Conversation with NRDC's Nathanael Greene

The New Fuels Alliance and the NRDC do not agree on how indirect carbon effects should be applied in carbon regulations. The latest dialogue occurs on Nathanael Greene's blog; the thread is available here.

Nathanael asked NFA to "put up or shut up" with regard to the indirect effects of petroleum fuels. Our response is pasted below for your convenience.

Nathaniel,

Thank you for the response. As an advocate, I think I should probably put up rather than shut up, or find another job! A good debate is always worth having.

NRDC POSITION
It is one thing to say NRDC is for accurate accounting for all fuels. We are as well. It is another to specifically say that if indirect effects are included for biofuels they should be included for petroleum to maintain parity in the comparative analysis (i.e. apples to apples). NRDC has not done the latter. NRDC arduously

defended the selective enforcement of indirect effects under the CA LCFS and criticized other groups that asked for parity. You want all fuels to pay for attributional carbon (or direct effects) and biofuels to pay for consequential (indirect) effects as well. Your rationale is that other fuels do not have significant consequential (or indirect effects). But there is no data to support that position, and the limited data available suggests otherwise.

INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PETROLEUM
Again, my point is that if you think indirect effects should be included for biofuels – i.e. the LCA boundary should be expanded for biofuels to economically-derived effects – I would think that NRDC would push for them to be included for petroleum (or explain why you have concluded that they are zero). NRDC has not done that (substantively), to my knowledge. So what are these effects? We put up (commissioned) a preliminary analysis of petroleum, one of the few analyses of petroleum out there. It showed that even before getting into economic modeling - which is what produces indirect land use change for biofuels - there are significant effects. It finds that petroleum coke, for example, is a potential significant factor. For every 1000 barrels of crude refined, 90 barrels of extremely dirty coke goes to market as a by-product of refining. Much of this ends up outside of the refinery and the transportation sector. Petroleum coke combustion is the equivalent to 5% of all vehicle GHGs per year in the United States. You might call this an indirect effect of petroleum, or the avoidance of this effect (avoided coke combustion) an indirect benefit of biofuels. Either way, this is just one market impact worth looking at. Another is military. Two years ago I would have laughed at military inclusion. But indirect land use change completely changed the carbon assessment boundaries, putting military well within play. A recent published study (Liska et al.) concluded that military carbon emissions - assuming 26% of military activities in the Persian Gulf are for protecting oil resources - doubled the carbon score of Persian Gulf fuel. Perhaps the study has flaws, just like Searchinger’s first study of iLUC did, but that's a pretty big number. If you cut it in half it's a huge number. Either way, our petroleum study came to this basic conclusion: "Broader economic or price-induced petroleum effects are difficult to systematically assign a boundary given the prevalence of oil-induced economic drivers in the world economy. However, to the extent that economic effects are considered a part of the life cycle analysis of alternative fuels, as is the case with iLUC for biofuels, their effect vis-à-vis petroleum is also of interest." So let's get the economic modeling done so we can compare indirect effects to indirect effects, instead of isolating one indirect effect and adding it to the carbon score of one fuel, and offering without analysis that it is the only indirect carbon effect out there.

EXPANSION EFFECT OF ELECTRICITY
You say I am wrong about the expansion effect of electricity. I don't think so. Capping electricity emissions in California will not prevent an indirect (price induced) carbon effect occurring outside of the borders of California any more than capping agricultural land expansion in California would prevent theoretical land conversion overseas from increased demand for agricultural products for biofuels. Most of California's power comes from natural gas. Up to 30% of all electricity comes from outside state borders. If California or the country needs more natural gas to produce electricity because electricity is going into cars, or because NG is going into cars directly, the price of natural gas is going to go up. Power producers looking to produce the marginal electron (the electron now needed in the system to meet new demand) may be priced out of natural gas and choose coal. You say they cant because electricity is capped in CA. But the effect might occur in Nevada, or Pennsylvania, or Canada, or Mexico. It's all about asking what happens on the margins. That's the approach taken for indirect land use change, and it should be the approach taken for other fuels if parity was enforced and LCA boundaries were consistent. But the LCA boundaries have been allowed to be inconsistent, and the result is unneeded controversy and division.

