| In
January 2007, a diverse bipartisan group of senators (Reid, Bingaman,
Boxer, Schumer, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Cantwell, Leahy, Stabenow,
Webb, Salazar, and Menendez) introduced the National Energy and
Environment Security Act of 2007 (S. 6), which seeks to reduce national
dependence on foreign oil and expand non-petroleum transportation
options. Among other components, “the bill proposes increased
biofuel production, a commitment to energy efficiency measures,
rolling back incentives which sponsor the oil industry, and promoting
alternative forms of energy, such as wind and solar.”1
Given that it has not even been two years since the passing of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), one may wonder why such an act
is even necessary. EPAct was the first national energy policy in
more than ten years — shouldn't it have included such measures?
For better or worse, it is becoming increasingly apparent that EPAct's
mandates fall short in many areas. As a result, Members of Congress
have begun to propose new legislation which will fill the gaps left
by the Act. More importantly, many progressive states have concluded
that the best opportunities for progress in energy and environmental
issues are through state-level policy. Thus, many states have enacted
or are progressing on new legislation which includes mandates even
more strict than those outlined in federal-level policy. This article
will briefly discuss a handful of recent advancements in national
and state level energy and environmental policy which fill the gaps
left by EPAct.
The National Energy and Environment Security Act of 2007 is designed
to fill many of the gaps left by EPAct through five distinct goals:
(1) to reduce dependence on foreign and unsustainable energy sources
by increasing automobile efficiency, expanding biofuels, and further
developing new automobile technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles;
(2) to reduce national exposure to the risks of global warming by
reducing carbon dioxide emissions; (3) to diversify energy sources
by developing new energy technologies; (4) to reduce burdens on
consumers of rising energy prices though implementation of low-income
home energy assistance programs; and (5) to eliminate tax giveaways
and prevent energy price gouging and manipulation.2 Of course, as
Bingaman states, “all of this is a tall order for Congress.”
Indeed, how can the Act’s supporters even think that their
act will be any more successful in these areas than EPAct was (or
wasn't)? Bingaman suggests that these issues be tackled through
a series of smaller energy bills which have a greater chance of
properly addressing the issues at hand. Since its conception, EPAct
has been criticized by some as being so all-encompassing that it
does not mandate the incremental steps that are necessary for true
progress. Addressing specific issues through small, precise legislation
will likely be a more successful approach.
Although EPAct includes mandates for the expansion of alternative
fuels and research and development on alternative fuel technologies,
it again does not address many of the incremental steps involving
the development of technologies or markets in which the technologies
can thrive. For example, EPAct mandates that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) develop guidance for the development of advanced diesel
engines and fuel, but implementation has fallen short in multiple
areas.
Federal regulations mandating cleaner diesel engines in new trucks
and school buses went into effect in January 2007.3 Specifically,
the legislation mandates the utilization of ultra low sulfur diesel
(ULSD), which, as of October 2006, has been promoted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as the new diesel standard. ULSD is considerably
cleaner that conventional diesel fuel, and has a maximum sulfur
content of only 15 parts per million (ppm), whereas conventional
diesel has a much greater sulfur content of 500 ppm.4 The environmental
benefits of switching to the new fuel are expected to be considerable.
According to the Diesel Technology Forum, new engines and fuel in
combination could reduce emissions of particulate matter by up to
98 percent over the previous generation. Furthermore, nitrogen-oxide
emissions will be reduced by 50 percent. The ULSD policy is still
in early stages of implementation; not all retail outlets are required
to offer the fuel until the end of 2010. California is the only
state to have fully completed the transition to ULSD by September
2006.
The ULSD program is promising, but in reality, fuel labeled as ULSD
may accumulate more than the mandated limit of 15 ppm of sulfur
when transported through multiple pipelines, tanks and trucks to
the final point of sale.5 Furthermore, fuel distributors and retailers
may be taking delivery of fuel labeled ULSD without having a practical
means for verifying the actual sulfur content. In other words, EPAct
does not include the necessary legislation to ensure that the ULSD
program actually works.
Recognizing that further research and development is needed to ensure
that ULSD does indeed meet the mandated sulfur content, Rep. Bart
Gordon introduced the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act (H.R. 547) in January 2007. The Act aims to establish
a research, development and demonstration program on low-cost, portable
and accurate methods and technologies for testing of sulfur content
in ULSD fuel. With such a testing method, mandates which require
the utilization of ULSD can be upheld to their true intention. (H.R.
547 passed in the House and was referred to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works in the Senate.)
