The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America Majority Staff Report: Is It Worth Supporting?

Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)Federal Legislation Funding/Financing/Investing Opinions Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA Policy

June 30, 2020

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Robert Kozak* (Advanced Biofuels USA/Atlantic Biomass, LLC) Today the US House of Representatives Democratic Select Committee on Climate Change released their ideas for a “Clean Energy Economy.” Interestingly, this document is not proposed legislation. Instead, it is simply a compilation of potential government programs that are not organized in a systematic manner. They are compiled by subject topics which read like campaign bullet points.

Needed: Systems Approach

No attempt was made in the report to analyze the system wide effects of these proposals. This is unfortunate because in overlooking the basic concept that components of earth’s ecosystem are closely interrelated, their non-systematic energy reform proposals could easily result in no system wide emission decreases, or even in emissions increases.

For instance, switching transportation from liquid fuel to electric power requires the production of batteries using primarily non-renewable components mined by problematic procedures as well as the building of electrical transmissions facilities and electrical capture/production facilities that reduce the CO₂ capture capability of the land they are built on.

Needed: A “Technology Neutral” or “Performance Based” Approach

If the Democrats in the US House were serious about cleaning up the energy production sector by following scientific and engineering principals, they would have proposed an overall plan of implementation that would have compared the life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of optional technologies before moving forward. In the case of transportation energy, the proposed electrical system would have to be compared to the baseline petroleum system and to renewable fuel systems.

This is called a “Technology Neutral” or “Performance Based” approach. It was used very successfully in the US Clean Air Acts. Nowhere in Title 2 of the Act that sets vehicle emission standards are terms like catalytic converter or electronic fuel injection listed as required technologies. Instead, Congress established emission standards and warranty requirements and left the selection of technologies to manufacturers. The result was not only meeting the emission reduction goals but also the production of vehicles that had quantum leaps in performance and reliability above older vehicles without emission reduction technologies.

By rejecting an approach that would have produced the most efficient and cost-effective solutions possible and instead pre-selecting technologies for funding, the House Democrats have produced a plan that would benefit the electrical production industry while ignoring industries with better CO₂ reduction records such as renewable fuels. Does that sound science-based to you? To me it doesn’t. And for that fact alone I do not support this proposal.

Now, some people will immediately say that I am asking too much from Congress and I should be thankful for what they included for renewable fuel and be willing to accept that as a compromise. Okay, sometimes compromises are necessary. But, when is a compromise a legitimate brokered solution and when is it being sold down the river? Was the Kansas-Nebraska Act and similar Congressional Compromises of the pre-Civil War era good steps forward? Would The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America be a good step forward for renewable fuels and fighting climate change?

Let’s look at some of the details of that plan to see if renewable fuels got a fair shake.

Is the Plan Serious About Funding R&D Improvements?

The position on funding is stated on pages 86 and 87 of the plan.

One area that the majority staff for the Select Committee did not tackle but remains important for Congress to discuss is the issue of the viability and equity of current revenue streams for highway and transit, including the gasoline tax. Congress should continue to explore and test options for alternatives that fund U.S. transportation infrastructure priorities while advancing environmental and climate priorities, such as a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee.

No. Since President Eisenhower established the pay-as-you go vehicle user fee (aka gasoline tax) to pay for the Interstate Highway System it remains the simplest, most efficient way to pay for transportation improvements which have included mass transit and emission reductions.

By not addressing this critical topic upfront, the Democratic House majority shows that it doesn’t have the political will to address funding or other tough topics. Hence, I doubt that any significant increases in renewable biofuel research or implementation will be forthcoming.

Does The Plan Increase Renewable Fuel Requirements?

The plan does not include any specific proposals for increases in the use of near or zero-emission renewable fuels. Instead, it proposes replacing current EPA emission standards with the California (Three members of the nine member Select Committee as well as the Speaker of the House are from California.) Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Since the LCFS has been in effect in California I know of no independent studies that have shown any significant increase in renewable transportation fuels over non LCFS states; and, for example, EIA data seem to show decreases in use of renewable ethanol fuel.

Instead, as stated in the Democratic House plan:

California’s LCFS policy has supported the growth of electricity as a transportation fuel and reinforced the states ZEV sales mandate.

This appears to be another example of how the House Democrats’ plan is not Technology Neutral or Performance Based. Electric vehicles are proposed as the replacement for liquid fueled vehicles, renewable or not.

Does the Plan Have a Level Playing Field of Incentives for All Types of CO₂ Reducing Transportation Solutions?

Here is a list of seven incentives that the plan proposes for getting low emission transportation technologies to market.

Building Block: Extend Consumer Tax Credits for the Purchase of Electric Vehicles

Building Block: Incentivize the Purchase of Previously Owned Electric Vehicles

Building Block: Extend Consumer Tax Credits for Zero-Emission Fuel and Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Building Block: Provide Federal Grant Support for Deployment of Alternative Fuel and Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: designate national electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridors that identify the near- and long-term need for, and location of, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, propane fueling infrastructure, and natural gas fueling infrastructure at strategic locations along major national highways. ("Alternative Fuel" does not include ethanol, biodiesel or renewable diesel.)

Building Block: Direct EPA to Credit Electricity Generated From Renewable Biogas and Used to Power Electric Vehicles

Building Block: Boost Federal R&D and Grant Spending for Advanced and Innovative Clean Vehicle Technologies No mention made of biofuel development

Building Block: Significantly Increase Funding for DOE Transportation Electrification Grants

Five “Building Blocks” related to incentives for reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions do not include renewable fuels.

These incentives include vehicle tax credits which have been shown to be good market drivers. Two tax credits for installing zero-emission fuel pumps, and use of biogas for electric vehicles have some potential benefits. However, although, grants through the Department of Agriculture are currently available for installing high-ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel pumps, this Democratic proposal appears to ignore or take away that incentive.

The result, including taking away a current incentive, does not look like a good compromise. At best it looks like throwing a few crumbs to keep renewable biofuels supporters quiet.

Are There Any New Commercial Opportunities For Renewable Biofuels?

This plan proposes that reducing aviation GHGs is something that renewable biofuels will be needed for. Joe Biden has also listed this in the Climate Change section of his For-President website.

Full electrification of airline fleets, if technologically feasible, may be decades off. In the nearer term, sustainable alternative liquid fuels that are under development and already in use may hold the most promise for reducing the sector’s consumption of traditional jet fuel, with a continued commitment to research and innovation.

As anyone working in renewable fuels or climate change mitigation knows, this is not a new idea. The US Navy has been buying renewable jetfuel for at least six years while the commercial sector, through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), has been running pilot programs and airlines around the world use some renewable fuels on regularly scheduled commercial flights.

Furthermore, while additions to bio-jetfuel research are needed, they probably would not be substantial under this plan given the small CO₂ impact the report says the entire aviation sector (including ground operations) has.

The aviation sector accounted for 10% of the U.S. transportation sector’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2019 and nearly 4% of all energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

So, while there were nice words for biofuels in the aviation part of the plan;

Congress should increase funding for DOE research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of biofuels—particularly next-generation biofuels made from non-food (cellulosic and algae-based) resources—and other petroleum substitutes.

it was hard to see any significant improvements forthcoming from this plan over current conditions.

Bottom Line

Recently, I saw a leader of the Black Congressional Caucus asked on a cable news show if she would support the Senate Republican police reform bill even though it did not address most of the issues she felt were important. Her response (I’m not quoting, just remembering the key part) was how could she support that bill when even the House Democratic bill (which was being called “tougher” by some) did not address all the important issues.

I think a similar response to this House Democratic Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America is justified.

Are renewable biofuels treated on an even playing field with vehicle electrification?

Is there a scientific evaluation methodology proposed to evaluate GHG reduction efficiency and costs of all potential systems?

Is there a funding mechanism proposed to fund renewable fuels R&D and implementation?

Does the plan improve on current renewable fuel incentives?

Because the House Democrats' plan does not even make a reasonable effort to address these issues, I think the appropriate response is to not support this plan and instead begin working on one that does.

Let’s face it, we must get Congress to support a plan that uses solid analyses to select technologies, forgoes pre-selection, and provides secured funding systems that reduce CO₂ emissions. Without that, the unique and critical benefits of renewable fuels to mitigate climate change in the near term will be lost.

*Robert Kozak is the founder and President of Atlantic Biomass, LLC, and a co-founder of Advanced Biofuels USA. Having worked for about 40 years in the transportation, energy, environmental, and government relations industries and in enzyme development, he serves as a fuels/engines and policy expert for Advanced Biofuels USA. He can be reached at atlanticbiomass @ aol.com

“Disappearing” Carbon Tax for Non-Renewable Fuels (Advanced Biofuels USA)

What’s the Difference between Biodiesel and Renewable (Green) Diesel? 2020 revision (Advanced Biofuels USA)

How to De-Fossilize Your Fleet: Suggestions for Fleet Managers Working on Sustainability Programs (Advanced Biofuels USA)

New Engine Technologies Could Produce Similar Mileage for All Ethanol Fuel Mixtures (Advanced Biofuels USA)

John Mooney, a father of the catalytic converter, dies at 90 (Washington Post)

Democrats’ climate plan seeks ‘dramatic’ boost in land conservation, allows for biofuels (Agri-Pulse)

Report: Ethanol, LCFS can help US meet net-zero goal (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

House acknowledges role ag plays in climate solutions (Feedstuffs)

House Committee Releases Climate Crisis Plan (AgWired)

Ag Role in House Climate Plan: Biofuel Groups See Positives in Push for Low-Carbon Fuels Standard, But Criticism and Silence Remain (DTN Progressive Farmer)

BIOFUELS INCLUDED IN HOUSE CLIMATE CRISIS ACTION PLAN (Brownfield Ag News)

INSIDE THE DNC'S DRAFT CLIMATE PLATFORM: (Politico's Morning Energy)

ACE Commends House Climate Committee for Acknowledging Ethanol Is Part of the Solution to Reduce GHG Emissions (NACSAA News)

House committee embraces agriculture as a solution to climate challenges (The Hill/North America Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance)

WEBINAR: Solutions from the Land: HSCCC Climate Majority Report (NACSAA Update 8/6/2020) WATCH VIDEO Recap of 20.08.06 NACSAA Webinar HSCCC Majority Report Update (PDF)

Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: The report is an essential marker for Democrats, recognizing that the U.S. Senate would not take up any climate legislation passed by the House, and President Donald Trump would veto any such bill. But several of the recommendations are already included in a massive $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill House Democrats are planning to vote on as early as this week.

The infrastructure bill includes language promoting extensive investment in electric vehicles, which prompted pushback from a coalition of groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau and others, including the American Petroleum Institute, state the focus on electric cars benefits "a small and affluent segment of the driving public" at the expense of all drivers.

Still, the House climate plan drew praise from biofuel groups because of the inclusion of a "feedstock-neutral Low-Carbon Fuel Standard." While planning to move the U.S. auto industry to zero emissions, the committee recognizes the need for continuing the use of liquid fuels in the coming decades.

The House plan has an entire chapter on agriculture, calling for more funding for USDA's major conservation programs such as the Conservation Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program to increase "climate-smart" agriculture to help adapt to more extreme climate conditions and offset greenhouse-gas emissions. The plan recognizes that with 900 million acres in agriculture, "The United States has the potential to sequester a substantial amount of carbon in agricultural soils."

...

The plan also touts more investment in strategies that can convert livestock emissions into renewable natural gas. READ MORE