“PUT UP OR SHUT UP”
You invited me to “put up or shut up” on petroleum. As discussed, we have commissioned a study that only scratches the surface for petroleum but nonetheless shows some significant effects. Others have bigger numbers for petroleum. But we cannot fund all the work that needs to be done, as much as we would like to, and even while we explore further research as we speak. Much of the heavy lifting on iLUC was underwritten by oil companies, so we may have to find a big donor to do in-depth work on petroleum indirect effects (assuming oil isn’t interested). But in the spirit of “put up or shut up”, let’s be honest about what an indirect effect is. An indirect effect is someone else’s direct effect, by definition. In other words, indirect land use change is the land converted to produce another product (e.g. food) somewhere else (ascribing causation to biofuels for theoretically pushing them there). Ok, let’s assume that this causal chain is reasonable; 2 truths emerge: (1) there is really only direct land use change on this planet (i.e. if a tree falls to produce food, you can blame biofuels but it still fell to produce food); and, (2) ascribing an indirect effect penalty to any product is a way to shift the direct carbon effect of Product A to Product B. How does that work in cap and trade? And is that good public policy?

IMPACTS OF DRIVING
This was just an illustrative example. The question is: should a Prius be debited for likely increasing the driving of the populace? Imagine how 50% penetration of all electric vehicles could make gas prices plummet and bring back the gas guzzling SUV. I do not know if the effect is large or small. Given the history of economic modeling, I bet one researcher could make the effect large, and another quite small. You seem to think it is our responsibility to present all the data -- we would if we could -- but who is making the policy and don't they have a legal obligation to be balanced? Either way, the point is this: an indirect effect is a questionable metric to judge a product by. It makes sense to assess it on the context of a specific policy (like the RFS) - but part of the biofuel carbon score? To do that, you have to hold the rest of agricultural production static and harmless for cumulative agricultural expansion. Talk about willful ignorance.

WILLFUL IGNORANCE
I guess one person’s precaution is another’s willful ignorance. Holding off on enforcing a single indirect effect until a better understanding of indirect effects across all fuel pathways (or at least oil and biofuels) can be achieved is not willful ignorance, it's being careful. The parity assessment does not have to be perpetual, but it has to happen. Even the modelers admit these models are in their infancy. We need not ask for certainty before we act, but blatant asymmetry is not the solution. Selective enforcement of indirect effects could produce unintended consequences, such as more marginal (carbon intensive) petroleum consumption in the near term.

I am sure the environmental community will blame "agriculture" for yesterday’s concessions on biofuels. But isn't selling economic modeling as precise enough to put people out of business and supporting selective LCA boundary expansion part of the reason for the backlash? I think so. To be clear, indirect effects should be part of any policy consideration (with emphasis on “policy”) but I also believe that the controversy today stems in part from a reasonable concern being misapplied.

Thanks for the response and I appreciate the invitation to reply.
Read more!

The Biofuel-Food Red Herring

Real Problem is Oil Dependence

by Brooke Coleman

It is an argument that seems to make intuitive sense …

We are having trouble feeding the planet. The new commitment to biofuel puts more pressure on grain markets; and therefore, makes it even harder to feed the planet.

The same logic is used to draw a connection between biofuels and food prices in the grocery aisle. There is only so much food to go around; biofuels are pushing food markets to the brink.

Problem is, at closer look, the argument begins to fall apart. Consider, for example, what some food experts are saying …

“Consumers are legitimately nervous when the cost of eating is rapidly outpacing the means of paying for food … [t]he food industry has been capitalizing on these fears by focusing on higher costs for one of their key ingredients: corn … [but] the correlation between crop prices and retail grocery prices remains elusive.” - Food & Water Watch

“Higher commodity prices do not necessarily translate into higher food prices in developing countries. In fact, higher commodity prices could actually increase food security in developing countries by reducing agricultural dumping.”
- Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

"Closing your eyes and blaming the current high [food] prices to biofuels is just too simplistic."
- Loek Boonekamp, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Boonekamp went on to say that the surge in farm product prices would have happened even without the increase in biofuel production.

