We All Go Down Together

Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage
—Naomi Littlebear

…and in the end, complacency and self-interest ruled. Re-election campaign funds, local concerns tied to a fossil of a fuel industry, loyalty to party despite all common sense and compelling evidence of need; these were what ruled. We should note the date: December 13, 2007. It was on the morning of this day that the U.S. Senate failed by a single vote to include a tax title in the 2007 energy bill, ending the prospect of government support for renewable energy in America for the foreseeable future.

How will historians look back on, and write about, this episode in years to come? They may have difficulty in convincing their readers that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of destructive climate change, at a time of peak oil, and on the day conferees departed the Bali Global Warming conference vowing to fight climate change, the U.S. voted once more to fight the rest of the world instead.

No, that’s not overstating the case. For years, Australia shared the odium of being a non-signatory to the Kyoto treaty with the United States; as of this week, we hold that position in glorious isolation, apparently constitutionally incapable of seeing what the rest of the world sees clearly, and legislatively powerless to overcome our own complacency.

What’s left of the Congressional energy bill after almost a full year of development, debate, conferring and compromise will lead to eventual improvements in average fuel economy standards for automobiles and increased renewable fuel production, among other lesser benefits. But what was left out will lead to outcomes that should have been obvious to every Congressperson:

• The stumbling growth of the solar energy industry will be set back just when distributed clean generation is needed most; many solar entrepreneurs could be forced out of business.
• Much-needed large-scale renewable energy projects in the planning stage will be jeopardized by uncertainty over funding and viability.
• Citizens and businesses looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint by investing in solar energy cannot count on a cent of government help.
• Foreign companies will continue to grow in strength and market share, making it next to impossible for American companies to have an impact in global markets.

In the USA, we like to voice our pride in our democratic system—checks and balances, proportional representation, and the ability to compromise on legislation. But the raw fact is that what we’ve always considered the strengths of our system are, in terms of the exigencies of planetary sustainability, fatal weaknesses. We cannot compromise on global warming mitigation, and a quick look around the world shows us that no-one else feels that way. We certainly cannot bow yet again to the demands of big oil, yet that is exactly what Congress has done today. That arm of government has shown itself incapable of governing from any platform except complacency.

You can read the full voting record on the tax title provisions (59-40, one vote short of cutting off debate) at the end of this article. Before doing so, you might note how two specific senators voted (or didn’t):

1. John McCain, R-AZ, failed to cast a vote.
2. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, was the only Democrat who voted against the tax title. Her reasoning? The bill “left Louisiana and America’s Energy Coast holding the bill.”

McCain’s apparent indecisiveness is difficult to rationalize for a presidential candidate from a state with perhaps more solar resources than any other. And to judge by Landrieu’s remarks, one can only conclude that she feels she has served her Louisiana constituents well; that they will take comfort from the knowledge that, as a result of her vote, all of America—not to mention the planet—is holding the bill.

________________________________________________________________________________

Republican Senators Voting ‘Nay’ on Cloture Vote for Energy Bill Tax Title

Stevens (AK), Sessions, Shelby (AL), Kyl (AZ), Allard (CO), Martinez (FL)
Chambliss, Isakson (GA), Craig, Crapo (ID), Brownback, Roberts (KS)
Bunning, McConnell (KY), Vitter (LA), Bond (MO), Cochran, Lott (MS)
Burr, Dole (NC), Hagel (NE), Gregg, Sununu (NH), Domenici (NM)
Ensign (NV), Voinovich (OH), Coburn, Inhofe (OK), Specter (PA)
DeMint, Graham (SC), Alexander, Corker (TN), Cornyn, Hutchison (TX)
Bennett (UT), Warner (VA), Barrasso, Enzi (WY)

Republican Senators Not Voting on Energy Bill Cloture Vote

McCain (AZ)

Democratic Senators Voting ‘Nay’ on Cloture Vote for Energy Bill Tax Title

Landrieu (LA)

Schwarzennegger Urges Bush to Extend Solar Tax Credits

California’s Governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzennegger, went on record last week as a supporter of the energy bill making its tortuous way through Congress by appealing to President Bush to support solar tax credits. The energy bill has already run into a roadblock in the Senate, and the President has repeatedly threatened to veto the bill in the form passed by the House on December 6th.

In a letter to the President, Schwarzennegger described at length the programs under way in his state and pointed out how important tax credits would be to keeping them on track, not only in California but also in the country at large. He cited this year’s California Solar Initiative, under which 3,000 megawatts of solar projects would be installed to offset growing electricity demand, as well as the Solar Water Heating Efficiency Act due to launch next year.

The Governor’s letter spelled out the environmental, job-creation and economic benefits of these programs, and pointed out that they would be in jeopardy without federal tax credits.

“California,” the letter runs, “and other states cannot succeed in developing solar projects without the tax incentives until the industry has reached a critical scale of production and deployment and can compete with traditional utility energy services.”

An important need highlighted in the Governor’s letter is for tax credits to be extended for multiple years, because the larger projects can take several years from concept to building; investors need to know that the economic formula on which a project was based will still apply when the project qualifies for credit.

In closing, Schwarzennegger made reference to the fact that California had enacted an aggressive renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of clean energy in the resource mix. This may have been a deliberate way of communicating to President Bush that his own opposition to a national RPS in the Congressional Energy Bill is ill-founded.

2007 Energy Bill down to the Wire

As of today, much of the work done over the past year on the Congressional Energy Bill (several different versions thereof) comes to a head. The U.S. House of Representatives is to vote this afternoon on a package that, we are informed by Washington sources, contains the following provisions:

• Long-term extension of investment tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells This extends the 30% investment tax credit for solar energy and fuel cell development for eight years, and removes an existing limitation that prevents public utilities from claining this credit.
• Long-term extension of production tax credits for renewable energyProduction tax credits, available to developers of renewable energy facilities for energy produced, are extended until the end of 2012. This would include wind, biomass, geothermal, some hydro, and landfill gas.
• Long-term extension of residential energy-efficient property credit This extends the credit for residential solar property until the end of 2014. It also increases the annual credit cap to $4000, and allows the credit to be used to offset alternative minimum tax.

The costs associated with these measures amount to some $7.5B over the next ten years. Other measures in the bill address carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects (incentives of nearly $2B), production credits for cellulosic alcohol fuel (nearly $500M) and biodiesel ($200M), and a one-year extension of credits for energy-efficiency improvements to homes ($400M).

The bill, if passed by the House, still has to face a stern test in the Senate. There the influence of powerful lobbies such as the oil and gas industry has made itself felt more than in the House, and the resultant bill still has to survive threatened veto action by the President. But for the House to be voting on a bill that, in its present form, could actually give the nascent renewable energy industry in America some traction is a mark of progress in itself.

The Senate is expected to take its vote within a few days.  We’ll keep you updated on the progress of the energy bill as the news comes in from Washington.