The Oil Drum

This is a guest post by Lorna Li, a dedicated a Green activist, rainforest crusader, social innovator, and technology enthusiast.

Recently, a large group of auto workers and dealers have broken from the industry in order to support the 35 mpg by 2020 fuel efficiency standard that is currently being debated by Congress. This is the latest high-profile group that has joined the ranks of a broad coalition of environmental organizations, student groups, musicians, and trade associations that have been lobbying Congress to pass a strong, clean 2007 Energy Bill.

Fuel efficiency has been one of the more contentious items on the legislative agenda this year, with the House and the Senate deeply divided over the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard, a proposal that calls for auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency to 35 mpg for cars, SUVs, and light trucks.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) held a conference call with bloggers on Tuesday, July 31, to answer questions about API's position on energy legislation.

A link to a recording of the conference call (or most of it--the recording was cut off due to technical difficulties) can be found here. A transcript can be found here.

The API is not at all happy with the House legislation. One of the bloggers asked if there was anything in the 800 pages of legislation the API could support.

Gerald Kerry (of Platts): It doesn't look like there is much of anything you could support.

Jim Ford: That's right. This is Jim Ford with Government Affairs at API. And basically, you look at the provisions that are in the House bill, and it has a negative impact on current and future domestic production. It has limitations on expanding refining capacity. . . . So it has an extremely negative impact. It just far outweighs anything else that you might consider positive.

This is a guest post by Michael Vickerman of RENEW Wisconsin. The original post can be found here and the coverage on the post at EB can be found here. This article is reprinted with the permission of Mr Vickerman.

Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
July 27, 2007, Vol. 6, Number 9

Of all the issue areas that Congress dives into from time to time, none reveals the inability of our legislative branch to fashion an internally consistent national policy quite like energy. The usual items in an energy bill--tax credit extensions, fuel subsidies, fresh regulatory requirements (and loopholes), new rules on offshore drilling, etc.—are designed to reward specific industries and influential constituencies. This year’s energy bill promises to follow that timeworn path left by Congresses of yesteryear.

But an energy bill has to be more than the sum of its subsidies to constitute effective policy. This is especially true as we enter a time of growing resource and environmental limits that threaten to bite us in the collective behind if we don’t curb our profligate consumption of energy.

Two updates:

1. The House Rules Committee has taken testimony on all of the amendments and is prepared, but hasn't yet scheduled a meeting to vote on the Rule for consideration of the energy bills. It is still possible for the House to take up the energy bills later today.

2. About the Udall RPS, the today's revised version can be found here (PDF warning). A couple of notes: Municipal solid waste is not included as an eligible renewable resource. 25 states have municipal solid waste to energy plants. Among these are 12 of the states that have RPS and that include municipal solid waste energy plants in their RPS. MSW is controversial among those who consider themselves among the environmental community. Readers can help their Members by informing them if they have an opinion about the current amendment.

As mentioned in our previous update, Dave Roberts has a nice writeup over at the Gristmill on the national RPS here.

We continue to beseech TOD Readers to inform their Members about their particular recommendations for voting for or against amendments and/or the bill, especially the adopting of a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Capitol Hill Switchboard is 202-225-3121--it is a good idea to know your Member's name or your zip code (all nine digits) when calling--Members only want to hear from their constituents.

Our previous posts on the topic (which contain links to legislation and proposed amendments) can be found here and here.

This post is a continuation of The Oil Drum's legislative effort to improve the pending House energy bills--the most recent effort can be found here. I can tell you that I have heard from three different staffers about our last thread and its comments, thanking us for our involvement in this legislation. People are being directed to these posts, so please keep them on point and on Realpolitik. Off point comments will be deleted.

TOD Readers are still encouraged to inform their Members about their particular recommendations for voting for or against amendments and/or the bill, especially the adopting of a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Capitol Hill Switchboard is 202-225-3121--it is a good idea to know your Member's name or your zip code (all nine digits) when calling--Members only want to hear from their constituents.

Below the fold are links to tables of descriptions of the amendments that have been filed - but NOT YET approved by the Rules Committee for debate and votes tomorrow. Remember, the Energy Tax Bill is H.R. 2776. The General Energy Bill is H.R. 3221. The modified version of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill, the old H.R. 969, was filed as an amendment (#96) to H.R. 3221.

UPDATE: CAFE amendments have been withdrawn from consideration.

UPDATE 2: Dave Roberts has a great post on the RPS here at Gristmill.

UPDATE: Text of the bill H.R. 969 -- T.Udall-Platts RPS can be downloaded using the search engine on the House website: www.house.gov. There is a deadline of 5pm 8/1 for Members to submit amendments to the Rules Committee for the Energy Bill. Any amendment filed MAY differ from the text of bills as introduced.

Amendments to the Energy bill have to be approved by the Rules Committee for floor votes (9 to 5 ratio of Speaker-appointed Democratic to Republican members). It will meet on Thursday. Links to approved amendments will be posted at the Rules Committee website. It can be accessed through the House home page at www.house.gov .

Oil Drum readers are encouraged to peruse recent coverage by CQ Today and EandENews (included below the fold) concerning the contents and status of elements in the bill and voice their reactions to, and analysis of, the legislation in this thread.

Under the fold are links to the actual text of the two bills - an energy bill and a tax bill. These two bills may well be combined into one bill by the House Rules Committee for debate and consideration this Friday.

I can promise you that there will be congressional staffers reading this thread. Therefore please keep it on point, off topic comments will be deleted. I have received emails from staffers who were impressed with our last effort, by the way.

Readers are also encouraged to inform their Members about their recommendations for voting for or against the bill. Two issues of continuing controversy and vote counting are raising CAFÉ standards and adopting a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Capitol Hill Switchboard is 202-225-3121--it is a good idea to know your Member's name or your zip code (all nine digits) when calling--Members only want to hear from their constituents.

During the course of the President’s State of the Union Address he spoke to the energy situation in these words

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power -- by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years -- thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

I gave the whole quote, since it was interesting to see the inclusion of biodiesel to a greater extent that I recall seeing emphasized before. The MSM had foretold the increase in emphasis on ethanol, 35 billion gallons a year is some 2.28 million barrels a day or somewhere around 10%, and it would appear that the intent is to mandate this percentage in the national fuel fix. However, while this thrilled the Senator from Iowa, corn ethanol cannot be the total answer, since the impacts on world food supplies (as well as our own) would be severe, and may well still be, as corn prices will inevitably rise.

The ethanol bubble has been bursting a bit lately. I don't say that with glee, because I hate to see people lose money, especially when it was due largely to misleading claims. (I say that even though 95% of the hate mail I get comes from ethanol investors). I hope the end of the irrational exuberance we have seen in the ethanol market will lead to a more fact-based look at which technologies are needed to replace or supplement fossil fuels, and what technical challenges must be overcome before that happens.