A Look At Bush Administration Policies Regarding Renewable Energy

 

by Scott Sklar

October 28, 2004

"Renewable energy was not espoused as a "much needed element" of energy policy, but rather necessary to show balance and enlist farm and key legislators promoting primarily ethanol, hydropower, and wind farms."

- Scott Sklar, RE Insider

 

The Bush Administration's first term has been a very mixed bag regarding renewable energy policies. Administrations are not monolithic, and are composed of conflicting actions, personalities, and reservations (or inactions). The attempt of this article, is to have a frank review of the statements, activities, nuances and voids by the Administration.

I think it is important to know that aside from serving as Executive Director simultaneously for the solar and biomass-electric trade associations in Washington, D.C. for 15 years, I served as Congressional staff to Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) for nine years, and have been a registered lobbyist for over 20 years.

Rhetoric - The Department of Energy research, development and demonstration programs (RD&D) have not been harshly cut, and the politically-appointed Assistant Secretary is a solid and articulate professional. His focus has been to drive better program management and control, which they have succeeded. But other than the Hydrogen Initiative, which is not a "renewable" energy initiative, there have been virtually no new proposals or programs. Most of the energy innovation regarding technology validation and deployment is supported by ambitious state government programs which have amassed over US$3 billion to allocate over the next few years. While the national laboratory programs are quite valuable on pure research, the U.S. Congress has stepped in to direct more and more of the federal renewable energy RD&D budget to make it more responsive and practical (which does always have that intended effect). Additionally, a greater percentage of the renewable energy budget does not actually go to renewable energy (at least a third of the $300 million plus budget) which is a trend began with the Clinton Administration.

Cheney and backers of the GOP - The Vice President is the "leader" on energy issues within the Bush Administration, and the President's Energy Plan was coordinated out of his office. He is passionate supporter of fossil and nuclear power and the doctrine of "lowest cost energy, environment be damned." The input and influence of the natural gas, petroleum, coal and nuclear industries as well as the electric utilities and automotive industries was profound. Contrary to media reports, the Vice President's staff did meet with the energy efficiency and renewable energy community - but not at the level, detail and frequency of the traditional energy interests. This feature of energy dialogue was in sharp contrast with the Administration of Bush senior and the Clinton Administration - both which encouraged ongoing and continuous high level input on renewable energy. The President, in promoting his National Energy Policy, visited a hydropower and waste energy facility months back to show he supported renewables. Many of us were surprised at the reluctance to actively promote ALL renewables since as Texas Governor, The President signed one of the first State renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) which has been a boon to the U.S. wind industry. When photovoltaics (PV) were installed last year on some buildings on The White House grounds, they issued no press release and had "no comment" when asked by the media.

Energy Bill - Aside from tax incentives, the Administration did not want to engage in promoting meaningful national interconnection standards for both transmission and distribution, as well as net metering. Nor did the Administration endorse a national Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard since it was adamantly opposed by the electric utility industry whose trade association (EEI) is run by the former Yale roommate of the President.

Budget - Under the "first" Bush presidency, all energy was viewed as important and all were pushed equally. The energy bill passed within George Bush Senior's presidency included tax credits and commercialization programs for renewable energy - and was in stark contrast to the Reagan Administration which tried to close the renewable energy programs down. The Clinton Administration added some funding and proposed several key initiatives as a way to promote renewable energy use. The Administration of George W Bush has only proposed a hydrogen initiative, generally with no "new" funds but cobbled together from various programs. While administered by the U.S. Department of Energy Renewable Energy Program, the Hydrogen RD&D program focuses on hydrogen resources from coal, nuclear, natural gas and some renewables - meaning that is really isn't a pure (or major) renewable program at all.

Tax Credits - The Bush Administration has supported extension of the wind and closed loop biomass Production Tax Credit and residential investment tax credit for solar thermal and photovoltaic applications. Congress eventually passed a watered-down version the measures in the most recent tax cut package which the Bush Administration since signed into law. Wind power and geothermal made out fine, but the residential solar tax credit was dropped and the value of the PTC for solar and biomass were almost negated. While the White House messages to Congress didn't placed these incentives as their highest priorities, neither did they try and trade them away.