How could this be true? Actually, the answer is pretty simple.

Higher grain prices have only a marginal impact on the price of food in the grocery aisle, because grain is such a small part of the price of retail food.

- For example a recent analysis (not funded by the ethanol industry) estimated that as a fraction of the consumer’s food expenditure dollar, the cost of corn used to produce the food is on average 3.2 percent. That means that 96.8% of the cost of food depends on other factors. This is only one of several studies showing generally the same thing.

But what about world hunger? It may be counter intuitive, but higher grain prices (within reason) are not necessarily a bad thing for developing countries (and may even be a good thing).

- For example, consider what the Institute for Agricultural & Trade Policy said about this dynamic: “[t]he dumping of agricultural products—the selling of products below their cost of production—is perhaps the most damaging of all current market distortions in world trade. Developing country agriculture, vital for food security, rural livelihoods, poverty reduction and generating foreign exchange, is crippled by the competition from major commodities dumped onto world markets. In 2003, U.S. corn was exported (dumped) at an average price of 10 percent below the full cost of production.”

- The Worldwatch Institute raises the possibility of reduced surpluses (i.e. higher prices) from biofuels being a positive thing: ““Potentially, using up surplus grain supplies in developed countries for biofuels could actually have a positive impact on the problem of hunger in poor countries… If rich countries were no longer dumping cheap food on the commodities market, farmers in developing nations would have a better chance of staying in business,” (Suzanne Hunt, Worldwatch Institute).

It is important to note that these are not isolated opinions. Any agricultural economist will tell you that, as a fraction of the overall cost of food, the grain portion is very small. Any world hunger expert will admit that dumping subsidized agricultural products (like under-priced corn) on world commodity markets is disastrous for domestic food production in developing countries.

So why are so many organizations and individuals overplaying the role of biofuels in food markets?

The answer is most likely a combination of several factors, including but not limited to the opposition to biofuels being well-funded and well-organized, the state of the press, the complicated nature of the issue, and the emotional nature of the issue.

Without any one answer being the “right” answer, this is what we know about the food issue:

1) The oil industry has been stoking the “food fear” issue vigorously, primarily because corn ethanol companies are taking an increasingly deeper cut of U.S. motor fuel markets.

2) The livestock industry has been stoking the “food fear” issue – most recently by funding several economic studies of “food versus fuel” – largely because they believe corn ethanol ended the era of unnaturally low (i.e. subsidized to below cost prices) feed corn prices; in other words, the livestock guys prefer unnaturally cheap corn because it allows for larger profit margins.

3) The “anti biofuels crowd” (in essence, those that do not believe in “farmed fuels” for sustainability reasons) has been stoking the “food fear” issue, largely because they do not believe that biofuels are part of the solution to global warming or sustainable energy production.

Sourcing aside, the biofuel-food debate is a red herring because it distracts policymakers and the general public from the real causes of food price increases:

1) Skyrocketing oil prices; and,
2) Increasing worldwide demand for coarse grains.

Consider the following:

- An April 2008 report published by Texas A&M concluded that, “[u]nderlying all the changes in agriculture and the economy is $100 per barrel oil and, generally, higher energy costs … Important food items like bread, eggs, and milk have high prices that are largely unrelated to ethanol or corn prices, but to fundamental supply/demand relationships in the world.” The report also notes that: (1) the price of corn itself has been driven higher by oil prices, which increase fertilizer, energy and tillage costs on the farm; and, (2) rolling back U.S. biofuel policy will not reduce food prices.

- Loek Boonekamp, of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said in January 2008 that the surge in farm product prices would have happened even without the increase in biofuel production. He pointed to the increased demand for coarse grains from developing countries like China and India, and reduced grain surpluses from drought as the major catalysts in worldwide food price increases.

So what is the solution? This much is clear:

1) Rolling back U.S. biofuel policy is not a solution to the food price issue, because it is not a central cause of the food price issue;

2) If oil prices are the primary catalyst for food price increases, then reducing our dependence on oil should be regarded as a primary remedy for the food price problem.

