SUPPORT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY BUT NOT NUCLEAR POWER AND FOSSIL FUELS IN STIMULUS LEGISLATION

Below is a group letter to be sent to the leadership of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives as well as the Members of the appropriations committees in both
branches of Congress.

The letter urges support for "shovel-ready" energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects as part of the anticipated "stimulus bill"
and also opposes providing stimulus funds for either nuclear power or
fossil fuel programs.

Your organizational or individual sign-on is invited.

SIGN-ON DEADLINE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 8:00 pm (eastern time)

ORGANIZATIONAL SIGN-ONS: If you would like to add the name of your organization or business to this statement, please provide:

Your Name + Title
Organization/Business Name
City, State

INDIVIDUAL SIGN-ONS: If you would like to sign this letter as an individual, please
clearly state that you are signing as an individual and not an organization and
provide:

Your Name
City, State

If you wish to include your organizational affiliation "for
identification purposes only," please include that as well.

January 7, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Minority Leader John Boehner

Dear ...

We, the undersigned sustainable energy and environmental organizations, businesses, and individual advocates, are writing to urge that you support provisions in the proposed stimulus bill that will promote sustainable energy technologies and create "green jobs."

More specifically, funding should be targeted at those energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that can be brought on line quickly, will maximize job creation, will curb greenhouse gases and energy imports, and have the least adverse social and environmental impacts.

Nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies should not be included among those supported by the stimulus bill. These technologies cannot be brought on line quickly, entail unacceptable environmental hazards, and produce far fewer jobs per dollar invested.

Rather, emphasis should be given to "shovel-ready" projects that can be deployed in the very near term (i.e., preferably within 6-24 months) either to reduce wasteful energy use or to produce renewable energy as well as create jobs. Longer-term investments in sustainable energy research and development merit federal support but should be addressed in the regular annual appropriations bills rather than in this stimulus legislation.

The most attractive investments in terms of cost-effectiveness, jobs creation, carbon-reduction, and time-frame may well be those designed to reduce energy use in residential, commercial, public and other buildings. Accordingly, a high priority should be funding aimed at the permanent weatherization of older buildings and the replacement energy-inefficient lighting, appliances, and HVAC systems. Likewise, investments in advanced meter and demand-response programs are warranted.

In the transportation sector, emphasis should be given to lower-carbon options such as expansion of bike trails and pedestrian walkways, acquisition of more energy-efficient government vehicles including municipal buses, construction or expansion of light-rail and other mass transit systems, and repair of existing roads, tunnels, and bridges. However, funding the construction of new roads would tend - in many, if not most, instances - to encourage increased fuel use and oil imports and result in greater greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, such proposals should be closely scrutinized and probably given very low priority.

Investments in renewable energy projects should support the broad range of technologies (i.e., wind, water, solar, geothermal, biomass/biofuels) with funding directed at smaller, distributed, and off-grid systems as well as larger, grid-connected, central station projects. Investments to upgrade existing transmission systems or create new "intelligent" ones to bring renewable electricity from remote locations to urban areas may also be justified. However, priority should be given to those projects and technologies that can be brought on line most quickly, have the lowest environmental or social impacts, create the largest number of jobs, are most cost-effective, and produce the most energy.

We appreciate your consideration of these views.

Sincerely,

cc. Members, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Members, House Committee on Appropriations