Good news -Department of Interior and Agriculture - two agencies have stood out as strong backers of renewable energy at the political level. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar established a renewable energy program within USDA (9006) and the political appointee to the Rural Utility Service, one of the largest federal loan programs (for agricultural cooperatives) has set-aside a multi-hundred million window for renewable energy projects. Interior Secretary Norton led a very high profile program to remove barriers for renewable energy on federal lands - which could have high benefits for concentrated solar power, geothermal, hydropower, and wind farms - as well as distributed generations in parks, forest lands, and in Native American tribal lands.

Where's the beef? - The Bush Administration proposed an energy policy and expressed Administration energy philosophy as ideological - sought to paint Democrats as wanting high energy prices, advocated drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve as the symbolic essential ingredient, allowed coal plants that were grandfathered in by the 1970 Clean Air Act to continue non-compliance, changed rules to allow the coal industry to blow-up mountain tops and leave their debris in the rivers and streams, and essentially maintain as much (as possible) low energy prices no matter what their impact was on U.S. energy security or global environment. Renewable energy was not espoused as a "much needed element" of energy policy, but rather necessary to show balance and enlist farm and key legislators promoting primarily ethanol, hydropower, and wind farms.

Stark contrasts within the Republican Party - While senior White House energy policymakers seem to marginalize renewable energy and energy efficiency, high-profile Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (California) and George Pataki (New York) are avid pro-renewable energy proponents - each advocating 20 percent renewable energy portfolio standards and ambitious deployment programs - all far exceeding the federal government. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) and House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) are strong renewable energy advocates. But they are overshadowed by Senate and House leaders who clearly espouse a fossil and nuclear mantra as much more important to the Republican Party, the U.S. economy, and security.

The Clinton perspective - Now to be fair, while the Clinton Administration's rhetoric was very ambitious on behalf of renewable energy, many of the programs were never funded or adequately administered. But the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency is very powerful, and as strong as Vice President Dick Cheney promotes a "drill for oil everywhere" energy policy, Clinton Vice President Al Gore espoused energy efficiency and renewable energy as one of his highest priorities in the prior Administration.

The Bottom-line - If you accept former President Harry Truman's line "the buck stops here", I have to paste a "C minus" as an overall evaluation, or maybe a "D plus". U.S. energy imports have grown past 60 percent and U.S. energy customers have record price spikes in petroleum and natural gas which have hurt the economy. The wind and biomass tax credits were allowed to lapse, and while the U.S. Congress shares the blame, the Administration could have instructed the House and Senate leadership to NOT let this happen. But the worse fault, beyond actual policy implementation, is no "bully pulpit" either. President Bush has been afraid to pronounce the word "solar" and has even expressed skepticism personally to foreign leaders. There is no articulated "vision" for renewables within the Bush Administration and no drive for expansion, acceleration, or even acclimation.

About the author...

The Stella Group, Ltd. is a strategic marketing and policy firm advancing the utilization of clean, distributed energy applications such as advanced batteries and controls, energy efficiency, fuel cells, heat engines, microhydropower, minigeneration, modular biomass, photovoltaics, small wind and solar thermal (air-conditioning, water and industrial process heat, and power generation); with blended financing and customer facilitation. Scott Sklar, the Group's founder and president, lives in a solar home in Arlington, Virginia and his coauthored book, A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy, was just re-released in 2003 for its third printing. He can be reached at solarsklar@aol.com.


