National Energy Bills and Strategies Michael Welch c.1992 Michael Welch Hello, again, revolutionary readers of radical renewable rhetoric. I'd like to thank those of you who have taken the time to write your letters of support for this column. The feedback is desirable and necessary. In fact, if you have any column ideas or hot leads on fitting stories, be sure to let me know. I can't promise to print or mention every one, but I will look into any appropriate information sent. I was originally hoping to concentrate this month's column on government and utility incentives related to renewable energy, but I was disappointed to find that there's just not that much out there. I uncovered a scattering of small R.E. programs, and there are more related to conservation and efficiency, but I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper in hopes of finding those few special programs available that you as individuals and businesses can take advantage of. This lack of appropriate programs is where you can make a difference. Please contact your state and federal representatives and bureaucrats as well as utility representatives to encourage them to provide as much incentive as possible for folks to enter the renewable energy world. The New Energy Bill I did find that the new Energy Bill will be providing some incentives for renewable energy. One incentive for end users is an income tax exemption for rebates from utilities for purchasing energy saving equipment. Previously, any rebate was considered taxable by the feds. Another plus for individuals is a tax credit for those of you who convert your vehicles to alternative fuels, including electric car conversions. This particular program also provides large tax incentives to companies that convert their fuel delivery systems to provide alternative fuels. Most of these incentives will be going into place within 18 months of the Prez signing the bill. The Energy Bill will also provide a 1.5 cent per kWh production tax credit for wind and biomass.and a 10% business tax credit for solar or geothermal, and tax exemptions for commercial utility rebates. I uncovered no new research & development grants available in this bill. National Energy Strategy Revisited The Department of Energy (DOE) is the bureaucracy that is supposed to oversee energy policy and administer Federal laws and regulations regarding energy they've also been entrusted to manage all aspects of nuclear bomb production. DOE is an agency whose highest heads are appointed by the President, so one would assume that agency staff is predisposed to an energy policy that is slanted toward the political wants and needs of the current administration. It was the DOE that developed Bush's National Energy Strategy and made recommendations to the Prez about how much should be spent on what in the DOE budget. An internal DOE memo has been made public that shows that even the DOE initially tried to emphasize efficiency and renewables and de-emphasize funding for environmentally destructive energy sources. But that was before the politicians became involved. The memo was entitled "Spring Planning Process" and was obtained by Representative Howard Wolpe of Michigan, a leader with the potential for Good-Guy status. A DOE cover letter attached to the "Spring Planning Process" tells the story. It says, "Altogether, this package reflects the results of a considerable effort to develop, ON ITS MERITS, program planning priorities in tune with the NES [National Energy Strategy]. Political sensitivities can be applied later, but you need to know, first, what seems to be right based on the merits, determined in accordance with criteria carefully selected and applied as uniformly as humanly possible across all relevant program elements." [emphasis in original]. "Political sensitivities can be applied later?" That means here are our recommendations, and they're right and good, and you political types will muck it up now that we're done. Here's what Representative Wolpe had to say, "After comparing the recommendations made in this internal DOE analysis with the president's own budget proposal, it is crystal clear that the public interest continues to be shunted aside in favor of special interests." The DOE's original criteria tried to work objectively in ranking program areas by the following criteria: potential energy contribution, environmental impact, economic growth, and technical and market risk. In the program area of Oil Vulnerability, designed to reduce America's oil addiction, the DOE's policy office recommended increasing funding for 1) improvements in fuel economy, 2) R&D on batteries, hybrid vehicles, fuel cells and both hydrogen and flexible fuel vehicles, and 3) residential, commercial and industrial efficiency and conservation. Of course, once Bush got hold of it, it was a mere shell of its former self. Despite the recommended increase, the final presidential version showed a $185 million decrease in request for funds. This from a man who says he wants to protect America from the foreign oil producers. In the program area of Electricity, the programs ranked highest for increased funding included improving utility demand efficiency, developing renewable energy resources, and advanced R&D for alternative fuels. The policy office reached the conclusion that 12 of the 23 programs in this area should be de-emphasized. The programs to be de-emphasized included all of the DOE's various nuclear energy programs. The memo called for a 22% cut in these 12 programs, but low and behold, the final product showed a 22% increase in