After visiting the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, Colo. last week, Michele Bachmann exclaimed, “My colleagues and I literally walked through America’s energy future.” The NREL was the first stop on a White House-sponsored junket to Colorado and Alaska for freshman Republican congresspersons only, led by House Minority Leader John Boehner.

“I’ve got to say, the lab is doing absolutely incredible work,” Bachmann gushed on her blog. “They are using cutting-edge methods to use wind, solar, biomass and fuel technologies more efficiently.”

Has Bachmann become a born-again believer in renewable energy? Hardly.

Look behind Bachmann’s photo-ops and you’ll find one of the most deplorable voting records on renewable energy of any member of Congress. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters’ scorecard for the 110th Congress, which included several key energy votes, gave Bachmann a 0% rating in 2007.

So what earned Bachmann this failing report card?

In one of her first votes as a freshman congresswoman, and at every opportunity thereafter, Bachmann voted against the Energy Independence and Security Act. The measure comprised a wide range of renewable energy, conservation and energy efficiency initiatives—including increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards—and was financed by transferring $18 billion in tax breaks away from oil companies. Notwithstanding Bachmann’s steadfast opposition, it passed the House in its final version by a vote of 314-100 on Dec. 18, 2007, and was signed into law by President Bush the following day.

Bachmann voted against the Renewable Energy and Conservation Tax Act of 2007, which provides tax incentives for producing electricity from a variety of renewable sources. It passed the House 221-189.

That bill was amended to the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, which passed the House 241-172 without Bachmann’s support, but has failed to pass the Senate.

Bachmann voted against a key amendment to that bill that would require electric suppliers to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable sources by 2020. That amendment was adopted on a 291-190 vote.

And that was just in 2007.

In 2008, Bachmann voted against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, which creates and extends tax incentives for renewable energy production. The bill passed the House 236-182 but has not passed the Senate.

She voted against a similar measure, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which extends numerous renewable energy tax credits, authorizes the issuance of qualified energy conservation bonds to finance local government conservation and greenhouse gas reduction projects, and provides other renewable energy incentives. The bill passed the House 263-160 but has not yet passed the Senate.

Bachmann voted against the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2007 Farm Bill), which contains a number of renewable energy provisions, including electric loans for renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand reduction and use audits under the Rural Electrification Act. The bill was passed in the House over Bush’s veto by a vote of 316-108.

In fact, the only instance that could be found in which Bachmann even remotely supported renewable energy in her first term was in her 2007 vote in favor of an amendment to the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act to “provide a sense of the Congress to recognize and support large and small scale conventional hydropower.”

But that aberration may be explained by heavyweight Bachmann supporter and friend-of-Cheney William Hawks, the owner of Crown Hydro who threatened to use eminent domain to take Minneapolis park land for a hydroelectric facility in Minneapolis. In 2006, Hawks hosted a fund-raiser for Bachmann featuring Cheney as the star attraction.

Bachmann has been a loyal foot soldier in Bush’s budget battles. But if Bush and Bachmann have their way this year, employees at the NREL had better start updating their resumes again.

Bush’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget for FY 2009 requests $467 million less than was appropriated for 2008, and freezes the NREL’s budget at last year’s level. That has prompted protests from one of Colorado’s senators.

“I believe our strategic energy and environmental security needs demand a robust expansion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs,” said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. “At a time when we are trying to wean our country from our addiction to foreign oil and invest in renewable energy, this cut in funding is sending the wrong signal.”

Salazar was particularly harsh in his criticism of Bush’s proposed NREL funding.

“I have long called for the President to double the lab’s budget over five years,” said Salazar. “Unfortunately, the President’s budget only funds it at the same level as last year … Instead of maintaining the status quo, we should be working together to put NREL on a path to double its budget.”

The NREL’s budget was slashed by $28 million in FY 2006 when the Republican-controlled Congress cut the Department of Energy’s renewable energy budget by more than 35 percent. As a result, NREL was forced to lay off 32 employees. But fewer than three weeks later, DOE found some extra money laying around and the jobs were miraculously reinstated two days before Bush visited the lab on a trip to tout alternative energy.

Despite Bachmann’s repeated votes against energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the NREL’s budget has risen by about 80 percent in the past two years.

So when Bachmann embarks on the campaign trail touting her newfound support for renewable energy and conservation, tune out the soundbites and examine her voting record instead. It will tell you a whole lot more about Bachmann’s energy policies than her recent smokescreen tour facilitated by the White House.

Karl Bremer is a Stillwater writer and a constituent of Michele Bachmann’s. He can be reached at saintcroix@aol.com.