reader comments on this story
post a new comment
-- Mike Eckhart, October 28, 2004
Scott's article is, in my view, a fair and very insightful commentary. Nowhere else have I read an assessment that captures the subtle nuances of policy and position so well. I would add a thought that, in a way, the Bush Adminstration has done us a favor by being open and clear that they do not favor our solution -- there are no false pretenses, no unrealistic expectations, and good reason for us to galvanize together, as we have done in the past several years.
-- Guest User, October 29, 2004
"Administrations are not monolithic, and are composed of conflicting actions, personalities"!!!!!!!! Who the Hell are you joking?? This Administrations is bought and paid for by Oil & Coa.
-- Michael, October 29, 2004
The trouble with lobbyists is that they feel they need to pull punches. If they publicly tell the whole truth, they may not get their foot in the door the next time. Therefore, any public statements by lobbyists are at a minimum wimpy and self serving.
-- John Raynes, October 29, 2004
I second Mike's comment. It's so difficult these days to find any RE policy analysis anywhere (pro or con) that doesn't start with a stiff partisan conclusion and work backwards. This was different, in that I couldn't predict what the writer was going to say after having read the first two sentences. Nice work.
-- Ken Wright, October 29, 2004
The American consumer of energy ultimately values the renewable energy market's viability and frankly the less the gov't gets involved, the better, for the long term stability of those of us trying to make businesses out of renewable energy solutions. The only thing that will really make solar viable is higher fossil fuel prices. Nobody wants higher energy costs so how can you fault Dick Cheney for wanting cheap energy? He reflects the national sentiment accurately unfortunately. Raise the gas tax baby!
-- Oliver Koehler, October 29, 2004
Nice synopsis Scott. Whether you want oil, solar, gas, or a sustainable environment - it is clear we need them all and a balanced approach. Ken has it right. We should be focusing on pricing externalities of our fossil fuel economy - ie security and environment costs. Higher taxes on these in order to price them appropriately will help renewalbes take their proper place in our future energy mix.
-- RO Johnson, October 29, 2004
A very useful and balanced synopsis, hopefully providing a datum line for a more energy aware government in the future. It very definitely provides the reader with a conclusion that our federal government is not meeting the challenge of major energy problems in our near future. The next, and major obstacle, to be overcome with our national government is to get them to come clean with the population as to the serious and near impact of the limitations faced in conventional energy. Very difficult with Washington DC dominated by the "oil patch."
-- John F. Galbraith Jr, October 29, 2004
No one seems to have a clue as to what is really going. Our aging Nuclear Plants, our falling apart National Grid, is right on the brink of failure any day. I have a Solution, My VAWTs and New form of Power Transmission, would turn this around. I need funding, to build a protoype system. That will demonstrate, a "Dynamic Plan of Action," that will turn this around and nobody cares. What has Happened? And will happen to Our Country. JFGJr.
-- Guest User, October 29, 2004
-- Frank U. Farmer, October 30, 2004
Rather than raising fuel taxes to increase pump price, simply remove all the subsidies for the petroleum industries (oil depletion allowance and others) and directly tax oil corporations for their fair share of the military budget needed to secure the oil supplies. Then the price will increase at the pump and as a result conservation will also increase, but the main benefit will be a level playing field for renewables. Of course, these measures require our so-called elected representatives to embrace some future vision, as well as the conscience to implement it, rather than the rampant greed among them and most other citizens of the industrialized nations. Even though I am skeptical, I still think it is important to vote and continue the critical analysis. Thanks to all those here who are trying to keep themselves informed in the face of massive deception. Warm regards, F.U. Farmer
-- Guest User, November 1, 2004
The George Bush lack of attention to domestic economy and backing of alternative fuel technology, in my opinion, will cause him to loose this election.
-- Dave Cline - PG Utah, November 1, 2004
The last four years has ensured that we remain overextended in our use of fossil fuels. We drive SUVs 30+ miles to our place of work. We expect to pay less than 5% of our personal budgets for energy use. And we accept the fact that our military is primarily used to protect our oil interests in OPEC nations. We are walking out on a cliff that is eroding beneath us. And no transitional plan is in place to catch us when our energy infrastructure collapses. We should have spent the last 4 years preparing for this collapse. Read "The End of Oil". I'm sorry folks, but this energy thing is going to get bad. And it will be the democrats who are left holding the empty oil bag. Emptied, in part, by the oil cartel's puppet - George W. Bush.
