Friday, December 7, 2007

Committee Mark-Up Exposes Serious Flaws in Lieberman-Warner Bill, Enormous Floor Fight Awaits As Key Issues Side-Stepped
Look Closer at Global Warming "Solutions" (In Case You Missed It...Sen. Inhofe Op/Ed, Roll Call)
Nuclear Not Included in Cap-and-Trade Bill
Opening Statement: Business Meeting To Consider Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.
EPW BLOG: Democrats Vote Against American Automotive Manufacturing Jobs
EPW BLOG: Democrats Oppose Amendment To Ensure An Adequate Supply Of Natural Gas
EPW BLOG: Democrats Vote Against Amendment To Protect Poor From Rising Energy Costs
EPW BLOG: Bi-Partisan Letter Urges President To Consider Health And Safety Issues That Could Result From Increased Use Of Ethanol As "General Purpose" Transportation Fuel
EPW BLOG: A Northeastern Liberals Inconvenient Emissions Problem

Committee Mark-Up Exposes Serious Flaws in Lieberman-Warner Bill, Enormous Floor Fight Awaits As Key Issues Side-Stepped

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Senator Inhofe commented on the EPW committee’s passage of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191 on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.

“For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global warming cap-and-trade bill was passed out of committee,” Senator Inhofe said. “Not only is the entire cap-and-trade approach fatally flawed, but the Lieberman-Warner bill failed to improve today, as Democrat amendments were added. Instead of engaging in substantive debate, the Democrats’ chose to simply reject all serious efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of this bill and ensure adequate future energy supplies for this nation.

“The rejection of key amendments has guaranteed an enormous floor fight as many major issues were side-stepped. While the vote today was never in question, it did provide an opportunity for Republicans to expose the serious deficiencies of this bill. The full Senate now needs to look at a cost-benefit analysis of this bill. It is simply all economic pain for no climate gain. Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if you accept the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill would not have a measurable impact on the climate.

“Republicans, in a good faith effort, offered a conservative number of amendments to address the most important flaws in this bill. Unfortunately, they were rejected. As is, this bill will strike a devastating blow to American families, American jobs, and the American way of life.

“We have had approximately 20 climate hearings on the impacts of climate change, but none on so called ‘solutions.’ Differing approaches to reducing emissions were never discussed. Instead, the Committee rushed to a single approach, without the aid of government analyses.

“Within seven years, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 to 65 percent and will have a huge economic hit on households. These costs are far greater than the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. Additionally, the poor will be the hardest hit as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. By 2015 this bill is estimated to cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these lost jobs will go to China, India, and other emerging nations without carbon limits.

Senator Inhofe also commented on key amendments that failed today.

1) “The Democrats voted against help for poor Americans.” (Bond Amendment #1 - LINK)

2) “The Democrats voted against the American autoworker jobs.” (Inhofe Amendment #13 - LINK)

3) “The Democrats voted against promoting clean technologies like nuclear.” (Inhofe Amendment #23, Craig Amendment #27 - LINK)

4) “The Democrats voted against ensuring adequate supply of natural gas.” (Vitter Amendment #1 - LINK)

Look Closer at Global Warming "Solutions" (In Case You Missed It...Sen. Inhofe Op/Ed, Roll Call)

Roll Call

Look Closer at Global Warming ‘Solutions’

By Sen. James Inhofe

Monday, Dec. 3, 2007

Just in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a business meeting to consider legislation that seeks to impose mandatory global warming “solutions” on the American people. The global warming cap-and-trade bill (S. 2191) introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) seeks to regulate carbon dioxide by creating a whole new federal bureaucracy. In moving the bill out of committee, supporters of the bill are anxious for a symbolic “victory” just in time for their U.N. trip to Bali.

There is a better way for Congress to legislate. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on the merits of any proposed climate change legislation, especially considering that mandatory carbon cap-and-trade legislation will impose the largest tax increase ever in the U.S. without any measurable climate benefits. Consideration of the Lieberman-Warner bill, The Wall Street Journal reported in a Nov. 5 article, comes at a time when a “winter-heating crisis looms.”

The consequences of higher fuel bills for poor Americans can be devastating. High energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons for homelessness, according to a 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children. Because of the significant economic harm imposed on our country by this bill, I joined Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) in requesting a full economic analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration before we proceed to a vote. Not knowing the extent of the economic damage resulting from this bill before we vote would be irresponsible.

