ALL EYES NOW TURN TO THE HOUSE FLOOR

The drama is unfolding now LIVE on C-SPAN

Grist’s David Roberts did yeomanly work in reducing the massive and authoritative

NNEC assessment on the benefits of a national RPS

to a one-page analysis: Consumer power rates reduced, massive boon to non-outsourceable American jobs, economic benefits to every state and region, improved power transmission, protection of renewable resources and the environment.

Roberts: “It is time to decide. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can create a more just and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. By offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting human health and the environment.”


The debate is today. Get in on the action. POWER OF WIND has a superb short video about the RPS and all the information necessary to jingle the representatives in Washington who cast the votes.

This is where the action will be August 3. The short-term fate of New Energy hangs in the balance.

The citizen advocacy group USPIRG says this is “Our Top Priority.”

And the solar industry advocacy group has an: Action Alert.

The absolutely neutral site for involvement: House of Representatives

There is just no excuse not to make your voice heard. Your representative could be one of the ones on whom the whole debate turns.

Disagreement on renewable energy complicates bill passage
Jim Snyder, August 3, 2007 (The Hill)
and
Renewable mandate backers upbeat about vote
Jim Snyder, August 1, 2007 (The Hill)
and
US House to tackle energy bill, oil subsidy repeal
Chris Baltimore, August 2, 2007 (Reuters)

WHO
Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Rep. Tim Platts (R-PA) are the amendment’s sponsors. Among its endorsers it is not surprising to find many of the most prominent public interest and environmental groups in the country but also endorsing it are the Farmworkers Union and the United Steelworkers.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) are among those “hydrocarbon Democrats” who remain opposed and are negotiating with the House leadership.

Speaker Pelosi’s carefully crafted legislation generally incentivizes renewable energies through budget cuts on incentives to traditional energy producers in the oil and gas industry. The result of tempestuous wheeling and dealing on more than a hundred initiatives, this legislation controversially says nothing about auto fuel efficiency. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership seem to want to go into this fall’s conference process with the Senate, out of which will come the final legislation to be considered by both houses and sent to the president, with the Senate’s fuel efficiency standards, the House’s RPS initiative and both bodies’ move toward subsidies for renewables and away from subsidies for fossil fuels, on the table.

Many different kinds of energies, working together sustainably, represent great power.

Republicans are largely united against the bill. Leaders have already called for President Bush to veto the measure if it passes. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) calls the legislation the “no-energy” bill. Republican Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman says, "That bill in my judgment doesn't really deal with energy…It doesn't really deal with the issues that could have a major impact on energy usage."

WHAT
H.R. 969, an amendment to the House Energy Bill, calls for a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a.k.a. Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).

A national RPS requires all private utilities (except rural cooperatives and publicly-owned utilities) to gradually increase the proportion of electricity they generate from renewable energy to 15% by 2022. (This is a compromise from the original proposal of 20% by 2020.)

WHEN
The House debate is August 3. The vote is expected at the end of the day because the House's summer recess begins August 4.

WHERE
The debate is on the floor of the House and is scheduled to be televised by C-SPAN.

WHY
- Republican representatives from the south and RPS opponents cite a report by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a think-tank tied to large utilities, in claiming the RPS would cause increases in consumer power bills and shift wealth away from regions without renewable resources.

Every region and every state has renewable resources. (click to enlarge)

- Advocates cite studies by the Energy Department’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA), from neutral think-tank Wood Mackenzie, and from scientific think-tank Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), as well as a brand new report from renewable energy advocacy group Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC). All these studies utterly refute the EEI contentions. All regions of the country have renewable resources to be exploited and a national RPS would SAVE consumers close to $50 billion. In addition, there would be nearly 400,000 new jobs in manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance and agriculture. Rural areas could expect $15 billion in biomass opportunities. Farmers, ranchers and rural landowners could expect wind energy lease income of over a billion dollars. And the contribution to slowing climate change would be enormous, not to mention vital.

QUOTES
- Gregory Wetstone, senior director, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA): “My sense is we have a lot of momentum in the House…”
- Will Rogers: “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”