US Republicans Propose "Inexplicable" Cuts to Renewable Energy

Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
February 16, 2011 | 12 Comments

The Republican House Majority has begun their opening salvo on budget cutting. And if done honestly and equitably, I would have nothing to write about. But here's the recent proposal of cuts in the proposed FY'2011 Budget Continuing Resolution (CR) for the US Department of Energy:

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899 million
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49 million
Nuclear Energy -$169 million
Fossil Energy Research -$31 million
Clean Coal Technology -$18 million

Some of the shenanigans around the CR entailed introducing nuisance amendments such as the one by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA,4) Amendment (No. 318) to H.R. 1:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the following new section: SEC. 4002. None of the funds provided by this Act under the heading "Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" shall be available for "Water Power". This Amendment would strip $50 million from the Department of Energy’s Water Power Program, and reduce funding in the Continuing Resolution for FY 2011 to zero.

One bright spot was Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who is Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces (TALF) Subcommitee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). Bartlett spoke on February 15, 2011 in opposition to Amendment #86 offered by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS, 4^th) that would have eliminated $115 million of the Department of Defense’s alternative energy research. Pompeo had cited a widely criticized RAND study that concluded the programs had no military value.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution (CR) for funding the remaining seven months of Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment was defeated by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 319 to 110. Republicans voted 135 to 105 against the amendment. Democrats voted 184 to 5 against the amendment.

The lopsided attacks on the energy efficiency and renewable energy budgets are no surprise. The Republican Majority’s view is that if President Obama supports these expenditures, they should be viewed as bad investments. So the attacks are in part symbolic and root back to the boisterous calls of “drill baby drill” at the Republican Convention.

At a G-20 meeting of industrialized countries held in Pittsburgh in November 2009, world leaders committed to phase out, over the medium-term, fossil fuel subsidies that encouraged wasteful consumption. A G20 follow-up meeting in Seoul also pushed for progress on the goal. "Eradicating subsidies to fossil fuels would enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits," said the IEA, the energy watchdog to 28 industrialized countries, in its annual World Energy Outlook. The report estimated such subsidies at $312 billion in 2009, mostly in developing countries, compared with $57 billion in subsidies for renewable energy.

President Obama has recently called for a similar action for U.S. fossil fuel subsidies. For decades, tax breaks and federal incentives have been a boon to the U.S. fossil fuels industry. Numbers compiled by the Environmental Law Institute reveal that those figures totaled $72 billion between 2002 and 2008—about $10 billion annually. Figures from the Washington-based nonprofit Oil Change International, put annual U.S. subsidies of these mature technologies somewhere between $6 billion and $39 billion annually, depending on what is included in the count.

The oil industry and its supporters within Congress from both political parties parrot the view of Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, who labels talks of withdrawing subsidies as a “tax increase on the oil and natural gas industry that would raise energy costs and kill jobs.”

The sound bite that somehow removing billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies is a tax increase boggles my mind. But this verbal slight of hand confuses the public, which the oil, coal and nuclear industries believe will give them political maneuvering room.

So the House Republican leadership’s budget proposes $220 million in cuts for fossil and nuclear research and development and $900 million in cuts for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. Cutting fossil fuels subsidies, in their view is a tax increase, and their push is to just remove obstacles to ‘drill baby drill’.

In my speeches, I always quote a columnist David Broder who wrote in an article years ago that, “Washington is the steering wheel of the nation ….. not connected to anything” as a good explanation for these inexplicable political acts of fantasy.

I now think that actually I was wrong. These political people are connected … to money. And looking at the recent campaign contributions, the conventional energy industries were some of the largest givers, and now it’s payback time.