Growing Number Speaking Out Against Lieberman-Warner

An Oct. 29 article in The Politico noted that the “climate bill faces wave of opposition” and is “headed for a bumpy ride.” A Nov. 19 Bloomberg News article called efforts to promote the bill a “vain pursuit” and weighed in with a breakdown of the growing “resistance” the bill faces.

Duke Energy Corp. Chairman Jim Rogers has warned that the bill will cause a “customer revolt” due to a rise in electricity bills by as much as 53 percent in 2012, according to the Bloomberg News article. Additionally, the widely respected, nonpartisan Charles River Associates issued a Nov. 8 analysis of the bill, revealing it will cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion in welfare costs over 40 years and up to $1 trillion per year by 2050. Even the co-author of the bill, Lieberman, conceded on Nov. 1 that his bill would cost “hundreds of billions of dollars.” The American Council for Capital Formation’s analysis on Nov. 8 found the bill will lead “to higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced [gross domestic product].”

The AFL-CIO “says the bill would cost jobs by giving a competitive advantage to foreign companies that aren’t subject to similar restrictions,” according to the recent Bloomberg News article. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the bill “does not adequately preserve American jobs and the domestic economy.” It is correct. Why should we send American jobs to China when they build a new coal plant every three days and will ramp up production even further? Moreover, U.S. plants are more efficient than China’s plants, so this bill could cause net global emissions to increase, not decrease.

Recent analysis from the EIA of a less stringent cap-and-trade bill shows energy costs for consumers and employers will be even more expensive — and burdens on hardworking Americans, the elderly and the poor will be even more severe — if Congress adopts carbon mandates but fails to enact policies to increase domestic energy supplies.

This finding proves what I always have feared: Imposing limits on carbon emissions without new sources of low-emission energy will result in a crushing financial blow to Americans everywhere, especially to the poor. Yet, in hearing after hearing, it has become clear that the environmental community plans to erect barriers to new nuclear power and increased natural gas supply — which would be essential in meeting our energy needs in an emissions-constrained world. It’s the classic bait-and-switch. But the EIA study reveals how costly it will be if we fall prey to that trap.

The fact is the word “nuclear” does not appear anywhere in the bill. Without nuclear energy, however, there is no chance of achieving the objectives espoused in this bill. The EIA analysis of the less-stringent bill included a “No Nuclear” scenario that showed electricity prices increasing by 8 percent and, importantly, carbon emissions increasing 3 percent.

This inconvenient fact has led at least one supporter of cap-and-trade legislation not to support the bill. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stated earlier this year he will not support the bill because it does not incorporate nuclear energy. Sen. McCain correctly noted that the U.S. can’t effectively reduce emissions without an expansion of nuclear energy.

Failure of Carbon Cap-and-Trade

Cap-and-trade policies have been tried in Europe and they have proved to be an utter disaster. European emissions continue to climb while our current policies have resulted in emissions tailing off in the United States. The British environmental journal Nature in October said it’s time to dump cap-and-trade because it’s the wrong approach, and Kyoto has “failed” to cut greenhouse gases.

If we are going to impose enormous costs to our economy, a carbon tax would be a much more efficient and transparent approach. In addition, the Senate has passed two resolutions stating that any climate action must neither harm our economy nor fail to include developing countries. Lieberman-Warner does not pass that test.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently wrote that any meaningful emission-reduction cap means a “large number of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost, and real incomes of workers constrained.” Greenspan pinpointed the entire global warming cap-and-trade debate when he wrote, “Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence.”

To put it bluntly: Senators are going to be asking the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher prices at the gas pump for no climate benefit. This bill will simply result in real economic pain, for no climate gain. It appears the realities of global warming “solutions” are finally being exposed across the political spectrum. This bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the U.S. economy.

Nuclear Not Included in Cap-and-Trade Bill

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Senator Inhofe also joined with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) on Wednesday to blast Committee Democrats for voting against amendments to the Lieberman-Warner bill that would ensure the necessary development of nuclear energy to meet the emission goals as stated in the bill. Senators Inhofe and Craig both requested votes on nuclear amendments. Every Democrat voted against the inclusion of nuclear energy in the bill, with some saying they would address nuclear issues on the Senate floor. As a result, the Committee chose to ignore the inextricable link between nuclear energy and reduction in carbon emission. Failure to address the realities of complex issues such as these will make Senate floor consideration extremely difficult.

