Plan To Raise Ethanol Standard Draws Resistance

The EPA’s plan to increase the amount of ethanol used in fuel is drawing criticism from experts who say doing so would hurt consumers.

Earlier this year, the agency was close to announcing that it would legalize the use of E15 fuel, or fuel that is 15% ethanol, 85% gasoline. That announcement was delayed, however, when the EPA decided it would take more time to test how newer engines - those manufactured after 2007 - and smaller engines handled the use of the higher blend of fuel. The estimate now is that the EPA will make the decision sometime this fall, perhaps as early as late September.

Currently in the U.S., ten states have mandates requiring all fuel to contain at least 10% ethanol, or E10 as it is known. In other states, the use of E10 is optional. In the U.S., corn is the main ingredient used for producing ethanol fuel. It’s because of this that some say raising the ethanol content in fuel would have a profound impact on everyday consumers.

“My concern is that we have a limited supply of corn,” said Bill Lapp, founder of an organization called Advanced Economic Solutions. “When you have demand exerted on the corn market [the price] tends to go up.”

Lapp, a former VP with ConAgra whose current company does consulting for food companies, said the net effect of E15 will be higher food prices across the board.

“We saw this in 2007 and 2008 when [corn] supply became tight because of ethanol demand being boosted back then.”

Since the EPA revealed last December that initial tests showed new vehicles would “likely be able to accommodate higher ethanol blends, such as E15,” an intense lobbying battle against the move has taken shape. Automakers have said ‘no’ to E15 on the grounds that it will damage engines, while food manufacturers have stood uniformly opposed due to price concerns. Moreover, environmental groups have said the higher fuel blend will create more pollution. Yet, backed by ethanol producers and farm state lawmakers, the EPA has moved forward with its testing.

Lapp says he’s holding out hope that enough push-back will force the agency to change its mind. Others, however, aren’t so optimistic.

“Unfortunately, the EPA will probably still wilt under pressure and legalize E15, wrote Matt Purple of the conservative American Spectator in a recent blog post.

“That’s bad news for any American who likes to drive.”

EPA Says Dispersants Are Not Affecting Gulf Coast Environment

Robert Hune-Kalter - Talk Radio News Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday that the high amount of dispersants being used in the Gulf of Mexico has not produced any negative side effects, yet. 

Committee members grow wary of dumping high amounts of oil dispersants into the Gulf and showed particular concern about the short and long-term effects these dispersants will have on the environment.

“As of yesterday, BP had used 1.8 million gallons of oil dispersants in the Gulf,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). “In Exxon Valdez we used 250 thousand barrels.  By comparison, Deepwater, the biggest oil spill in history, now uses 35-60 thousand barrels a day.”

Jackson assured the committee that the EPA has not seen any significant environmental impacts from the dispersants so far. Due to unknown scientific factors regarding these dispersants, the EPA has directed BP to greatly reduce the number of barrels of dispersants being dumped into the Gulf. The number of gallons being dumped has been reduced nearly 70% since May 26.

Dispersants have not been used within 30 miles of the coast and are prohibited from being used off shore because of the time it takes the dispersants to break up oil.

“Yesterday, the state of Louisiana reopened some state waters to fishing after tests showed no presence of oil or dispersants,” said Jackson.

Oil continues to spew from the well unabated after BP failed to cap it earlier this week.

Greenhouse Gases Threaten Human Health Declares EPA

Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Monday that her department will now be able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution...[and] is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act,” said Jackson.

The Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1970, allowed federal and state governments the ability to regulate emissions.

Moments after Jackson's announcement, the EPA posted the following statement on its website: “After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people."

Supporters of climate legislation lauded the announcement. In a statement issued following Jackson's remarks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "The EPA has thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature on climate change, which spans decades of research across a breadth of disciplines and across the globe. The science is clear: global warming is real, its impacts are being felt around the world, and carbon emissions present a danger to public health and the economy worldwide."

Critics of both the climate bill passed by the House earlier this year and the one being looked at in the Senate questioned the timing of today's announcement, arguing that it was heavily motivated by President Barack Obama's visit next week to Copenhagen where he will take part in a major summit on climate change.

“This is nothing more than an attempt by the administration to build international support for a binding political agreement in Copenhagen. It seems liberal Democrats will stop at nothing to overcome the strong objections of the American people to a cap and tax system. Today’s decision will kill even more jobs at a time when more than 15 million workers are unemployed," said House Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).

Post-Recess: Senate Takes Their Turn On Energy/Climate Discussion

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

The energy and climate debate is making its way to the Senate, just two legislative days after the House passed the Waxman-Markey energy bill. The Committee on Environment and Public Works heard from White House and other government officials Tuesday. They highlighted the importance of making the U.S. a leader in the clean energy market, reducing the effects of global warming, and creating new jobs in the process.

“Clean energy is to this decade, and the next, what the Space Race was to the 1950s and ‘60s. America is behind,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “American businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the twenty-first century global economy.”

Other officials present included: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Chu said that he applauds the House for passing the clean energy bill and said he looks forward to working with the Senate to pass “comprehensive energy legislation.” He also noted that denial of the climate change problem will not change the outcome but comprehensive legislation that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will.

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said, “I expect you will hear fierce words of doubt and fear and worse from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts to move forward with clean energy jobs legislation. This is consistent with a pattern of “No we can’t.” I believe this Committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our President’s attitude, which is “Yes, we can, and yes, we will.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) agreed that the bill will pass through their committee but he does not believe it will pass on the Senate floor. He said the Senators will have more time to review the many points of the legislation than House members did prior to their June 25 vote.

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) also testified Tuesday and stressed the importance of informing the public about the facts of energy policy.

“The gigantic effect of energy policy on American life means Congress should work particularly hard to ensure Americans know the facts about the policies Congress is considering. To the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1200 page energy bill a few hours before it was brought to the floor and passed. That is just the opposite,” said the Governor.

Energy Debate Continues on Earth Day

By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News
The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee celebrated Earth Day by hearing testimony on the American Clean Energy and Security Act from 21 witnesses, including U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson.

Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) released draft legislation three weeks ago to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and introduces a clean energy requirement for electric utilities and new energy efficiency programs. The legislation also places a cap on greenhouse-gas pollution and institutes low-carbon requirements for vehicles and fuels.

Rep. Waxman said that “it is no longer a question whether we will act to reduce CO2 emissions,” but “the real question is whether we will do so in a way that strengthens our economy, creates new jobs, and ends our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.”

Rep. Markey said: “We cannot continue energy policies that look to last century’s energy sources while other nations race ahead to take the lead in developing and marketing clean energy technologies and green jobs.”

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said America “will continue to use coal as a fuel, but we must learn to do so in a cleaner way.”

The Obama administration believes a Renewable Electricity Standard would create jobs and that a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution would restore America’s leadership in clean energy technology.

“We need not only jump-start our economy today but to lay the foundation for America’s long term prosperity,” said Chu.

Lisa Jackson, Administrator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said that “lasting economic recovery will come only when the federal government looks beyond the quick fix and invests in building the advanced energy industries that will help restore America’s economic health over the long term.”

Republicans fear that this legislation is going to cost Americans up to $3,128 in raised energy costs and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said that “you name the cost, and it’s going to go up.”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) said that nuclear power needs to be addressed and he feels the middle class will end up paying for raised energy costs. We will “essentially kick working families when they’re down,” said Upton.