When is a job not a job? When it’s a job year.

Although it sounds like a riddle told at an economic development convention, it has become a central point of an emerging debate about a ballot initiative that would increase the state’s renewable energy mandate from 10 percent to 25 percent.

At the heart of the controversy is how a study, which was done under a contract between Michigan State University and the Michigan Environmental Council, described how it calculated the amount of jobs the 25 percent mandate would create if passed.

The study said 74,495 “job years” would be created if the mandate was passed. The report states that a job year is full employment for one person for 2,080 hours in a 12-month period. It also states that "operations" and "maintenance" jobs were calculated for the life of a plant, which varied between 20 and 30 years.

That means one job could translate to as many as 30 job years.

However, numerous news sources and advocates for the proposed ballot initiative have inaccurately described the MSU study as saying the ballot initiative would create 74,495 jobs, not job years. This inflates what the study actually said by predicting up to 30 times as many jobs.

Crain’s Detroit Business said in a story that the proposed ballot initiative would create 74,000 jobs. The Detroit News also reported the 74,000 jobs figure. 

The Michigan League of Conservation Voters' Political Director Ryan Werder also incorrectly wrote that the ballot initiative would create 74,000 jobs and not job years. 

Saul Anuzis, the former head of the state Republican Party, who supports the ballot initiative, also made reference to jobs and not job years in an email he widely distributed.

Greene and Werder didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.

Anuzis said he was not being paid to promote the ballot initiative. He referred comment about the jobs versus job years to a consulting firm in favor of the ballot initiative.

Douglas Jester, a principal at 5 Lakes Energy, a clean energy and environmental consulting firm in favor of the ballot initiative, said many economic impact studies in the past involved job years but were reported as jobs. He said that was a standard practice and didn't come under scrutiny until the MSU report described in detail the concept of job years.

"They (MSU authors) were being precise about it where other reports have glossed over it," Jester said.

But Michael LaFaive, a fiscal policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the distinction is important.

"We should care because the job years claim may overstate the real impact of this mandate," LaFaive said. "A higher number may convince people that the benefits of the mandate greatly outweigh the costs, when they do not."

States shouldn't be in a hurry to begin working on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exchanges.

That's the viewpoint of many states (not Michigan) and of J.P. Wieske, legislative liaison for the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance.

"For us, the issue is whether or not it's good public policy to move ahead," Wieske told Capitol Confidential. "Our view is that it is more prudent to wait and see what happens."

Under the act, which is commonly known as Obamacare, states can develop their own exchanges. It has been argued that if states don't act first, the federal government could do it instead.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is among those making that argument.

"Now that the Supreme Court has essentially upheld the ACA, the governor believes it's important to move forward on the MiHealth Marketplace and ensure that we create a Michigan solution rather than the feds imposing one and making those decisions for us," said Gov. Snyder's press secretary Sara Wurfel. "He's said that, while it's possible that post election the ACA will be repealed and that Washington will change course, we cannot bury our heads in the sand until that day comes for a variety of reasons (harness federal dollars, avoid unnecessary costs, be fiscally responsible, protect Michiganders and job providers, etc).

"We're working with lawmakers to help address and resolve additional questions and concerns so they are assured this action would be in the best interest of Michiganders," Wurfel said.

However, Wieske said there are many variables of what might happen that moving ahead now doesn't make sense.

"There are a lot of pieces of this," Wieske said. "First, we don't know what's going to happen in the election. Who is going to be president? Are we going to have a Republican-controlled Senate? A lot is going to depend on the outcome. There are all sorts of variables.

"Even more importantly, we don't know where the federal government is going to be regarding support for state exchanges," Wieske said. "Will it be supportive of state exchanges or more supportive of a federal exchange?"

When asked if the federal government would even be able to have an exchange ready by the scheduled deadline of October 2013 Wieske said he wasn't sure.

"Well, we'll see," Wieske said. "This administration has had a way of repeatedly moving the goal posts back. So, that could happen again.

"They are talking about taking Medicaid out of it," Wieske said of the federal exchange rules. "If they did that they could conceivable have it ready on time. If they include Medicaid, they'll have a lot of difficulty dealing with it."

Wieske said state lawmakers across the nation are feeling pressure to move ahead with the state exchanges.

"We've seen a lot of angst among Democrats and consumer groups on this issue," Wieske said. "There are a lot of so-called good reforms in the legislation. But in Wisconsin we already have many of these reforms and I think that's probably so in many other states. Some of these were already accomplished through HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).

“They (consumer groups) are also afraid of the job loss issue," Wieske said in regard to the distinctions between a state exchange and a federal exchange. "That could be overstated, but it would be untrue to try to claim there is no potential job loss issue involved."

A more complete presentation of Gov. Snyder's arguments has been made available.