Senator Inhofe:

“The Democrats failure to include – and now subsequently reject – any mention of the world ‘nuclear’ in this bill just goes to show the tremendous challenges this bill will face on the Senate floor. Any credible attempt to drastically reduce carbon emission must include nuclear. You simply cannot ignore the world's largest source of emission-free energy if you plan to cut carbon emissions and still keep the lights on.”

Senator Craig:

“The majority is turning their backs on a proven, reliable, safe, and absolutely clean power source – nuclear. Bottom line – we can not simultaneously sustain our economy and reduce carbon emissions without nuclear power. It must be part of the mix. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant emits no carbon and produces hydrogen, a necessary fuel for tomorrow.”

Background Information:

According to a recent European Union report, “The renunciation of nuclear power will make it impossible to achieve the objectives set regarding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the combating of climate change". Worldwide, nuclear energy prevents the emission of more than 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. In the U.S. alone, nuclear energy avoids almost 700 million metric tons each year. You simply cannot argue with results. According to the Center for Global Development, nuclear plants make up 23 of the 25 largest ‘near-zero-emitting’ plants in the U.S. Since nuclear energy provides 73% of our nation’s non-emitting electricity, any credible effort to reduce carbon emissions requires increased development of new nuclear plants.

The Clean Air Task Force modeling of the Subcommittee-passed version of S. 2191 indicates that 117 gigawatts of new nuclear generation must be in operation by 2030 to meet the objectives of the bill. 117 gigawatts of new nuclear generation would prevent the emission of 702 million metric tons of carbon emissions.

Sen. Inhofe’s amendment (Inhofe Amendment #23) lays out a schedule under which new nuclear plants must begin operating in order to support that objective. The bill requires an extremely aggressive construction rate compared to relevant history. If nuclear energy ---- as the world’s largest, proven source of non-emitting energy ---- cannot be deployed on a schedule that supports the objectives of this bill then those objectives, by definition, are unachievable. In that case, the amount of allowances should be frozen, without further reductions, until enough new nuclear plants can be built to meet the schedule.

Senator Craig asked for votes on two amendments. The first, Craig Amendment #27, seeks to advance nuclear power plants, like the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), operate at high temperatures that enable the technology to offer clean energy solutions to more than just the electric industry. NGNP produces significant quantities of cost effect process heat that can be used to diversify energy supply away from expensive, carbon emitting natural gas. This clean heat source can be used in the extraction of carbon intensive energy resources and in refining, manufacturing, and chemical processes.

Senator Craig also called for a vote on Craig amendment #27, identical to S. 37, that includes a number of provisions that are required to license, construct, and operate the Yucca Mountain repository for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. More than 100 new reactors may be required to meet the requirements of S. 2191, this amendment allows for the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel and offers certainty for developers of future reactors.

Opening Statement: Business Meeting To Consider Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Today's markup culminates what should be known as "The Year of the Missed Opportunity" for this Committee. We had about 20 climate hearings on the impacts of climate change, but never on solutions. We never discussed the differing approaches to reducing emissions. Instead, we've had a rushed process at the end of the year to examine a single approach, without the aid of government analysis.

By focusing on form over substance, we missed an opportunity to consider a more thoughtful and better crafted bill. By failing to discuss issues themselves - such as allocations versus auctions, input versus output, taxes versus caps, permitting issues related to energy supply including natural gas, nuclear power, and transmission lines - we now must attempt to do through the amendment process what should have been done throughout the year and address some of these issues.

Several amendments have been filed on this bill, but as I look at them, it seems to me that they fall into some broad themes:

*Lessen the economic burden on households and the poor

*Protect America's workers

*Ensure clean technologies are pursued and are available before tighter limits are imposed

*Address regional disparities

At the heart of the matter is that this bill is all pain and no gain. An EPA analysis of the various bills issued in October made this clear and was startling in its conclusions. I have long said that, even if you accept all the science of the other side for arguments sake, none of these bills would do much. But even I was surprised at how little these do to curb global concentrations of greenhouse gases.

