"WEEKLY UPDATE"
June 6, 1999
Contents
FEDERAL ENERGY BUDGET & TAXES
1.) White House Warns Congress About Budget Proposals
2.) Environmental & National Security Groups Send Congress Letters
ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCUTURING
1.) Richardson Clarifies Views on Markey-Largent Bill
2.) Coalition Seeks Congressional Hearing on Renewables
3.) EPA Office to Buy 100% Renewable Energy Electricity
4.) Wisconsin Groups Propose Public Benefits Fund
CLIMATE CHANGE
1.) Study Finds No U.S. Growth in CO2 Emissions in 1998
2.) Clinton Outlines Views on Climate Change
3.) White House Issues Energy Efficiency Executive Order
4.) Senators Urge Clinton to Act on Auto Fuel-Efficiency Standards
5.) EPA's David Gardiner to Join White House Climate Task Force
MISCELLANEOUS
1.) Group Urges DOE to Issue New Efficiency Standards for Ballasts
2.) FTC Petition Challenges NEI's Nuclear Ads
FEDERAL ENERGY BUDGET & TAXES
1.) White House Warns Congress About Budget Proposals:
The White House web site includes a May 28 analysis by the White House of
the budget impacts of the House Appropriations Committee's 302(b)
allocations for FY'00. Among other things, it notes that "cuts to the Department
of Energy and EPA could gut efforts toward cleaner, more efficient energy for
homes, transportation, and industry; and keep the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles from meeting its goal of new cars three times more fuel-
efficient than today's models by 2004."
2.) Environmental & National Security Groups Send Congress Letters:
Seventeen of the nation's major environmental organizations (a.k.a. the "green
groups") have signed a 2-page letter urging members of the Senate "to support
full funding of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as tax incentives to stimulate
expanded use of these technologies." It was delivered to members of the
Senate on June 1. On June 3, a 2-page was sent to key members of the House
and Senate urging support for these programs because "our increasing
dependence on imported oil has serious implications for national and energy
security." It was signed by General Lee Butler (Strategic Air Planner - Desert
Storm), Admiral Thomas Moorer (former chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff), R.
James Woolsey (former CIA director), and Robert McFarlane (former national
security advisor to President Reagan). Let us know if you want us to fax you a
copy of either letter.
ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
1.) Richardson Clarifies Views on Markey-Largent Bill:
On June 3, the Sustainable Energy Coalition received a letter from DOE
Secretary Richardson responding to the Coalition's earlier letter expressing
concern about Richardson's support for the Markey-Largent restructuring bill.
Richardson maintains that the Administration still supports a 7.5% Renewable
Portfolio Standard and a $3 billion Public Benefits Funds and that he would
support the Administration bill when called to Congress to testify. Richardson
wrote: "I have been and remain committed to working for congressional
passage of the Administration's legislation, including the environmental
provisions. ... [T]he Largent-Markey bill contains many beneficial provisions.
However, I also believe that the Administration's legislation is superior to the
Largent/Markey approach in several ways and hope to work with both
gentlemen and other members of the House Commerce Committee to iron out
our differences." Let us know if you would like us to fax you a copy of the letter.
2.) Coalition Seeks Congressional Hearing on Renewables:
Fifteen member groups of the Sustainable Energy Coalition have sent a letter
to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Energy & Power, urging him to hold an additional utility
restructuring hearing on renewable energy and energy efficiency issues. Let us
know if you would like us to fax you a copy of the letter.
3.) EPA Office to Buy 100% Renewable Energy Electricity:
The "Sacramento Bee" (June 4) reports that the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) has approved a three-year service agreement with the General
Services Administration to provide 100% renewable electricity to the
Environmental Protection Agency laboratory in Richmond, California. The EPA
is the first federal agency to purchase 100% renewable energy to supply one of
its facilities. Under the agreement, SMUD will sell EPA about 1.8 million
kilowatt-hours of electricity per year -- enough to serve 200 average
Sacramento homes -- derived from landfill gas and geothermal plants. It will
replace power previously supplied by PG&E at about $19,000 a year more than
standard power from the California Power Exchange. Let us know if you would
like us to fax you a copy of the 5-page article.
4.) Wisconsin Groups Propose Public Benefits Fund:
The "Wisconsin State Journal" (June 1) reports that after months of feuding,
state utilities, environmental leaders, and business and consumer groups have
reached a deal that will funnel more money into energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and low-income assistance programs. The proposed Public Benefits
Fund would provide more than $80 million for energy efficiency and
conservation programs (a figure still below the $100 million state utilities were
spending on such programs in 1993), about $5 million for renewable resources,
about $2 million for research on acid rain and mercury contamination of fish
caused by utilities, and $60 million for low-income energy assistance. The
package would not be allowed to increase the average residential customer's
bill by more than 3% or $1.50/month. The agreement is expected to be
introduced shortly in the state legislation. Let us know if you would like us to
fax you a copy of the 3-page article.