these programs. George Bush signed into law in early October our country's comprehensive Energy Bill (see HP #30 for more information). Over the summer, energy bills with different provisions came out of both the House & Senate and went to a conference committee for final resolution. They finished with it and sent it on to the Prez for his approval. This final version of the Energy Bill took still another unseemly turn. Senator J. Bennett Johnston (Dem. LA) and Representative George Miller (Dem. CA) slipped language into the bill which removed the EPA from regulating the future Yucca Mountain High Level Radioactive Waste Repository in Nevada. What this means is the radioactivity exposure standards by which the federal government regulate nuclear waste are being lowered for this one site just so work can continue. In spite of a majority of public opinion to the contrary, Senator Johnston does all he can to help the nuclear industry. One might say, "Big deal, everyone is entitled to their opinion," except for one thing: Johnston is Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. In essence, he is the most powerful person in government working on energy issues. No wonder this dinosaur called nuclear energy is still breathing. On the other hand, there was some news in the OK to GOOD range that came out of the final version of the bill. It included wording that partly affirms states' authority in dealing with a form of radioactive waste called Below Regulatory Concern (BRC). Without this language, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was prepared to allow nuclear waste producers to dispose of this new category of waste in community landfills, and even recycle it into common items like jewelry and cooking pots! Though language should have been much stronger, it has to be considered a victory. Congratulations and thanks are due to the many concerned people who relentlessly fought this irresponsible policy. On Different Note In the course of this search, I discovered a couple of resources that you might be interested in. The first is the National Appropriate Technology Assistance Service (NATAS). This is a wonderful program that "is an information and technical assistance source" and "has two main roles: to help people investigate or implement appropriate technologies, and to help innovators solve problems they have commercializing energy saving products and services." I just had to test them out, so I called their toll-free number (800-428-2525 or in Montana 800-428-1718) and asked for information on school curriculums that have been developed to teach kids about solar energy. They took my request, and an information specialist called back to get more specifics. Two weeks later, Redwood Alliance received a package of material three inches thick, all related to my specific request! In my opinion, this service is one of the most important that the government could possibly offer our renewable energy community! The other resource I discovered is the Conservation and Renewable Energy Inquiry and Referral Service (CAREIRS). Their name says it all. They have a long list of publications available on topics ranging from Electric Vehicles to Small- Scale Hydropower Systems and Wind Energy Reading List. I called them and got a state by state list of toll-free phone numbers for State Energy Offices. The CAREIRS number is 800-523- 2929. They were pretty fast in sending stuff, but I discovered that many of their publications are unavailable because of inventory constraints. By the way, the list of State Energy Offices' toll-free phone numbers is available for modem downloading in the General files section of the Home Power Communications System BBS by calling 707-822-8640 or by sending a pre-stamped and addressed envelope to Redwood Alliance. Both NATAS and CAREIRS are funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and run by private contractors on DOE's behalf. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! (See, it is possible for me to say something nice to and about our government.) WOMEN IN POWER On a slightly different subject, there is another type of energy in Washington: human energy. Maybe this is another place where we need an alternativeÄto the overabundance of testosterone running through the halls of Washington. What this world may need is more women in government. It's not an over- generalization to say that most women have been taught to have a more nurturing attitude than most of the men that are America's power brokers in business and government. If there were a majority of women in Washington, is it possible that our government would care more than it does for the health and well- being of our planet and its inhabitants? Frankly, I think we should give it a try. I'm tired of the muscle-flexing that makes up world and national politics these days. Write and tell me what you think of this idea, and maybe I can devote more space to this subject. ACCESS Author: Michael Welch, c/o Redwood Alliance, PO Box 293, Arcata, CA 95521 SOURCES POWER LINE Magazine, Environmental Action Foundation, 6930 Carroll Ave. Suite 600, Takoma Park, MD 20912. A great magazine for energy activists! Get it! US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), 215 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20003. A great group, inspired by one of my heros, Ralph Nader. Join them! Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), 1424 16th St. NW Suite 601, Washington, DC 20036. A fine organization of overworked anti-nuke folks. Send them a check! NATAS & CAREIRS, see body of article.