12 Comments

Allen Gerhardt
August 17, 2011

Republicans in the House serve the interests of Big Oil. That is no surprise. What is a surprise is how President Obama gets the blame for it by racist fools. The executive order to the military branches to use renewable energy systems, to test renewable energy systems, and record results, is the biggest boom to renewable energy from any US administration is history. Those who degrade the value of biofuels, dishonestly compare biofuels to gas prices at the pump in the US. That is not the case for the military uses of biofuels. They spend up to $400 a gallon to deliver gas into the mountains of Afghanistan and other remote locations. Attacks on fuel convoys are one of the largest losses of men and materials suffered in war zones. The use of biofuels from locally grown resources are far more valuable than price comparisons in the US would indicate. The cost of military intervention in foreign lands for the purpose of securing oil supplies is a huge expense to taxpayers of this country. Even if biofuel is more expensive to produce, it is renewable, petroleum is not. Biofuel can be made locally, eliminating transportation costs and emissions. Farm jobs are increased by use of biofuel. Those who deny the use of renewable energy investment are traitors to this country, and it's citizens.

jim douglas
March 3, 2011

Let's move to Cuba. It's the only sustainable country on the planet. They don't have enough fossil fuels and want more renewable energy, but can't afford it!! Or better yet, let's move to China.

John Dye
February 24, 2011

No surprises here. They're not just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, they're cranking up the fossil fuel engines to hit that iceberg full speed.

Roy West
February 22, 2011

A leader of the free world has a legacy of broken promises. Why am I not suprised at the end result? The nexus between government and big oil and coal has to be broken otherwise we will continue to founder on our attempts to move towards a sustainable economy. Picture this strictly from an economic perspective. The federal government would lose close to 1/4 of its revenue from big oil and coal interests. I can gurentee you that this is not going to happen. We are spending close to one billion dollars a day fighting an illegal war in Iraq to steal their oil. Climate change has caused billions of dollars in damages to the United States. Our dependency has made it so that we could be crippled with one blow as just one source goes off line. That to me is not a rational choice of a person who is patriotic. No, they are anything but patriotic. The price we are paying and will contiune to pay far outweigh the use of sustainable renewable energy. Our government is playing a shaell game and it is atching up with them. We are in serous trouble and our leaders and business put their profits over both the health and welfare of the people of the United States with the complicity of the federal government. Mark my words that we are haded for a very dark chapter in human history. We may not make it though this period as mankind contiues to destroy his planet

Roy West
February 22, 2011

I am very disappointed with President Obama. He, as many others who preceded him that he wants to end our addiction to foreign oil. The effort that he as made is laughable. How long is the American people supposed to wait to free ourselves from a source of energy that has forced to declare an illegal war on a country that was not a threat to us. An archaic source of energy which is causing the planet to go into convulsions. As the planet continues to disintegrate around us our President will do whatever it takes to disrupt new technologies from taking hold and reducing the devastating affect big oil and coal is having on the planet as well as the financial destruction of the free market. We barrow billions from the Chinese to pay for oil that we can not afford. That is sickening. Two years into President Obamas term and we are still in Iraq. Guantanamo is still open and we have not moved one step closer to ending our dependence on foreign oil. Yes, we did add more wind and solar capacity but upon closer look one realizes that this is nowhere close to a victory for renewable energy. You could double the total amount of solar and wind and still not equal 2% of hydro energy. We are in deep trouble here and our government is moving forward ignoring the obvious signs of impending disaster. Only God can help us now.

Roy West
February 22, 2011

it is obvious that a bewildering array of licences and permits are required to approve of a project prior to gaining permission to operate. The process can easlily exceed a million dollars in filings and legal fees. The project was not worth the effort as the govenment tries desperatly to defend its friends in coal and big oil industries. They should be a little less obvious in their attempts to circumvent the capitalist form of democratic government that we were founded on as a nation. The reason we get raped at the pump is that everytime someone sneazes in the middle east oil prices skyrocket. With competition this would not be an issue yet our own government has done everything possible to prevent competition leaving the American people hanging out to dry as they struggle to meet their everyday obligations. It is sad and pathetic. To put it into perspective. We have had leaders for the past 40 years who have suggested that we need to diversify our energy yet we are no closer today than we were 40 years ago. Why do you think that is and do you really think they are going to change now?

