LET'S PUT SOLAR PANELS BACK ON THE WHITE HOUSE Michael Welch c. 1993 Michael Welch In the 1980's, Former President Jimmy Carter installed a solar hot water heating system on the White House. There was an energy crunch underway and his administration thought that it was important to send the public a message that each of us can do something to help our nation's energy problems. It was, and would be again, a more-than-symbolic boost to the renewable energy industry. When Ronald Reagan took office, one of the first things he did was to have those solar panels removed. His intentions were clear: to send a message to the nuclear, fossil fuel, and utility industries that they would be getting every break possible under his administration, and that the renewable energy industry was to be looked upon with disfavor by our new government. Now we have a new President who, by his own account, wants to improve our nation's energy future. As evidence, I bring you an awesome quote of his. During his Feb.17, 1993 speech on the economic plan to the Joint Session of Congress, Clinton highlighted his strategy for budget cuts by saying, [bold?] "We are eliminating programs that are no longer needed such as nuclear power research and development, ..." [unbold] Applause, dancing in the streets and high-fives for everyone! For 20 years, energy and environmental advocates have been waiting for a President with the guts and the foresight to assume this position, which not even Carter would take (although he did remove funding for building a proposed breeder reactor). Now that we have him, we need to help him get his agenda through Congress. I urge each of you to call your Congressional Representatives to support President Clinton's economic plan. But, I digress. With the June/July issue of Home Power Magazine, we will be starting a drive to obtain thousands of postcards and letters asking President Clinton to put a new and more efficient solar hot water system back on the White House roof, and asking him to further the energy/environmental cause by amending the Comprehensive Energy Bill to include an even brighter energy future than the watered down version that President Bush and his nuclear and oil lackeys pushed through Congress last year. Home Power Magazine will be contacting America's environmental and energy organizations, including Greenpeace, Solar Lobby, Earth Island Institute, Safe Energy Communications Council, Public Citizen, American Solar Energy Society, Redwood Alliance, Nuclear Information and Referral Service, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Communications Consortium, and the Solar Energy Industry Association, to try to coordinate a nation-wide letter writing drive which will culminate in a much publicized delivery of the cards and letters to the White House this summer. Stay tuned to next month's Home Power Magazine for more information and a page for you to fill out. Clinton's proposed Energy Tax Almost all the hubbub in the energy world since the President's Congressional address has surrounded his proposed Energy Tax. Energy Tax will help raise funds to offset our growing national debt and help fund more renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation programs. Information is still sketchy but some very interesting things have come to light. Thanks to Greenpeace for helping gather this information. What is the energy tax? According to Reuters News Service, the tax rate would be 25.7 cents per million BTU of coal and natural gas, compared to 59.9 cents for crude oil. The Department of Energy estimates that the new energy tax would add 2.5 cents to each gallon of gasoline, 2.75 cents per gallon of heating oil, 8.75 cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas, and 75 cents to the average monthly electric bill, all in the first year of the tax's implementation which is scheduled for July 1, 1994. After the three year implementation schedule is complete, these amounts will have tripled, totaling 7.5 cents, 26.25 cents, and $2.25, respectively. First, the good news: wind, solar and other renewable sources would not be taxed. This should add some incentive to expand these technologies by furthering public acceptance of them. Hydroelectric is not included as untaxed with these other renewable resources because, one could assume, the Clinton administration may feel that it is not environmentally appropriate to encourage the building of more massive river damming projects. I must say that I fully agree with that consideration. A bright side to this proposed tax is that a lot of the monies raised will go to make our nation's energy future brighter. According to the Los Angles Times, some of the raised funds will go to the DOE and the EPA to weatherize 62,000 homes, purchase 20,000 alternative fueled vehicles, and initiate ambitious energy conservation plans. Other energy related programs will also benefit, as should the fight against the deficit. Some consider any tax to be bad news, but not me. It is fairly well known that United States consumers have some of the lowest energy prices in the world. Many energy industry followers believe that our energy prices are held artificially low because fossil fuel and nuclear energy programs are so heavily subsidized by the Federal government and because prices don't adequately reflect the societal and environmental costs of energy production. The new Clinton energy tax plan will go part of the way to correct both of these inadequacies. I will be writing more about the subsidies and the hidden costs of energy in the future. And the bad news? It's the regressive nature of this type of taxation. Such taxes contain a tendency to have a larger effect on people without much income. Wealthy persons can still afford to drive wherever and whenever they want, and can still afford to heat their homes in whatever way they care, but needy persons, especially those on fixed incomes, really feel the impact of these marginal increases a lot more. A couple of things that can be done to offset the regressive nature of such a tax is to provide an income tax break that is tied to small income size, local climate and driving mileage and give a greater discount on energy bills for those that qualify for special lifeline rates. Of course, for those without enough income to file Federal tax returns, the first suggestion does not help a bit. We will have to wait and see how the Clinton administration deals with these inequities. ENERGY BILL RE-REVISITED I must say that I have taken a some flack for my positions regarding the diluted nature of the Comprehensive Energy Bill which was passed and signed last year. Many have pointed to the gains made in favor of energy efficiency and renewables and the removing of the provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as steps in the right direction. I say hogwash. These "gains", while good, are minimal, and I believe they were handed to the public to placate them in effort to head off true reforms in national energy policy. Many of these gains were further offset by the gifts the bill handed to the nuclear power industry. Though its removal was something of a victory for the environment, I don't consider the stopping of drilling in ANWR to be a "gain", since it wasn't ever in the cards till the Reagan/Bush administrations introduced it. It seems likely that this introduction was successful since it managed to take environmentalists' attention off other important energy issues. It ended up serving as a bargaining chip to get mainstream environmental groups off Congress's and the President's backs, and the ploy worked. We STILL need a truly comprehensive national energy strategy. Toward this end, I'd like you to know about the "Sustainable Energy Blueprint", presented to the Clinton Administration by a broad array of environmental, industry, sustainable energy, consumer and citizen groups, and coordinated by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. According to the Executive Summary, the Blueprint echoes the goals outlined by the President in his book, [[bold, italic]]Putting People First[["]. Specifically, it is designed to achieve the following: -Create at least one million new jobs through investments in sustainable energy technologies and policies; -Reduce overall energy use at least 10% by 2010; -Reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2005; -Triple the current contribution of renewable energy technologies by 2010; and -Reduce the production of long-lived radioactive waste. The Renewable Energy section of the Blueprint asks our government to "ensure that renewable energy technologies (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) are responsible for at least 25% of new or replacement electric and thermal capacity, and at least 25% of new or replacement transportation fuel sources, by the year 2005 through a series of initiatives addressing access to capital, regulatory barriers, tax equity, information needs and "externalities" (i.e., indirect costs)". As a radical environmental and energy activist, even this plan does not go far enough to satisfy me. But, it may well be the best plan out there that is realistically passable in Congress. For this reason, I and the Redwood Alliance and nearly a hundred other organizations support it as the key to a truly comprehensive national energy strategy. If you'd like a copy of the Sustainable Energy Blueprint and its accompanying Sustainable Energy Budget, please send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to me at the Redwood Alliance address listed below. The Blueprint and Budget are also available for downloading from the Home Power Communications System BBS at (707)822-8640. Access Author: Michael Welch, c/o Redwood Alliance, PO Box 293, Arcata, CA 95521 ù 707-822-7884 Critical Mass Energy Project Public Citizen, 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington DC 20003 ù 202-546-4996 Greenpeace, 1436 U St. NW #201A, Washington, DC 20009