🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Tom Gray <tomgray@igc.apc.org>

                       LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
              **************************************
              *             from the               *
              *  AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION  *
              **************************************
                          July 24, 1996


SCHAEFER-KLUG FACT SHEET

The following is a fact sheet on today's Schaefer-Klug amendment in the 
U.S. House of Representatives to restore funding for renewable energy 
research programs.

You may wish to consider faxing a copy of this fact sheet to your 
Representative with a request for support of the amendment.


The SAFE Amendment: Securing America's Future Energy
(summary of amendment as submitted, 23 July 1996)

The SAFE Amendment, introduced by Representatives Schaefer, Klug,
Thurman, Minge, Salmon, and Fazio, will restore most funding
which was cut for renewable energy research and development
programs in H.R. 3816, the FY 1997 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill.

Q:   What is the purpose of this amendment?

A:   We must maintain viable renewable energy research,
     development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs as an
     insurance policy against increasing political instability
     from countries where the United States imports over 50% of
     its energy and to ensure that we have a "no-regrets"
     approach to pollution control and prevention.  The
     extraction, conversion, and use of energy is the single
     largest contributor to air and water pollution.

Q:   Why is this amendment necessary?

A:   The FY 1997 Energy & Water Appropriations bill, as reported
     to the floor, fails to take into consideration that
     renewable energy programs took the largest Department of
     Energy (DOE) cuts--29%--in FY 1996.  In the FY 1997 Energy &
     Water bill, DOE renewable energy programs sustain the most
     terminations and reductions of any civilian DOE RD&D
     program.  This is not balanced public policy.

Q:   How would the SAFE amendment alter this?

A:   The SAFE amendment would restore $42.1 million to renewables
     by cutting all Energy Supply Research and Development
     programs (including solar and renewables) by 1.59%.  This
     would leave solar and renewables with a $269.3 million
     budget--a CUT of $6 million from FY 1996 and a 31% CUT from
     the FY 1995 level.  However, it would keep many important
     renewables programs from being completely cut.

     The SAFE amendment would NOT cut anything from General
     Sciences, Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities, or any
     Defense programs.  This amendment is the fairest way of
     enhancing renewable energy programs which are so vitally
     important for our country's long-term future.

Q:   Won't this cut hurt some programs in the Energy Supply R&D
     budget?

A:   No single program will suffer under this 1.59% cut.
     Furthermore, institutional recipients whose funding will be
     cut will have the option of applying the cuts in the most
     appropriate way under their individual circumstances.  For
     example, a laboratory may use this funding cut as an
     incentive to use more energy-efficient (and more cost-
     efficient) lighting.

     Renewable energy programs sustained a 29% cut in FY 1996,
     while the FY 1997 Energy and Water bill contains a 16% cut
     from the FY 1996 level.  These cuts in both years are much
     steeper than most other DOE programs.  EVEN IF THE SAFE
     AMENDMENT PASSES, RENEWABLE ENERGY PASSES, RENEWABLE ENERGY
     PROGRAMS WILL SUSTAIN A 2% CUT--HIGHER THAN THE 1.59% WE ARE
     ASKING OTHER PROGRAMS TO TAKE.

Q:   Where will these offsets be added?

A:   Solar building technology research           $1.0 million
     Photovoltaic energy systems                   7.0
     Solar thermal energy systems                  2.0
     Biofuels energy systems                       1.0
     Wind energy systems                          22.5
     Solar international/CORECT                    2.0
     Resource assessment                           2.1032
     Hydropower                                    0.5
     In-house energy management                    1.0
     Renewable energy production incentive         0.5
     Utility Climate Challenge                     0.9

Q:   Are renewables worth it when we must reduce the budget?

A:   We must gradually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, as
     we face the long-term prospect of running out of these
     resources.  If we continue our research and development now,
     the cost and inconvenience to us and to our descendants will
     be much less than if we force future generations to embark
     on costly "crash programs" to research and develop energy
     sources which we failed to fund in the 1990s.  This is not
     something we should delay until we see an oncoming crisis--
     world energy crises have a habit of occurring when we least
     expect them.

Q:   What are other countries doing in support of renewable
     energy?

A:   As renewable energy budgets in the United States are cut,
     our industrialized competitors see a vacuum in this billion-
     dollar market (which is projected to grow by 70% in five
     years) and are filling it:

- Denmark spends more for wind RD&D than the U.S.

- Japan spends twice the U.S. on photovoltaic (PV) RD&D and an
additional $150 million on PV procurement.

- Germany spends 50% more than the U.S. on PV RD&D and has a $100
million local government PV program as well.

- Spain invests an equal amount to the U.S. on solar thermal
RD&D.

Q:   How does the American public feel about renewables?

A:   The American public supports renewable energy.  A public
     opinion poll on energy was recently conducted by Vincent
     Breglio, pollster for Presidents Reagan and Bush.  Its
     results show that Americans want a new emphasis placed on
     developing renewable energy sources--more than any other
     form of energy listed in the survey.  Furthermore, a large
     majority (59%) said that a congressional candidate's
     position on energy funding policy was an important enough
     priority to make the voter much more or somewhat more likely
     to vote for that candidate.  Clearly, the public supports
     renewable energy and, if the opportunity is presented, will
     take it into consideration when forming voting decisions.