By the end of this century, the total difference in global concentrations between the most and least stringent climate bills at the Century is only a few parts per million out of almost 700 parts per million. The fact is that none of them do much because China's emissions will continue to accelerate as it builds coal plants and imports jobs from the U.S.

This will be enormously expensive to households - within 7 years, electricity prices will skyrocket by 35 to 65 percent and the economic hit on households will be up to $1300 and escalating rapidly from that point on. This is far worse than even the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. And the poor are the hardest hit since they pay about 5 times as much per month as a percentage of their monthly expenditures compared to wealthier Americans.

By 2015 this bill will cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these jobs will go to China and India and other emerging nations without carbon limits.

This bill also does little to ensure that we have the clean technologies such as nuclear and clean coal that would be critical if we adopted this legislation.

Last, this bill creates many regional disparities - winners and losers - and some provisions seem designed solely to gain short-term votes at the expense of bad long-term policy.

I hope that today we can begin the slow process of improving this bill. Thank you.

EPW BLOG: Democrats Vote Against American Automotive Manufacturing Jobs

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (December 5, 2007)

During Wednesday's Environment and Public Works Committee business meeting, Senate Democrats defeated Sen. Inhofe's amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill that would require the submission of annual reports describing the effect of this legislation on the automotive industry

Inhofe Amendment 13

The Lieberman-Warner bill will not only harm consumers by raising their energy costs, it will likely cost them their jobs. The respected consulting firm CRA International testified before this committee last month that by 2020, this bill will cause a net loss of between 1.5 and 3.4 million jobs.

Senator Inhofe is very concerned about the impact of this bill on our domestic automobile industry, which has endured significant job cuts over the last few years. The economies of several Midwestern states—including Missouri, Ohio, and Michigan, to name a few—are directly tied to the prosperity of this industry.

The Inhofe amendment is about protecting jobs and keeping our economy strong. It requires the Secretary of Commerce, a year after the bill becomes law, and every year thereafter, to report on whether this bill will cut 10,000 jobs in the automobile industry during the following calendar year. In other words, it gives us the ability to look ahead and see how people will be impacted.

If the report shows 10,000 jobs will be lost, then the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, must increase the number of allowances necessary to preserve those jobs.

Link to Inhofe Amendment #13

How Committee Members Voted: (8-11, Amendment Defeated)

Senate Majority Committee Members

Sen. Barbara Boxer - NO
Sen. Max Baucus - NO
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman - NO
Sen. Thomas R. Carper - NO
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - NO
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg -NO
Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin - NO
Sen. Bernard Sanders -NO
Sen. Amy Klobuchar - NO
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -NO

Senate Minority Committee Members
Sen.James M. Inhofe - YES
Sen. John Warner - NO
Sen. George V. Voinovich - YES
Sen. Johnny Isakson - YES
Sen. David Vitter - YES
Sen. John Barrasso - YES
Sen. Larry E. Craig - YES
Sen. Lamar Alexander - YES
Sen. Christopher S. Bond - YES

EPW BLOG: Democrats Oppose Amendment To Ensure An Adequate Supply Of Natural Gas

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (December 5, 2007)

During today's Environment and Public Works Committee business meeting, Senate Democrats defeated Senator Vitter’s amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill that would would allow for the expansion of the U.S. energy supply and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by permitting, under certain circumstances, the exploration for natural gas off the coast of certain states.

Vitter Amendment #1

Natural gas demand is outstripping supply, and the bill makes it worse. December 2007 natural gas futures price are already priced 23.75% above today’s level, and FERC is forecasting electricity prices to rise across the country from 19% to as high as 32% because of high natural gas prices. The adoption of carbon caps in the near-term will exacerbate this problem greatly by causing fuel shifting from coal—currently about half of US electric generating capacity—to natural gas resources.

Since the natural gas crisis started in late 2000, we have lost 18.5% of all manufacturing jobs or 3.2 million good paying jobs. High natural gas costs played a significant role in those job losses. Higher energy prices mean job losses will continue because natural gas prices are cheaper in other countries.

