article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (9) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
January 8, 2007

U.S. Politics 2007: A Lump of Coal or Clean Energy Legacy?

by Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.

Much has been conjectured about the November 2006 elections, the political goals of The Administration and of the new leadership in the Democratic Congress. After untold meetings with the Members of Congress themselves, their staffers and senior Administration officials -- clearly some optimism is warranted. But don't hold your breath.

The good news? Support by the general public has never been higher -- along with the largest swath of legislators from both major parties than ever before. The bad news? Because of unaddressed budget issues and growing political tensions leading up to the elections of 2008 - don't expect any huge changes.

For those of us that have been in the clean energy arena for a few decades, we've surely seen the ebbs and flows of politics, energy prices and public interest before. Early in 2005, we saw the 'crack in the dike' when President Bush, in his State of the Union' speech addressed "the U.S. addiction to oil" and emphasized biofuels, plug-in hybrids, solar and wind as potential answers to our energy woes.

By the time the Republican-led Congress left town this past December, solar, fuel cells and geothermal industries saw the investment tax credits extended for another year (through December 2008) as did those industries receiving the PTC (wind and closed-loop biomass) and energy efficiency credits. While the clean energy tax credit extensions were short term -- it did symbolize a strong bipartisan commitment for the breadth of clean energy options in what will be a very contentious political two years.

Posturing on energy, now is the turn of the Democratic leadership. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who will lead each House of Congress, have been in lock-step to reduce a list of "give away" incentives to the oil industry and in some way assist the clean energy industries. When the dust settled on a list of giveaways to be actually considered, basically only off-shore leasing was the focus -- which if renegotiated, would mean from $2 - $6 billion recouped by the U.S. Treasury assuming the details of the fine print in the legislation. That drama will become clear in the first few months of 2007.

Of the new Democratic leadership, Senator Reid, who is now the Senate Majority leader, has the strongest clean energy credentials. He personally has an interest in the issues, has toured installations and manufacturing plants, and has had a long history of legislative support over the years -- a stellar resume. Representatives Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have co-sponsored some clean energy legislation, but have never been the leads on any clean energy issue.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was named Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He has been an active member of the House Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus and has used clean energy themes in his campaigns.

The legislators who will head the respective Energy Committees, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Representative Dingell (D-MI) have less clear records. John Dingell has been the protector of the U.S. auto industries, (headquartered in his State), a skeptic on human-induced global warming, and a supporter of the traditional electric utilities' ardor of coal and nuclear power.

Bingaman has been a more balanced legislator, not favoring any energy source or industry, behaving in a truly bipartisan manner with his now Minority Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), where they both protect their two large national laboratories and their State's largest employers, Sandia and Los Alamos -- primarily defense and nuclear energy laboratories.

Senator Bingaman's staff has recently advised that the Senator will support as Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman a National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). But the scuttlebutt is that such a proposed standard may include nuclear energy (possibly even clean coal)-and would definitely not have any 'banding' of technologies to insure the proposed RPS would actually insure the nation had a real renewable electric generation 'portfolio'.

The Union of Concerned Scientists appear happy that their RPS campaign has 'high level' support, the Washington D.C.-based renewable energy trade groups are remaining 'mum' so as not to counter their new Senate Energy Committee chairman, and the clean energy and anti-nuclear advocacy groups are sweating in anticipation.

In other Committees, the legislative direction is also less clear. In early December, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) was unanimously approved as chairman of the House Science Committee by the Democratic Caucus. He assumed the chairmanship at the start of the 110th Congress on January 4th, as the others, and has Oak Ridge National Labs, as a prime interest in his State, along with TVA and the coal industry.

On the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) took over as Chairman of the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Dorgan has been an ardent supporter of biofuels and wind, and should represent a sea of change for the clean energy programs -- both renewable energy and energy efficiency -- administered by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Representative David Obey (D-WI) will Chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee and also has a long term interest in low-income weatherization, energy efficiency and to a lesser extent renewable energy. He appears to be more sympathetic to clean energy than his Senate counterpart, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W VA) in a coal-state, however with a growing wind farm presence.

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mt), the new Senate Finance Committee Chairman, has been sympathetic to clean energy issues. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) recently assumed the prestigious House Ways and Means Committee, and has also been open to clean energy extensions. These two Committees under the guidance of these new Chairs will have much to do with extensions and expansions of the Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits (PTC). Neither of the new Chairs has expressed any predilections or viewpoints on clean energy tax incentives other than what has been released generally by the incoming Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker's offices.

But a triad of issues still keeps domestic energy -- particularly renewable-generated electricity and distributed generation (such as fuel cells, combined heat and power, etc) -- on the front political burner. The wars and tensions in the Middle East arena -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel/Gaza and Iran -- are keeping poll numbers high among U.S. voters wanting more energy independence. Fuel prices of both natural gas and gasoline are staying high - and while gasoline prices have moderated somewhat as have natural gas due to mild weather and thus mild heating bills overall - every consumer poll shows expectations of higher prices to come.

Climate Change is slowly making a political impression too. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 45% consider Global Warming a 'very serious' problem while another 28% say it is 'somewhat serious.' Forty-six percent (46%) of American voters believe that Global Warming is caused primarily by human activities. Rumors abound in Washington, DC that The Administration will open the door to carbon emissions trading -- but those details are decided at the last minute before the upcoming State of the Union.

