, other worker organization organizations such as worker centers and worker collectives. And those can also serve the same role alongside traditional unions. Okay, next slide please. Next, I'll turn to the issue of achieving equitable access. So the under representation of women among the jobs we estimate will be generated that will be generated by the zero carbon action plan is in part driven by the fact that a substantial share of these jobs are in construction occupations. For example, according to our estimates construction employment accounts for about 28% of the jobs created in the primary areas of clean renewable energy, including solar and wind and about 26% of the jobs created by spending on heating ventilation and air conditioning systems. And construction jobs tend to be held predominantly by men. Additionally, black workers men or women tend to be underrepresented in these occupations. And across the US women make up only 3.5% of construction workers, even while women represent nearly half of all employed workers. Similarly, black workers make up 13% of all employed workers throughout the US economy but hold only 8% of construction industry jobs. I'm sure that the jobs generated by the zero carbon action plan, particularly construction jobs are accessible to women and communities of color. This will require employment policies that both prohibit discriminatory behavior, and require employers to take affirmative action to diversify their workforces. As we know from past economic research that affirmative action policies have led to measurable improvements in diversifying workforces. And one of the most prominent examples of affirmative action policies are those required by executive order 11246 executive 11246 requires employers with large federal contracts or federal assistance to work toward employment equity. Specifically, these employers are required to develop affirmative action plans for achieving employment utilization goals with regard to non white and women workers. These goals are generally equal to the employment shares of qualified workers available in the local labor market. These employers must further demonstrate good faith effort to eliminate cases of under utilization. The construction industry has been particularly challenging to diversify and this challenge is actually reflected in the executive orders requirements for the construction industry specifically. This is a national goal for the construction industry of only 6.9% for women for federal construction contractors. In any case, employers who fail to follow through on these affirmative action policies run the risk of their contracts being canceled, being disqualified from bidding on future federal contracts and also legal action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As past research has identified two factors that tend to increase the success of such affirmative action policies. These are first active enforcement that is in the case of executive 11246 a well functioning and well funded office of federal contract compliance program, also called the OFCCP and second favorable labor market conditions that is expanding employment so that the workforce can be diversified by adding new workers rather than displacing existing ones. The affirmative action policies linked to federal funds that support that will support the zero carbon action plan may be particularly effective in promoting equitable access, especially if there is a robust OFCCP operating within the context of expanding employment. Okay, thanks. That's it for me and send it back to Bob. So I think we'll just go right to questions. Absolutely. Thank you. And thank you to net for being very concise and very quick. That was a lot of information really quickly. So we do have a few questions in our Q&A box there. First few are more technical on the actual modeling work. So first we'll start off Aaron Mayfield asked about how we determined the age distribution of the fossil fuel labor force to determine the retirement estimates that we included Sure. So what we did was we matched the industry composition of the fossil fuel sector, the fossil fuel sectors and the related activities to data from the current population survey it's a household survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And, you know, it collects all kinds of data on the workforce and demographic characteristics so we matched up what we knew about the jobs that existed in fossil fuel sectors to this household survey data on demographics and we're able to break out what the age composition of those workers for that way. Does that answer the question. I think so. Thank you for that. And then another question on the methodology. So what technology specifically are covered in the analysis specifically is hydrogen covered. Oh, absolutely. So, as I mentioned, we work from the model of Jim Williams and Ryan Jones. And yes, every conceivable technology that is in the realm of clean energy, both on the supply side meaning solar, wind, geothermal, and so forth and on the demand side meaning electric vehicles, heat pumps, lighting systems and so forth. It is an extremely detailed model what is remarkable in their chapter is they were able to synthesize and give you the basic story. I don't remember exactly how many lines are in the model. 8000. Really, so yes, absolutely hydrogen is in there. And I'll also add Bob to we have a detailed appendix specifically for this chapter and I believe there is a comprehensive list of the sectors that are included that are in that. So, in the chapter our chapter chapter three there's an appendix in which we because we grouped their their line by line into broader category so we literally go through every single type of investment that they include in their model and we show how we group them. So we have another question from Diane sacks. She asked about how many of the fossil fuel workers have lost their jobs during 2020. Nice. I assume this is potentially rated related to the the COVID situation currently that I do not know. Do you know to know. I, I don't. I don't. I mean, you know, we. The sectors that we know have been hit the hardest are, you know, the sectors like, you know, restaurants and service other types of service industries but yeah, I can't I can't say. I mean it is true that the oil industry and I mean the gas industry for example and in Pennsylvania fracking are in a massive lump. Not because of the clean transition but because of the broader macroeconomic. And Dennis King is asking about the incoming Biden administration. And if we've been in contact with them regarding the transition issues. Well, I personally have, let's say, informally but not any formal contact, maybe other people in this broader project, for example, Jeff Dax and Elena have but no, my answer is no I don't know Ellen have you. No. Okay. And I guess I'll take that to Dennis we have been in touch with the transition team a little bit and we're hoping to work with them more closely in the coming month so hopefully and we'll see. All right. Thank you Brad Brad seemed to put in a figure about the decline in the fossil fuel workers and he says according to the labor statistics around 90,000 at the end of, from the end of 2019 through August 2020. Great. So I don't see any other questions coming in at this time. Hopefully I'm not missing any. Well, thank you to our speakers for joining us and for participating these last several very long months on doing this really intensive calculation for us and trying to project the impacts of the transition. We also actually have several of other upcoming webinars the report itself is around 400 pages. So instead of trying to pack all of the details into a single event. We have a series underway so later this week we're going to have a discussion with our more legal and federal administration team talking about the policy and implementation plan to take the plan forward. And to take some of the lessons learned that have been articulated here. How do we integrate those into the national and state policy planning protocols. And then later in the next two weeks we're going to have three separate webinars from our sector groups. So we had a chapter on food and land juice. Materials which is primarily our plastics industry and management in the country and industry which is really focused on our steel and cement manufacturing industries and how we can facilitate decarbonization there. So if you're interested or have colleagues that may be please tune in. And then please go download the report and share it widely. Great. Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful day. Okay. Bye. Thanks.