Consumers paid a staggering $75.7 billion more for natural gas and $65 billion more for electricity in 2006 than in 2000. Even though natural gas is used to produce only 20 percent of the electricity, it accounts for 55 percent of the industry’s entire fuel expense ($50 billion out of $91 billion) according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

We must increase domestic supply because even small increases or decreases can have an enormous impact on natural gas prices. For example, even though we lost only 5% of our natural gas production because of Hurricane Katrina, consumers paid $40.8 billion more in higher natural gas prices over the following five months.

Natural gas exploration is one solution to this problem. There is an abundant supply of deep-sea natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf that can be retrieved in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Yet, 85% of these supplies are off-limits to exploration.

The OCS has enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years. Natural gas exploration would provide greater access to this supply would help reverse the current imbalance in supply and demand of natural gas. U.S. energy policies promote the use of natural gas, driving up demand, yet they also restrict access to domestic supplies.

Decades of experience has proven that deep-sea natural gas exploration is safe, and the development of new technologies is making it even safer. Increasing our supply of natural gas from OCS resources can be accomplished with little risk to the environment.

Link to Vitter #1

How Committee Members Voted: (8-10-1, Amendment Defeated)Senate Majority Committee MembersSen. Barbara Boxer - NO
Sen. Max Baucus - NO
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman - NO
Sen. Thomas R. Carper - NO
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - NO
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg -NO
Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin - NO
Sen. Bernard Sanders -NO
Sen. Amy Klobuchar - NO
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -NO

Senate Minority Committee Members
Sen.James M. Inhofe - YES
Sen. John Warner - PRESENT
Sen. George V. Voinovich - YES
Sen. Johnny Isakson - YES
Sen. David Vitter - YES
Sen. John Barrasso - YES
Sen. Larry E. Craig - YES
Sen. Lamar Alexander - YES
Sen. Christopher S. Bond - YES

EPW BLOG: Democrats Vote Against Amendment To Protect Poor From Rising Energy Costs

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (December 5, 2007))

During Wednesday's Environment and Public Works Committee business meeting, Senate Democrats defeated Sen. Bond’s amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill that would guarantee low- and fixed-income families are protected from significantly burdensome higher home heating or cooling prices as a result of this bill.

Bond Amendment #1

Low- and fixed-income families are particularly vulnerable to higher home heating and cooling prices threatened by the Lieberman-Warner bill. None of the programs contained in this bill guarantee low- and fixed-income families are protected from significantly burdensome higher home energy prices. The currently proposed Federal Reserve Board-type cost relief measures are triggered only by economy-wide and nationwide problems and are too general and indirect to address specific situations such as low- or fixed-income suffering in certain regions of the country. Auction and allocation programs make funds available to aid the poor and seniors, but there are no guarantees recipients such as States where given a choice will devote their funds to aid the poor and seniors versus other authorized activities such as efficiency or conservation programs. Energy Assistance funds are routed through programs such as LIHEAP favoring Northeastern States or winter heating costs as opposed to other States or summer cooling needs. Even with the maximum amount of funds going to aid low- and fixed-income families, there is no guarantee of protection from price increases that outstrip available aid funds.

The Bond amendment adds to the duties of the Carbon Market Efficiency Board (Board) created by the Act the collection of data on residential retail electricity and natural gas prices and the extent to which they become significantly burdensome to low- or fixed-income persons or families.

*Allows the Board to employ at any time its currently proposed Federal Reserve-type cost relief measures to reverse adverse economic conditions caused by this Act.

*However, if the Act’s currently proposed measures fail within 30 days to relieve the conditions created by this Act resulting in residential retail electricity or natural gas costs at levels significantly burdensome to low- or fixed-income persons or families, requires the Board to employ emergency cost relief measures consisting of a “safety-valve” developed by the bipartisan Bingaman-Specter climate bill to reverse those conditions.

*If invoked, the Board must set the safety-valve price of the program at a level and for the time necessary to reverse the conditions created by this Act resulting in residential retail electricity or natural gas costs at levels significantly burdensome to low- or fixed-income persons or families.

*Requires the Board to monitor and act upon emergency conditions either in the United States as a whole or in any region of the country such as the Northeast, South, Midwest, Mountain West or West Coast.