CLIMATE CHANGE
1.) Study Finds No U.S. Growth in CO2 Emissions in 1998:
A May 27 news release from the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy reports that energy-related carbon emissions by the United States
remained flat in 1998 despite four percent economic growth. According to
newly available data from the EIA, this was the first year since 1991 that U.S.
carbon emissions did not rise. Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were
about 1,476 million metric tons of carbon (MTc) in 1998, about 2 MTc (0.15%)
less than emissions in 1997 but still 138 MTc (10.3%) above emissions in
1990. Total energy use fell 0.3% while inflated-adjusted GDP rose 3.9% in
1998; thus, there was more than a 4% reduction in energy intensity (energy per
unit of GDP). By comparison, the United Kingdom recently reported that its
greenhouse gas emissions declined 9% between 1990 and 1997 in spite of the
fact that the U.K. already emits less than half as much per capita as the
United States. For further details, see the ACEEE 1998 carbon emissions
scorecard at https://aceee.org/briefs/score98.htm.
2.) Clinton Outlines Views on Climate Change:
In a June 3 Rose Garden statement, President Clinton offered some views on
global warming which he described as "our most fateful environmental
challenge." He noted: "Almost every month, we see disturbing new evidence of
climate change. Scientists now believe that last year, 1998, was very likely the
warmest year in a millenium. Whole species of frogs are disappearing from
forests in Costa Rica because the air thee is getting hotter and drier. In the
Arctic, the permafrost has started to warm and the sea ice is shrinking. These
are alarming signs for what it means to biodiversity and the potential of a rising
water level around the globe. Yet some still insist that the vast majority of
scientists are simply wrong, and that we should do nothing. Others call for a
raft of new regulations and new taxes. I believe there is a third way here, a
better way -- to invest in technologies that reduce greenhouse gases while also
spurring economic growth. May of those technologies are on hand right now."
3.) White House Issues Energy Efficiency Executive Order:
According to media materials released by the White House June 3, President
Clinton has issued a new executive order directing the federal government to
reduce its energy use 35% by 2010 compared to 1985 levels, expanding the
current goal of a 30% drop in the government's energy consumption by 2005
and saving $750 million annually in taxpayer money in the process. Reportedly,
about half that goal already has been accomplished. To put this in context,
though, it should be noted that the federal government uses about 32% more
energy per square foot than the average private sector building and spends
about $4.2 billion a year to power and fuel its facilities. The new policy will
cover about 500,000 government buildings, ranging from the Pentagon to local
social security administration offices. But the Defense Department will be
affected the most since it accounts for 75% of the energy used by the federal
government. The cuts in carbon emissions required under the executive order
will equal about 2.4 million metric tons a year -- a reduction of about 30%
below 1990 levels, once the policy is in full effect. That is the equivalent of
taking 1.7 million cars off the road. In response, energy efficiency advocates
have generally praised the executive order. However, renewable energy
advocates have been more critical noting that provisions included in earlier
drafts that would have mandated the purchase of renewable energy to meet a
minimum share of federal electricity needs have been dropped. The full text of
the executive order can be found at ; follow the
link to the "White House Briefing Room".4.) Senators Urge Clinton to Act on Auto Fuel-Efficiency Standards:
Dow Jones (May 27) reports that a bipartisan group of 31 members of the U.S.
Senate sent a letter to President Clinton on May 26 urging him to strengthen
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) energy efficiency standards for
vehicles. The letter notes that "current CAFE standards have stagnated for
nearly a decade. While the standard for cars is at 27.5 miles per gallon, the
standard for heavily polluting sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks
lags behind at 20.7 miles per gallon. ... America's cars and light trucks are
responsible for 20% of U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, which causes global
warming." Accordingly, the letter urges President Clinton to oppose the
inclusion of a CAFE-freeze rider in the Transportation Appropriations bill as has
been done each year since 1995. Let us know if you would like us to fax you a
copy of the 2-page letter.
5.) EPA's David Gardiner to Join White House Climate Task Force:
EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy David Gardiner is replacing Dirk
Forrister to become senior policy advisor at the White House Climate Change
Task Force. A June 4 EPA memo notes that "under [Gardiner's] leadership, the
Office of Policy played a key role in combating climate change, both at home
and abroad."
MISCELLANEOUS
1.) Group Urges DOE to Issue New Efficiency Standards for Ballasts:
The newly created Appliance Standards Awareness Project is seeking help to
encourage the U.S. Department of Energy to adopt new, energy-efficient
performance ballast standards for fluorescent light fixtures. The group notes
that outdated and inefficient magnetic ballasts consumer about 15-30% more
power than electronic ballasts and, over the next 30 years, will cost
businesses and consumers between $1-$5 billion in electricity costs, wasting
between 100 and 360 billion kWh. DOE was supposed to implement new
ballast standards in 1995 but has yet to set the standard. For further details
and a sample letter to DOE, contact Andrew deLaski at Adelaski1@aol.com or
617-363-9470.
