In votes suggesting that the Congressional assault on renewables is running on empty, both houses of Congress rejected this summer deep cuts in the Department of Energy's 1997 renewable energy program. The proposed cuts, which had been made part of major appropriations bills, would have nearly wiped out the federal wind energy program.

The House vote came in the form of an amendment spearheaded by Reps. Scott Klug of Wisconsin and Dan Schaefer of Colorado to add $42 million for renewables, including $22.5 million to next year's wind energy budget, boosting funding in that area to $28.5 million. Though an enormous improvement over the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee's total of $6 million, the $28.5 million represents a 13% cut from last year's wind energy budget, which itself was 30% lower than the 1995 allocation.

On the Senate side, an amendment to add $23 million to fund renewables next year passed on a voice vote. In both the House and Senate versions, total funding for renewables stands at $269 million, $6 million below the 1996 funding level. The two appropriations measures will now proceed to a conference committee this fall to reconcile the differences.

One major reason why renewable energy funding was spared serious bloodletting is the emergence of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, which was founded earlier this year and now has nearly 90 members. Though the caucus acts essentially as a clearinghouse of information on renewable energy, its real purpose is to organize and strengthen political support for renewables, especially during the budget process. Having lost 30% of its funding this year, renewable energy programs have suffered greatly in comparison with other DOE program areas, such as clean up of nuclear weapons production plants and "clean" coal research and development.

In introducing the Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) amendment, Rep. Klug, a founding member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus and a committed deficit hawk, declared his support for "programs and technologies, like solar, wind and hydropower, that offer sound economic and environmental benefits to the nation and the world.

"The fact that the U.S. depends on foreign countries for over 50% of our oil supply means that we have to expand our own energy sources," Klug stated.

Four other Wisconsin Congress men--Reps. Barrett, Kleczka, Obey and Roth--voted for the SAFE amendment. Voting against were Reps. Gunderson, Neumann, and Sensenbrenner.