Link to Bond Amendment #1

Senate Majority Committee Members

Senate Minority Committee Members

Sen.James M. Inhofe - YES
Sen. John Warner - NO
Sen. George V. Voinovich - YES
Sen. Johnny Isakson - YES
Sen. David Vitter - YES
Sen. John Barrasso - YES
Sen. Larry E. Craig - YES
Sen. Lamar Alexander - YES
Sen. Christopher S. Bond - YES

EPW BLOG: Bi-Partisan Letter Urges President To Consider Health And Safety Issues That Could Result From Increased Use Of Ethanol As "General Purpose" Transportation Fuel

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (December 7, 2007)

On Tuesday, December 4, 2007, Senator Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, joined Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Benjamin L. Cardin (D - MD), Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Susan M. Collins (R - ME) in writing a letter to the President to “urge your Administration to carefully evaluate and respond to unintended public health and safety risks that could result from the increased use of ethanol as a ‘general purpose’ transportation fuel.” The letter notes that the President has called for a national effort to reduce consumers’ demand for gasoline by 20 percent in ten years, in part through increased use of renewable transportation fuels such as ethanol. In addition, the Senate, as part of its pending energy legislation, has adopted language that would significantly increase renewable fuel use – particularly the use of ethanol – over the next two decades.

Click Here for a Link to the Letter

December 4, 2007

President George W. Bush

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

We write to urge your Administration to carefully evaluate and respond to unintended public health and safety risks that could result from the increased use of ethanol as a "general purpose" transportation fuel. You have called for a national effort to reduce consumers’ demand for gasoline by 20 percent in ten years, in part through increased use of renewable transportation fuels such as ethanol. In addition, the Senate, as part of its pending energy legislation, has adopted language that would significantly increase renewable fuel use – particularly the use of ethanol – over the next two decades.

Currently, under federal law, the maximum level of ethanol permitted to be blended with gasoline for use in conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, equipment and engines is 10 percent – so-called E10. There is an interest in increasing ethanol blends to 15 percent (E15), 20 percent (E20), or even 30 percent through an expedited process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to a fuels waiver under Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. Currently, there is little available data on the emission, air quality, public health, or safety impacts of mid-level ethanol. Therefore, to avoid unintended harm to air quality, to consumers and to gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment, the following concerns must be addressed before EPA takes such a step:

*On-road and non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment (other than flexible fuel motor vehicles) are not designed to be operated on ethanol blends higher than E10. The available evidence indicates that lawn mowers, chain saws, snowmobiles, recreational boats, motorcycles, and non-flex fuel motor vehicles will produce higher evaporative and engine exhaust emissions if ethanol blends higher than E10 are used.

*Ethanol blends higher than E10 are more corrosive on certain metals and plastics used in many of these products and will cause many gasoline-powered engines to run hotter and at higher RPM levels. In turn, this will result in adverse impacts on starting, durability, operation, performance, and operator safety, due to the degradation of critical components and safety devices.

To ensure there will not be damage to air quality or to consumers or their gasoline-powered products, there must be a comprehensive and scientific analysis of the impacts of ethanol blends higher than E10 in all gasoline-powered on-road and non-road engines, equipment, and vehicles. As part of any Section 211(f)(4) waiver decision for ethanol blends higher than E10, the EPA analytical process must, at a minimum, include the following:

*Testing of a representative and diverse mix of all gasoline-powered engines, vehicles, and equipment – on-road and non-road, large and small -- in which these higher ethanol blends will be used to assess potential increased emissions and long-term durability;

*Coordination of the analytical process by EPA with representatives of all stakeholders in this process, including at a minimum renewable fuel producers and marketers, on-road and non-road vehicle, equipment, and engine manufacturers, and public safety and environmental protection advocates;

*An analysis of the ability of the current wholesale and retail motor fuel distribution system to accommodate different levels of ethanol blends if blends higher than E10 are not suitable for use in all on-road and non-road gasoline-powered engines;

*Public notice and comment of all proposed EPA actions to consider or approve ethanol blends higher than E10, including, if necessary, public hearings; and,

*Final action by EPA to either approve or deny a petition to introduce into commerce ethanol blends higher than E10, along with publication of the agency’s rationale for its decision.