3) If biofuels are part of the solution to oil dependence, we must promote them in a way that does not create unintended consequences.

Recent critics of biofuels seem to have forgotten that the new federal policy (signed into law in December 2007) includes greenhouse gas reduction standards, land use protection standards, and commits to no more than 15 billion gallons per year of corn ethanol. Authors and supporters of these sections of the bill were well-aware of the potential unintended consequences of devoting too many resources to biofuel production ... which brings this post full circle ...

Is today’s food issue an unintended consequence of biofuel policy?

The facts belie the argument. The answer is no.
Read more!

More Misleading Biofuels Analysis

Searchinger and Tillman Reports Raise Serious Methodological Questions

by Brooke Coleman

On February 8th, several major news outlets covered the emergence of two new studies published in Science magazine about the “upstream” or indirect impacts of biofuel production. There was a clear disconnect between what the studies actually say, and what was actually written. The general thesis of both studies is that using pristine lands to grow biofuel feedstock will have serious climate change impacts. Yet, most of the stories suggested or declared that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Some of the misinformation is directly traceable to the author’s statements.


1) It is simply false to paint Searchinger’s study as a critique of today’s biofuels …

The Searchinger study assumes 30 billion gallons per year (bgy) of corn ethanol use. This is almost 4 times the current U.S. ethanol market (8 bgy), and 2 times greater than the 15 bgy of corn ethanol use required by federal law through 2022.

2) It is misleading for the authors of both the Searchinger study and the Tillman study to claim that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline with regard to GHG emissions …

Both studies seek to go beyond the current analysis by incorporating indirect “upstream” land use changes into the GHG profile of biofuels. But they fail to incorporate indirect impacts into the petroleum fuel baseline, resulting in a clear “apples to oranges” comparison.

3) The Searchinger study is very clearly a “worst case scenario” analysis, but the article has been promoted as an investigation into the way things are done today …

Among the worst case scenario assumptions are: (a) an inflated ethanol market size; (b) an inelastic supply/demand land use forecast in which one U.S. hectare used for corn results in one hectare planted elsewhere; (3) all new (displaced) hectares are cultivated in pristine ecosystems (prairie, rainforests, etc.) as opposed to some marginal lands.

4) The Searchinger analysis relies on a long series of highly subjective assumptions …

The string of assumptions: we will get to 30 bgy corn ethanol production; increased corn demand spikes corn, wheat and soybean prices, reducing exports of corn, wheat, soybeans, pork and chicken; 10.8 million hectares would need to be planted to fill the void; new hectares would be planted on pristine lands in four countries: China, India, Brazil and the United States.

5) It is misleading to refer to land use impacts as an “omission” from previous biofuel studies …

An upstream/indirect impact is a brand new field of research for any product with incredibly uncertain indicators. These are all “market mediated” effects with dozens of possible socioeconomic, environmental, policy and geopolitical variables. The indirect impacts of oil dependence are countless, and are also omitted.

It is unfortunate that a “worst case scenario” calculation, without a petroleum fuel baseline analysis, was portrayed as a fair and transparent comparison of a business as usual approach. The ongoing analysis of indirect impacts will be incredibly complicated but remains important. The New Fuels Alliance hopes that future studies will be more balanced and more accurately portrayed by all responsible parties.

Read more!

Salon.com Misleads on Ethanol

A Response to “The fuel on the hill” by Joseph Romm

by Brooke Coleman

On Dec. 20, 2007, Salon.com published a story about biofuels in the context of the federal energy bill signed on December 19th.

First, a quick summary of the points we agree on. We have run out of time to dawdle on global warming. The petroleum-dominated transportation fuel market poses a huge challenge. The new fuel efficiency requirements passed in the 2007 federal energy bill are a useful start only. And cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuel technologies are promising.

Now, a quick summary of the points we disagree on.