Roy West
February 22, 2011

Look at the facts and not what the blathering idiot James Imhuff claims is fact. The world lost more than 2 billion trees in the Amazon rain forest in the past year due to drought. In Australia the same drought has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals and trees caught in regions heavily affected by a drought that has lasted more than 10 years. In some parts of Australia there are kids that have never seen rain. In the United States we have lost more than a billion trees to insects and drought. Scientist have declared that 9 million square miles of oceans are ecological dead zones. What is this important-because we breathe oxygen. The world's oceans act as a huge scrubber and removes billions of tons of toxic sludge pumped into the air and water by the coal and big oil companies. The planet is literally suffocating. Some scientists are suggesting that we may have crossed that tipping point. A point of no return. This may very well mark the end of humanity. Our greed finally did us in the end.

Roy West
February 22, 2011

Thank you big oil and coal for destroying planet earth. We are looking down the barrel of a shot gun and it is going to be leathal. We are destroying the planet in ways that are incalcuable and our fearless leaders [prostitues] are again serving up the American people to the vial scum called the big oil and coal industry. Let me say it one more time so there is no confusion. The planet is disintergrating around us and these idiots are going all out trying to prevent anything or anybody from moving us away for black death. Oil and coal have been very benificial in some regards yet in others it has caused incaluable suffering. We squandered the resouces that we had and now we were where scientist predicted we would be more than 50 years ago. The planet is going into convulsions and every single day we lose more and more species to the ravages of climate change. Perhaps we have crossed the proverbial tipping point and mankind is doomed. We have only to thank a group of greedy men who let their greed consume the debate about where national energy policy should be.

Garth Barker
February 22, 2011

I might add an example, it's taken nearly ten years to license one 10 MW run of river project because the BLM and BOR couldn't get together and decide if moving the Wild and Scenic designation from the center of the dam to 100 yards down stream was beneficial; there is nothing wild and scenic about a dam nor the first 100 yards below it. The ignorance shown by those in both agencies concerning this project is nothing less than astounding; they act like children fighting over a toy.

Garth Barker
February 22, 2011

Cutting out the use of water energy generation programs is a show of ignorance about the potential that exists on dams that have been built but have no generation in the US. That being said, its not the incentives that drive hydro development rather the low cost but the licensing process is both expensive AND takes a long time to cut through bureaucratic red tape. If republicans really want to create jobs in the energy development arena they should "clean house" in the ranks of the USDA Forest service, the BLM, the BOR, NOAA, Army corp of engineers and EPA. Lighten up on the repetitive and redundant requirements of permitting. Small hydro is a proven method and in many cases improves the systems.

ANONYMOUS
February 17, 2011

The author writes:
"Some of the shenanigans around the CR entailed introducing nuisance amendments such as the one by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA,4) Amendment (No. 318) to H.R. 1:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the following new section: SEC. 4002. None of the funds provided by this Act under the heading "Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" shall be available for "Water Power". This Amendment would strip $50 million from the Department of Energy's Water Power Program, and reduce funding in the Continuing Resolution for FY 2011 to zero."

Wouldn't such text merely divert funds for "water power" to some other form of renewable? Perhaps this suggestion, by a SINGLE congressman, is poor policy and should be defeated, but it is occurring in the form of a concise and separate amendment that will receive its own vote. Why is this being labeled a "shenanigan"? If the text had been buried within a large body of other text instead of being given its own separate consideration I could see a reason to complain, but there is nothing secret or dishonest about this suggestion. Certainly Washington is rife with secret and/or shady dealings, but I think it is counterproductive to characterize everything one disagrees with in this manner. Why not just argue on the merits of the proposal rather than name calling? Insults rarely convince anyone you are right about anything, but sometimes they convince people that the position you support has no stronger arguments; surely mentioning the virtues of water power would be a more effective strategy for defeating this amendment.
Steven

Mitch Stein
February 17, 2011

I hardly see the defeat of amendment #86 as anything to cheer about. It just points out the misguided priorities of Congress. The repubs plan to cut all kinds of alternative funding but if the Defense department wants to waste money on biofuel nonsense then it's gung ho!. The criticism of the Rand report is killing the messenger. the messenger is telling you that "Emporer Biofuel" has no clothes. Check out Shell and other majors moving out of biofuels.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Scott Sklar

Scott, founder and president of The Stella Group, Ltd., in Washington, DC, is the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the Boards of Directors of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, the...