We request information on all EPA's and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) proposed or existing test programs and evaluations of the impacts of operating gasoline-powered on-road and non-road vehicles, engines, and equipment with ethanol blends higher than E10. Before these test programs and evaluations are implemented, EPA and DOE must provide a meaningful opportunity for comment and input from all stakeholders. We look forward to working with you on these important issues. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Jack Reed

James M. Inhofe

Benjamin L. Cardin

Bernard Sanders

Susan M. Collins

EPW BLOG: A Northeastern Liberals Inconvenient Emissions Problem

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (December 4, 2007)

In a twist of irony this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation today that will increase the use of home heating oil, a major contributor of greenhouse gasses, in the same week that the Senator is pushing his colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to go farther in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Sen. Sanders introduced legislation today to increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a federal program that helps low-income families, principally located in Northeastern states, that can’t afford dramatic price increases for home heating oil and natural gas. Because home heating oil is heavily relied upon by low-income families in the Northeast, increased funds for LIHEAP ultimately means these funds will go toward increasing the use of home heating oil. Meanwhile, the EPW Committee is set to consider the Lieberman-Warner climate bill tomorrow; a bill Sen. Sanders has said does not go far enough in reducing emissions.

A cleaner, more economic solution to rising energy prices would be to develop and encourage increased nuclear power and natural gas supply. Yet, as their record shows, Northeastern liberals have long obstructed any such approach. (See “Increasing Supplies Is the Best Solution for Relieving Heating Fuel Costs for Disadvantaged Americans” – March 3, 2006)

Further, the climate bill to be considered by the EPW Committee tomorrow will force home energy prices even higher. According to analyses by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MIT, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will place a greater economic burden the poor and drive up home energy prices even higher.

*EPA analysis of the less stringent Lieberman-McCain bill would impose a price increase for oil of 20% and for natural gas of 23%. This will have enormous impacts, especially on the poor.

*An EIA analysis of the Lieberman-McCain bill shows energy costs for consumers and employers will be even more expensive – and burdens on hard-working Americans, the elderly and the poor will be even more severe – if Congress adopts carbon mandates but fails to enact policies to increase domestic energy supplies. The findings by EIA show that imposing limits on carbon emissions without new sources of low-emission energy will result in a crushing financial blow to Americans everywhere, especially to the poor.

*Widely respected non-partisan Charles River Associates (CRA) issued a November 8 analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill that reveals it will cost $4-6 trillion dollars in welfare costs over 40 years and up to one trillion per year by 2050. (LINK)

*American Council for Capital Formation's (ACCF) new analysis on November 8 of the Lieberman-Warner bill finds the bill will lead "to higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP (gross domestic product)." (LINK)

\*Earlier this year, CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans.

* According to an MIT study, cap-and-trade legislation introduced earlier in the Senate this year by Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Boxer would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four.

*The same study found that the less stringent Lieberman-McCain would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. And the EPA analysis shows the Lieberman-McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050 - and that was based on assumptions designed to low-ball the number, begging the question of how high the real figure would be. The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993.

*Duke Energy Corp. Chairman Jim Rogers recently warned that the Lieberman-Warner bill will cause a “customer revolt” due to a rise in electricity bills by as much as 53 percent in 2012.

*High energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons for homelessness, according to a 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children.

Low income Americans need energy that is plentiful and affordable, not the mandated energy diet and costly policies now being considered in Washington.

# # #

Related Links:

Look Closer at Global Warming "Solutions" (In Case You Missed It...Sen. Inhofe Op/Ed, Roll Call)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a11cd5f8-802a-23ad-4f3f-d53ac04052d4&Issue_id=

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill 'Running into Resistance'

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=82610e17-802a-23ad-49bc-a9efe56e155e&Issue_id=

LIEBERMAN-WARNER GLOBAL WARMING BILL LOSING MOMENTUM

NEW ANALYSIS: CARBON MANDATE WOULD HARM CONSUMERS, JOBS AND ECONOMY

WATCH THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S NEW TV 30 SECOND AD OPPOSING THE LIEBERMAN-WARNER BILL

ANALYSIS CITED BY BOXER INCLUDES HUGE NUCLEAR ENERGY GAINS, DESPITE HER STAUNCH OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR ENERGY

BOXER'S REJECTION OF MORE TIME FOR CLIMATE BILL RINGS FALSE

CBO WARNS THAT CAP-AND-TRADE APPROACH COULD CREATE ‘WINDFALL' PROFITS & HARM POOR