In general, it appears that Dr. Romm has a personal distaste for corn ethanol as a climate solution. This is a common sentiment, because some corn ethanol does not have climate benefits (some does), and there are ecological impacts from corn production. The problem with the article is most of his arguments against corn ethanol are misleading:

1) He says that corn ethanol has little or no climate benefit. Actually, recent analysis by UC-Berkeley demonstrates that some corn ethanol production has very significant climate benefits (~ 40% greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions compared to gasoline), depending on how it is produced. On average, EPA says it is better than gasoline (~ 20%). He also forgets to point out that: a) the new energy bill requires all new corn ethanol plants to achieve at least 20% GHG reductions over gasoline; and, b) that the bill includes a 50% GHG reduction requirement for all advanced biofuels. 60% of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is advanced biofuels. 40% is corn ethanol.

2) Dr. Romm points to the Dr. Crutzen research to make the point that biofuels may be worse for the climate, because of fertilizer. While it is true that we must be careful about how we produce biofuels, Romm looks past dozens of papers that take into account fertilizer use to find this one, and fails to point out that Dr. Crutzen’s paper has not been peer-reviewed and has many problems. The issue is discussed here. Taking fertilizer into account is nothing new for carbon life-cycle modelers, even if the issue remains uncertain and requires more research.

3) The rainforest degradation problem in Indonesia is very real, but Dr. Romm does not mention that the U.S. biofuels industry is not to blame for this problem (primarily because the U.S. biofuels industry is currently based on corn). The proper characterization of this problem is this: rainforests have been cleared for decades to meet the growing demand for plant-based oils (like palm oil) for a wide variety of industries (food, cosmetics, etc.); if we are not careful, a greater U.S. commitment to biofuels could exacerbate the problem. Instead, Dr. Romm sensationalizes the connections and again fails to mention the GHG requirements in the federal energy bill, or the requirement for EPA to take into account upstream land use when establishing the metrics for the program.

4) Dr. Romm also misleads on air quality. He points to an EPA study of ethanol to show that smog levels generally increase with the use of ethanol. It shows that ethanol could increase smog (ozone), on average, by .079 parts per billion (ppb). The federal ozone (smog) standard is 80 ppb. So this is the equivalent of less than 1/100^th of one percent (.001) of the standard; well-within the margin of error, and as the EPA report notes, a very small percentage. The worst impact found was not even ½ of one percent of the standard. For an air quality modeler, this is a statistical increase. For a responsible editorialist and advocate, it should not be portrayed as one.

5) Water use is an emerging criticism of biofuels. Water is a serious (and often emotional) issue in most parts of the world, so it is particularly useful for biofuel critics (Romm included). But the argument is almost always made out of context (as is the case in the Salon article). It is true that it takes about 3-5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. But this number is shrinking every year, as ethanol plants become more efficient. On the other side of the coin, it takes anywhere between 2 and 90 gallons of water to produce one gallon of gasoline (NREL says 2, USGS says ~ 90). Even worse, the oil industry is looking at the tar sands in Canada, which would require much more water to harvest into useable petroleum. Truth is, water is a component of producing almost anything, which makes it that much more important to consider water in its proper context. Ethanol is a replacement for gasoline.

6) The corn ethanol “food vs. fuel” issue is another emotional but misleading point to make. To make the argument that corn ethanol is significantly increasing food prices, one must: a) get past dozens of studies that say just the opposite; and, b) turn a blind eye to increased energy prices. The food price argument makes sense, intuitively, until one realizes that grain makes up a very small percentage of the cost of food. Most of the money we spend on food (about 81 cents of every dollar) goes to food marketers like Nabisco, not the corn farmer. A lot of that is for expenditures that are impacted by energy prices, such as processing, packaging and delivery. There is a very good report on the issue prepared by IATP here. And more recently, the Renewable Fuels Foundation commissioned Informa Economics, Inc. to analyze this issue. The report can be found here. Before you dismiss it based on who commissioned it, check the credentials of Informa (and who commissioned the other food reports often mentioned). Informa concludes, “the statistical evidence does not support a conclusion that the growth in the ethanol industry is driving consumer food prices higher.”