2.) FTC Petition Challenges NEI's Nuclear Ads:
Public Citizen reports that it has filed a petition with the Federal Trade
Commission alleging that the Nuclear Energy Institute's advertising campaign
promoting nuclear power as an environmentally safe source of energy "is false
and misleading to consumers." The entire petition can be downloaded from
Public Citizen's website at https://www.citizen.org/cmep/ftc.pdf
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY COALITION
315 Circle Avenue, #2; Takoma Park, MD 20912-4836
(301-270-2258; fax: 301-891-2866)
SURVEY SHOWS AMERICANS WOULD FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY & ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUT CUT FUNDING FOR NUCLEAR POWER & FOSSIL FUELS;
PUBLIC STRONGLY FAVORS TAX INCENTIVES AND PROVISIONS TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IN ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
For Release: June 3, 1999
Thursday, 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time)
Contact: Henry Griggs 202-326-8714
Ken Bossong 301-270-2258
Washington DC -- A national public opinion survey released today by a broad coalition of business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations confirms that most citizens believe renewable energy and energy efficiency should be given priority for federal energy funding but that nuclear power and fossil fuels should be the first technologies subject to budget cuts.
Furthermore, by large margins, the public favors inclusion of provisions to promote sustainable energy technologies and consumer disclosure in federal electric utility restructuring legislation but oppose having electricity customers pay for uneconomic nuclear plants. Finally, Americans overwhelmingly support federal tax incentives to encourage the use of renewable energy in electricity production and to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient automobiles, homes, and heating and cooling systems.
These are among the key findings of the survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy: Funding Priorities, Electric Utility Restructuring, and Tax Incentives" conducted for the Sustainable Energy Coalition by Research/Strategy/ Management, Inc. of Sterling, Virginia from May 10-18 among a sample of 1,029 adult Americans 18 years of age and older. The survey has a margin of error of +/-3.0%.
For the fifth year in a row, a majority of all Americans (62%), and more than two-thirds (69%) of those expressing a preference, would give the highest priority to funding the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable energy (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric) and energy efficiency research and development (R&D) programs. On the other hand, nearly a third (31%) of respondents selected nuclear power as the first R&D program that should be subject to budget cuts, followed by fossil fuels (21%). Only 5% would cut funding for energy efficiency R&D while just 9% would reduce the renewable energy budget.
These findings, which reflect even higher levels of support for sustainable energy programs than were measured in the Coalition's earlier polls, cut across all political, gender, age, geographic, and income categories. Ironically, recent votes by the House Science Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee would allocate federal energy dollars in a manner completely at odds with the public's preferences.
By large margins, 78% of respondents support including a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard requiring 10% of electricity be generated from solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass sources as part of federal electric utility restructuring legislation. In addition, 59% favor creating a Public Benefits Fund, supported by a 2-3% surcharge on utility bills, to fund energy efficiency, low-income energy assistance, and renewable energy R&D programs. There is also near-unanimity (89%) among Americans that electricity providers should be required to tell their customers the type of fuel being used to generate electricity as well as the type and amounts of air pollutants being emitted.
However, a lopsided majority (76%) of consumers believe electric utilities' shareholders, and not their customers, should be required to pay off the cost of uneconomic nuclear power plants as the utility industry is deregulated. Neither the White House nor anyone in Congress has yet to introduce a utility restructuring proposal that reflects the public's preferences.
More than 80% of respondents favor tax incentives to increase the use of renewable energy for the production of electricity either strongly (45%) or at least somewhat (36%). Furthermore, Americans overwhelmingly support making tax incentives available to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient vehicles, new homes, and heating and cooling equipment. More than three-quarters (77%) support such incentives for the purchase of automobiles that are at least twice as energy efficient as the average new car either strongly (46%) or at least somewhat (31%).
An even larger share of citizens (83%) support tax incentives to spur the purchase of new homes that are at least 30% more energy efficient than the average new home either strongly (51%) or at least somewhat (32%). Finally, 84% of those surveyed believe tax incentives should be made available to encourage the purchase of home heating and cooling systems that are at least 30% more energy-efficient with a majority (51%) agreeing strongly and another third (33%) agreeing at least somewhat. The findings suggest that the public is ready to support the Clinton Administration's yet-to-be-introduced package of tax incentives that comprise its Climate Change Technology Initiative.
Copies of the 50-page survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy: Budget Priorities, Electric Utility Restructuring, and Tax Incentives" are available for $15 (pre-paid).
The Sustainable Energy Coalition is a coalition of 35 national business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations (list available upon request) founded in 1992 to promote a shift in federal energy priorities away from nuclear and fossil fuels and towards renewables and energy efficiency.
|
* * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