-- Geoff Steele, November 1, 2004
The unfortunate part about this continuing 'dialog' is the tendency of both 'camps' (renewables vs. traditional petroleum- and nuclear-based suppliers) to polarize and isolate. We continue to look at energy demand and supply equations in this country as an "us" or "them" continuum, rather than a blended solution. Why can't we focus on the tremendous, untapped application of renewables (particularly solar, wind and microhydro- power) to COMPLEMENT and increasingly DISPLACE the need for the equivalent amount of fossil-based fuels that otherwise would have to be used for the same purposes? Of COURSE renewables will never replace ALL the need for coal and petroleum-based fuels, but daggone it, they can sure be used to displace an increasing amount of our demand for electricity and process heat over time...especially as the technology of renewable sources improves. We NEED to focus on this...and without delay !! As far as the untility companies are concerned, WHEN are they going to figure out (as several like Southern California Edison already have...) that moving aggressively into support for renewables will ensure them a future in the marketing and support of robust, distributed energy systems for residential and commercial applications -- and continue to provide a living for these utility companies long after petroleum and natural gas supplies dwindle beyond economic viability ? What other public or private ventures are better-equipped with the needed labor and infrastructure to do this today ? None. All it takes is retraining utility personnel in the application and servicing of renewables technology. But here we sit...playing the 'blame game' and arguing over who's going to get the next tax incentive, or build the next nuclear plant... DUMB !!! We ALL need to wake up and see each other as FRIENDS and co-sharers of the responsibility to meet our energy needs responsibly here...not as partisan enemies constantly stumping to have our particular industry singlularly blessed by public policy and administrative support. Storks who have their heads in the sand are particularly vulnerable to getting kicked in the hind parts ! And the demise of international petroleum supplies from stable nations, located in geographic locations that are cost-efficient to explore and develop, is looming like a very large pointey-toed boot aimed precisely at these hind parts...
-- Iver, November 3, 2004
Well, the election is over and George Bush has probably won. Will he start to fund renewables? I'm not too hopeful. The .9/kw cents for biomass and 1.5/kw for wind has been re-upped, so that may help get some big solutions going to the dilemma. I wish he'd start giving tax credits for hybrids and give all Americans the incentive they are getting in California to install solar. It would be a step in the right direction. Or are we going to continue on the same path right over the energy cliff?
-- Guest User, November 3, 2004
Unless middle states dry to desert and there are more then 10 tornadoes every day in Florida and 75% of US children get sick of lack of clean air US politicians will not take seriously the enviroment. This is the truth! Sorry, folks, the Earth is going down.
-- Azel Beckner, November 3, 2004
There seems to be a need to make the pollution and energy problem more relevant to the everyday life of the office worker. I would like to suggest that the indoor air quality (IAQ) should be brought up as good reason to switch to alternative sources of energy. If you look at the EPA report on the air indoors and Rheem air condition ads on the state of the air in most buildings then there would be enough evidence for concern about the burning of fossil fuel to draw in the average office worker.
-- Mark Bezant, November 3, 2004
Scott failed to mention (or didn't want to) the fact that Al Gore has over 750,000 shares of oil. President Bush has been a little busy fighting terrorists instead of catering to your selfish needs. I'm all for renewable energy, but not at the risk of the safety of this nation.
-- Mark Hensley, November 3, 2004
Scott, thank you for the clear synopsis of the subtleties of this administration's renewable energy policies. It would be great to hear from you on a strategy of how you think the renewable energy industries should the approach the next 4 years of the Bush presidency and an expanded Republican majority in Congress. What proposals do you think the Administration will try and push through and if they are inevitable, what/can the renewables industries realistically fight for in return? Mark Hensley - Magnetek

 

Copyright © 1999 - 2004 - RenewableEnergyAccess.com

Please visit www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com for great coverage on energy today!!