7) Dr. Romm takes issue with the targets set for “advanced biofuels” in the bill. He questions whether we can meet the 21 billion gallon per year targets established by the bill for 2022. Truth is, we do not know for sure. We also do not know how much wind or solar energy we will be able to produce by 2022 either. The authors of the bill are aware of this, which is why the administrator of the EPA can adjust the targets (within a set of restrictions).

The Bottom Line: The energy bill makes a commitment to increase corn ethanol production and use to 15 billion gallons per year (bgy) – with a minimum 20% GHG benefit over gasoline – by 2015. It then shifts to advanced biofuels – 21 bgy by 2022 – with a minimum 50% GHG requirement. We are already close to 9 bgy. Dr. Romm seems to think that 15 bgy is too extravagant a commitment to make on the way to advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Time will tell. But if these are the arguments he is using to support that opinion, then perhaps 15 bgy is not as bad as he says.

Read more!

Federal Energy Bill Update ...

The Senate passed a revised energy bill by a vote of 86 to 8. The Senate removed the $21 billion tax package (about $3 billion survived in offsets sufficient to pay for CAFE and two of the energy efficiency titles) and the Renewable Electricity Standard. Apparently the House will vote on the bill next Tuesday; House passage is expected. Speaker Pelosi has already issued a statement of support. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is the same one that passed last week in the House version of the bill (36 BGY by 2022, of which 21 BGY is advanced biofuels).
Read more!

Environmental Groups Unified In Support of Proposed Federal Energy Legislation

15 Groups Say Biofuels Are Key Part of Effort to Move U.S. Toward Clean Energy Future and Support a 36 BGY RFS

With the environmental and economic consequences of oil dependence becoming increasingly clear, the nation’s leading environmental groups are unified in support of the proposed federal energy bill, including its five main titles: (1) fuel economy standards; (2) renewable electricity standards; (3) improved energy efficiency; (4) a renewable fuel standard; and, (5) energy sector tax reform. False reports have circulated that while environmental groups support the renewable electricity and efficiency provisions, they oppose the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) based on land use concerns. But according to the letter below, these concerns have been addressed. The RFS calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel use by 2022, 60 percent of which will be “advanced biofuels” made from second-generation feedstocks. As the United States continues to borrow nearly one billion dollars per day to keep foreign oil spigots open, the proposed energy bill would save consumers billions of dollars while creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs nationwide.

ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE • AUDUBON • DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE • ENVIRONMENT AMERICA • NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST • NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL • NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL • NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER • PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY • SIERRA CLUB • SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY • SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER • UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS • THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

December 5, 2007

Dear Representative:

On behalf of our millions of members and activists, we urge you to support H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act. The bill will be subject to a vote in the House of Representatives tomorrow, and will be considered by the Senate as soon as December 8. Congress must pass this energy bill before recessing for 2007. Failure to pass this legislation will delay much needed solutions to high gasoline prices, U.S. oil dependence, and the global warming crisis, as well as miss an opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in renewable energy and other sectors of the economy.

With provisions that dramatically improve and modernize automotive fuel economy, promote renewable energy, enhance energy efficiency, reduce pollutants, and boost the production of environmentally-protective home-grown biofuels, H.R. 6 will move us toward a cleaner energy future and reduce global warming pollution while generating economic growth and creating jobs. On balance, we support H.R. 6 because of these critical provisions:

• Increased Fuel Economy Standards. The product of a bipartisan agreement supported by the auto industry and labor representatives, the fuel economy provision will raise the combined fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This will be the first meaningful improvement in fuel economy standards since 1975. The provision provides for separate attribute-based standards for cars and light trucks (with an exemption for work trucks) and retains a distinction between foreign- and domestically-made car fleets. Manufacturers have been given added flexibility through extended credits for making vehicles that can run on alternative fuels. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that in 2020, the standards would reduce oil use by roughly 1.1 million barrels per day, save consumers $22 billion annually at the pump, and cut 192 million metric tons of global warming pollution (equal to taking 28 million of cars off the road).
• A Strong Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). This national standard requires utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. The RES allows utilities to meet up to 27 percent of their targeted requirement through energy efficiency savings (the equivalent of up to 4 percent of the 15 percent requirement). The standard would diversify the U.S. energy supply and boost the production of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar power, while creating jobs and promoting economic development. UCS projects the standard would save consumers at least $13 billion and cut 126 million metric tons of global warming pollution per year by 2020 (equal to taking over 20 million cars off the road).
• Energy Efficiency Standards for Light Bulbs and Other Products. H.R. 6 includes valuable efficiency standards that will not only save consumers and businesses money, but also significantly reduce global warming pollution. The most prominent standards are for light bulbs, which would require typical light bulbs to use 25-30 percent less energy by 2012-14 and about two times less energy by 2020. Other provisions include new standards for dishwashers and clothes washers, and new Department of Energy authority to issue regional energy efficiency standards for heating and cooling equipment. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates the lighting standard alone would reduce global warming pollution by 100 million metric tons in 2030 relative to DOE projections.
• A Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) with Added Environmental Safeguards. The RFS provision will bring 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to the market by 2022 – a five-fold increase over the current standard – including 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels made from corn alternatives. These targets are from the Senate bill passed on June 21st. Recognizing the immense pressures this mandate could have on farms, forests, and protected lands, the RFS includes some of the vital protections needed for our environment and food supply, while providing added flexibility for refiners. Conventional biofuels must generate 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline, and advanced and cellulosic fuels must emit 50 and 60 percent less, respectively. These targets, which account for the full lifecycle impacts of biofuels production, including land conversion, help ensure that the RFS will have a net positive impact on the climate.
• Tax Incentives for Clean Energy. Tax measures in H.R. 6 would repeal some oil industry subsidies and shift those resources to clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. This section includes provisions from an earlier version of H.R. 6, which passed the House in January, and the President’s budget. Some of the more important incentives for clean energy are the production and investment tax credits for cellulosic fuels and renewable energy, and tax incentives for energy efficient buildings, equipment, and appliances. The bill also calls for a carbon audit of the tax code.

As H.R. 6 is called up for consideration, the price of crude oil is approaching nearly $100 per barrel, and the average price of gasoline is $3.10 per gallon. Congress is faced with an important opportunity to deliver an energy bill before the end of the year that will take significant strides to reduce our dependence on oil, increase our use of home-grown renewable energy, provide a down payment in the fight against global warming, reduce harmful pollutants that cause health threats, and save Americans money. We urge you to pass H.R. 6.

Sincerely,

Kristen Miller, Legislative Director, Alaska Wilderness League

Betsy Loyless, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Audubon

Mary Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife

Anna Aurilio, Director, Washington, D.C. Office, Environment America

Karen Steuer, Vice President for Government Affairs, National Environmental Trust

Bob Greunig, Senior Policy Analyst, National Tribal Environmental Council

Corry Westbrook, Legislative Director, National Wildlife Federation

Karen Wayland, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council

Pamela Miller, Arctic Coordinator, Northern Alaska Environmental Center

Will Callaway, Legislative Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Debbie Sease, Director, National Campaigns, Sierra Club

Ulla-Britt Reeves, Regional Program Director, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Nat Mund, Legislative Director, Southern Environmental Law Center

Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists

Linda Lance, Vice President for Public Policy, The Wilderness Society

.
Read more!

No Cloture on Federal Energy Bill

Late last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a comprehensive new energy bill with four primary provisions: (1) a new CAFE fuel efficiency requirement for cars and trucks; (2) a national Renewable Fuel Standard; (3) a Renewable Electricity Standard; and, (4) tax reform for oil companies. It is a strong bill that would save Americans billions and set the country on a path toward more sustainable and domestic energy production and use.

As the bill moved over to the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid needed 60 "cloture" votes to, in effect, prevent filibuster on the new bill. Unfortunately, the bill did not achieve cloture in the Senate on Friday morning (December 7, 2007). Now it seems the Senate will redraft the energy legislation this week, creating more uncertainty for passage.

Please find below the cloture vote roll-call. Seven votes from 60.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---53
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)	Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)	Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---42
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN)	Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA)	Landrieu (D-LA) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 5
Ensign (R-NV) Hutchison (R-TX)	Kyl (R-AZ) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ)

Read more!