In many situations, states have realized that they must take energy
policy formulation and implementation into their own hands for there
to be substantial progress. Renewable portfolio standards (RPS)
is one such area. RPS requires that electricity providers include
a specified amount of renewable energy as part of its portfolio
of generating fuels. There are a number of RPS enacted by states
across the nation, which vary greatly in terms of requirements.
The quantity of renewable energy development required, and the date
by which such development must occur, often differ among states.
Furthermore, different states have very different definitions of
“renewable” and “non-renewable” sources.
For example, some states include hydropower as a renewable energy
source while other states do not. Other discrepancies exist with
technology used to generate electricity; Maine, for example, includes
cogeneration — whether from renewable sources or not —
as an RPS source, whereas most other states do not.6
As of June 2007, 20 states and the District of Columbia had enacted
a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Together, these states account
for more than 42 percent of the electricity sales in the United
States.7 Since the passing of EPAct and the realization that a national-level
RPS will not be developed in the immediate future, there has been
a flurry of activity among state-level energy policy makers. The
most recent state to enact a RPS is Minnesota, which in February
2007 set some of the most stringent standards known in the United
States: 30 percent renewable energy from the state’s largest
utility, Xcel Energy8, by 2020, and 25 percent by 2025 for all other
utilities operating in the state. Additionally, other states recently
enacted an RPS: Arizona (15 percent renewable by 2025, enacted November
2006), Delaware (10 percent renewable by 2019, enacted July 2005),
Washington D.C. (11 percent renewable by 2022, enacted April 2005),
Maryland (9.5 percent renewable by 2022, updated legislation effective
July 2007), Montana (15 percent renewable by 2015, enacted June
2006), Nevada (20 percent renewable by 2015, enacted February 2006),
and Washington (15 percent renewable by 2020, enacted November 2006).
(For the full list of RPS throughout the nation, go to the DSIRE
database.)
Many states have taken the initiative to enact their own renewable
energy incentive programs which go a level above the incentives
included in EPAct. For example, as of March 2007, Colorado state
legislation mandates a mandatory green-power option for large municipal
utilities. Under the legislation, municipal electric utilities serving
more than 40,000 customers in Colorado must offer a green-power
program that gives retail customers the option of supporting emerging
renewable technologies.9
In April 2007, Massachusetts enacted an energy reduction plan for
state buildings, which mandates that all agencies involved in construction
and major renovation projects of over 20,000 square feet to meet
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards
which ensure high-performance, energy efficient and more sustainable
building design.10 Also in April 2007, Vermont enacted a similar
energy reduction plan for state buildings which aims to reduce non-renewable
energy purchases and increase overall energy savings. Specifically,
the plan mandates that all state agencies and institutions constructing
state-owned facilities over 5,000 gross square feet be designed
and constructed consistent with state-formulated standards at least
as stringent as LEED.
It has become clear that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 alone will
not achieve the nation's energy objectives. But, with progressive
new federal policy aimed at tackling each issue one at a time, and
progressive state policies aimed at mandating renewable energy development
or outlining incentive programs, the gaps left by EPAct are being
filled. EPAct was useful in establishing many baselines and over-arching
policy initiatives; now, smaller, issue-specific federal or state
policy can effect real change in energy and environmental policy.
Indeed, the most memorable legacy of EPAct will likely not be the
act itself, but the windows it has opened for a new generation of
incremental progressive policies.
References
1. Catherine Brahic, "U.S. and European politics turning green,"
NewScientist: Environment, 09 January 2007. Full resource.
2. "Bingaman on National Energy & Environ-mental Security
Act of 2007," Floor statement of Senator Jeff Bingamin on S.
6 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources,
05 January 2007. Full resource.
3. Chris Woodyard, "Cleaner diesel engine rules take effect,"
USA Today Online, 28 December 2006. Full resource.
4. C. Gable and S. Gable, "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 101,"
About.com: Alternative Fuels, 2006. Full resource.
5. Rep. Bart Gordon, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act (H.R. 457), U.S. House of Representatives, introduced
18 January 2007. Full resource.
6. "State Energy Alternatives: Portfolio Standards," U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program
[online], 2007. Full resource.
7. "Information Resources: States with Renewable Portfolio
Standards," U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Program [online], 2007. Full resource.
8. Xcel Energy is a leading combination electricity and natural
gas energy company, which offers a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related
products and services to 3.3 million electricity customers and 1.8
million natural gas customers. The company has regulated operations
in 8 Western and Midwestern states, and revenue of more than $9
billion annually; and own more than 34,500 miles of natural gas
pipelines.
9. "Mandatory Green Power Option for Large Municipal Utilities,"
Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency [online],
2007. Full resource.
10."State Buildings Energy Reduction Plan," Database of
State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency [online], 2007.
Full resource.
|