The biggest political obstacles for increased tax credits and increased federal RD&D and procurement of energy efficiency and renewable energy relates to broader political issues. A fairly significant segment of Republican legislators, primarily in the House of Representatives, but also the conservative budget Democrats (self labeled as the "Blue Dog Democrats") are positioning themselves to shrink the growing deficit.

This has caused many traditional supporters of longer-span clean energy tax incentives and spending budgets to be far more cautious of their actual intentions. And this issue could tamper down many high expectations the clean energy industries and their advocates have been holding.

The good news? Support by the general public has never been higher -- along with the largest swath of legislators from both major parties than ever before. The bad news? Because of unaddressed budget issues and growing political tensions leading up to the elections of 2008 -- don't expect any huge changes.
Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (9)
 
No image available
January 10, 2007
For the life of me I cannot see why Federal tax money is spent on research for cleaner coal and petroleum. (these organisations profits are greater than the federal butget) money should be spent only on alternative clean energy (non pollutant to environment) To date world wide I have not seen a single cent spent on R/D on Hydrogen fuel research (this is the solution to climate change) my question is why ? has the Fossil Fuel cartel now bought the freedom of thought, democracy has been bought years ago.
Comment 1 of 9
January 10, 2007
What we need now is a "hit" jingle to go with the pro's and it might just fly....

.....Bill
Comment 2 of 9
No image available
January 10, 2007
Perhaps "to strengthen what is weak", maybe we need some consensus building. Clearly the Democrats want to show forward motion, and such forward "Mo" is crucial in a national move toward renewable solutions. Even the Republicans need to demonstrate that they can get things done.

As this piece points out, the time may be now. We have socially conservative evangelists asking "what kind of car would Jesus drive?" Support in the genral public is reaching some kind of critical mass that crosses political boundaries.

Might most people prefer energy solutions over tax cuts for millionaires? Maybe.

It is hard to stay on message if there isn't one. Those in office who care need to get to work and craft one.
Comment 3 of 9
No image available
January 10, 2007
Lump of Coal
Can we control the lump of coal that's set for generation,
Of thermal heat can we unseat the king of energy's nation,
Renewals with lip approvals will not give us resolution,
Words must be backed in funds we lack to give us the solution,
Can Congress tread when funds are bled by other funding measures,
There comes a time when it's a crime to continue pork bill pleasures,
For our nation is impatient with past leadership decisions,
Which now imperil our energy world for this we seek revision,
Can our congress stand and address needs that shine and call out,
Our do we wait and tempt the fate that there will be no fall out,
Our climate sings and storms it brings disaster is now looming,
Must we endure without a cure what congress may be grooming,
The answer lies before our eyes we strengthen what is weak,
Switch fund control from lumps of coal is the answer that we seek.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 4 of 9
No image available
January 10, 2007
I would like to see an investment tax credit on the batteries themselves to defray the high initial cost on the high energy batteries that are necessary for acceptable performance in the PHEV vehicles that are proposed.

This credit would apply to both individual and commercial buyers of ANY vehicle whether gas, diesel or fuel cells provide the non electrical power component.

This would credit automatically decrease as battery production quantities rise, and the high initial costs come down through competition and the amortization of startup costs.
Comment 5 of 9
January 10, 2007
Your not wrong. Americans, by the numbers, just don't get it and probably won't until they are literally on the edge of death, personally, due to mother nature. What will happen to this planet due to current CO2 levels will be nothing short of staggering. And, to make matters worse, even if they did get it, all that a major corporation would have to do is market the wrong solution using power, sex and social acceptance in there ads and the public will grab it hook line and sinker!!!

.....Bill
Comment 6 of 9
No image available
January 10, 2007
If Detroit is any indicstion of where we are going, I see status Quo. This years auto show puts an emphasis less on Hybrids and more on high performance. This stupidity is most likely to trickle over into politics not withstanding another natural disaster that sends energy prices through the ceiling again. I am sure the oil industry will continue to have firm hand in the back pockets of our newly elected representatives. I hope I am wrong.
Comment 7 of 9
No image available
January 11, 2007
Scott, first of all, happy new year to you and all your readership fans. The answer is still simple; mandate the utilities to apply on-site power. Fuel cells, cogen, PV, wind, wte is available through long term purchase agreements. The utility company can work with PPA's. In fact, LIPA on Long Island has an RFP for fuel cells with PPA's being requested. We cannot depend on state programs anymore because of their limited funds and mis-management of available funds. It all comes down to the "seamless transition" model. No cost to the homeowner, immediate monthly savings, net metering on a large scale to feed into the grid when needed most. So, what are we waiting for. Should this model be on the agenda for the Dems and their 2008 push into the WH? Scott, let's mandate, utility control the technologies, finally offer the model nationwide and we can all have hope for our future.
Sam.salamay@verizon.net
Comment 8 of 9
No image available
January 17, 2007
detroit will be forced to see the light. the change will have to come. but they are trying to produce what sells. once toyota takes over number one by selling what we want instead of what gm thinks we want (do i have to say the name edsil)(yes i know i spelled it wrong). i am not here to defend wasteful cars or gm.(the u.a.w. finaly got what they deserved)(i lost more than one job because them and my last severance package was about 25 dollars.but what do you expext when your boss goes bankrupt because of strikehappy selfish pigs)but i haven't had a job with a furture for more than a year and i need to believe in something. now that the car companys can pay their labor force what they are worth, the designers will have some captial to work with. the changes will come.
Comment 9 of 9
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
OPEL Solar, Inc. Conserval Systems (SolarWall) BP Solar Clayton Power Renewable Energy World Europe National Semiconductor
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo