The Case for Climate Action: Building a Clean Economy for the American People

(Senate Democrats' Special Committee on the Climate Crisis) ... In the near term, we must continue to significantly grow solar and wind energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles while conducting more research into new technologies, advanced biofuels, and smaller and safer nuclear power.

Congress can make clean energy choices accessible to everyone. Investing in clean technologies pays for itself in the long run, but many families cannot cover the upfront cost. Congress can fix this problem, as it has before. In the 1930s, the U.S. government massively increased home ownership by creating institutions that made affordable mortgages possible.20 Federal action can and should do the same for solar panels, energy retrofits, electric vehicles, and clean technology—and this time around, do so in a way that ensures all Americans benefit.

These investments will pay for themselves in new jobs, innovation, and most importantly, avoided costs. We should
not be asking whether we can afford to act on climate. We should be asking whether we can afford not to.

Legislation must now be developed to meet the overarching goals of the committee:

-Reduce U.S. emissions rapidly to help achieve 100 percent global net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

-Stimulate economic growth by increasing federal spending on climate action to at least 2 percent of GDP annually—and ensure that at least 40 percent of the benefits from these investments help communities of color and low-income, deindustrialized, and disadvantaged communities.

Rapid increases in zero-emission vehicles, cleaner liquid fuels, public transportation, and smarter planning can significantly reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Research and innovation will be essential to achieving full decarbonization.

Electrification and low-carbon liquid fuels will play a particularly important role in addressing emissions from trains, ports, and freight segments.219 And we will need to develop new technologies to address modes that are currently hard to decarbonize, like aviation and shipping.

Developing cleaner liquid fuels
Alternative liquid fuels could play a significant role in reducing the carbon intensity of the U.S. transportation system by transitioning it away from oil dependency. This is particularly applicable for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including trucks, farming and mining vehicles that are more challenging to electrify, and for specific regions of the country. It is also true for transportation modes like aviation, rail, some freight trucking, and marine shipping,
where viable alternatives to liquid fuel are not yet available. It will also be important for the United States’ existing fleet of internal combustion engine vehicles. Advanced and cellulosic biofuels, coupled with carbon capture and storage technologies, have the potential to serve as alternatives to fossil fuels if we continue investing in their development.

One of the big drivers of biofuels in the United States has been tax subsidies. In December 2019, Congress retroactively extended the biodiesel tax credit for years 2017-2022 and the second generation biofuels tax credit for years 2017-2020. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the value of the biodiesel tax credit at $15 billion and the second-generation biofuels tax credit at $43 million.

Currently, the primary driver of alternatives fuels in the United States is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS creates a mandate for volumes of renewable fuels that refiners and blenders must use in transportation fuels, and sets up a trading system so those volumes can be used most efficiently. If implemented properly, the RFS gives farmers revenue stability, allowing U.S. agriculture to play an important role in reducing U.S. oil usage and further
supporting rural economies. Although biodiesel use has expanded, the advanced biofuels segment has not otherwise developed as rapidly as the authors of the RFS envisioned. This is at least in part because the Trump administration continues to lower biofuel volumes and waive blending requirements under the RFS, jeopardizing the market stability that the RFS was intended to create. New policy tools may be needed to encourage growth of new advanced
fuels beyond just corn starch ethanol and soybean biodiesel.

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) may also be an effective policy to reduce the carbon intensity of the fuel supply. An LCFS sets a maximum carbon intensity level for fuels that must be met each year, with the goal of increasing the range of commercially available low-carbon and renewable fuel alternatives.267

California was the first state in the country to implement an LCFS. The California system regulates refineries and distributors and allows emissions trading to increase economic efficiency. To date, California’s LCFS has helped avoid 38 million tons of carbon pollution and the use of 13.7 billion gallons of gasoline. The California LCFS was the model for a similar program in British Columbia, and Oregon recently followed California’s lead and adopted an LCFS of its own. In 2010, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia formed the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). TCI has developed a draft memorandum to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels and invest revenues to achieve additional emission reduction benefits. The
proposal is currently out for public comment, and TCI hopes to finalize it by September 2020. READ MORE