Hill Heat

The Subcommittee will also examine the relationship among motor carriers, brokers, shippers, and independent drivers with respect to setting and collecting fuel surcharges.

Witnesses

• Mike Card, President, Combined Transport
• John Felmey, Chief Economist, American Petroleum Institute
• Wayne Johnson, Director of Logistics, American Gypsum Company
• Tyson Slocum, Director, Energy Program, Publi Citizen
• Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
• Suzanne TeBeau, Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
• Ryan Todd, Integrated Oils Analyst, Deutsche Bank AG
• Robert Voltmann, President and CEO, Transportation Intermediaries Association

Witnesses
Panel I

• Joseph Kelliher, chairman, FERC
• Suedeen Kelly, commissioner, FERC
• Philip Moeller, commissioner, FERC
• Jon Wellinghoff, commissioner, FERC
• Marc Spitzer, commissioner, FERC

Panel II

• David Owens, executive vice president, Business Operations, Edison Electric Institute
• Mark Gaffigan, director, Energy Projects, Division of Natural Resources and Environment, GAO
• Scott Hempling, executive director, National Regulatory Research Institute
• James Kerr, commissioner, North Carolina Utilities Commission

E&E News:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will question energy regulators about their efforts to protect consumers when utilities are acquired by large holding companies at a hearing Thursday.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act repealed a 1935 provision that had prevented holding companies from owning more than one utility and restricting non-utility companies from owning or controlling regulated utilities. The intention was to generate investment and access to capital in the power industry to stimulate the large projects needed in generation and transmission.

When holding companies own subsidiaries in both competitive and regulated markets, it is important to protect consumers from cross-subsidization. This involves large holding companies using guaranteed rates from captive customers – those who still receive power from one regulated utility – to pay for financial risks taken by other subsidiaries.

Holding companies could also abuse that privilege by having regulated utilities buy services for above-market prices from its other companies and get paid through rate returns.

The 2005 EPAct granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to review merger acquisitions but required the commission to determine if the transaction would result in “cross subsidizations” and to adopt rules in that regard. The bill did not outline specific consumer protection regulations be put in place.

Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) had questioned the wisdom of repealing the 1935 provision without providing some required consumer protection regulation at the time.

Feingold and Brownback introduced an amendment that would have required FERC to establish “ring fencing” rules that restricted financial transfers between a regulated utility and its unregulated affiliates owned by the same holding company. The amendment did not pass but Bingaman promised during floor debate to hold a hearing on federal and state regulations on merger reviews and also asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the matter. GAO confirms doubts

The GAO report was finally released last month and it appeared to confirm the senators’ fears of weak consumer protection.

The report said FERC has not substantially expanded its review policies since the 2005 bill and relies too much on self-reporting.

The report recommended FERC use “a risk-based approach to detect cross-subsidization, enhance audit reporting, and reassess resources to demonstrate oversight vigilance.”

FERC has strongly disagreed with the GAO report. FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher said the report failed to understand FERC’s current policies and the history of its authority and definition of cross-subsidization.

FERC has the flexibility to defer to states’ protective measures, in contrast to the “pre-emptive” approach supported by the GAO report, Kelliher said at this month’s meeting.

“Recognizing the common interest in policing improper cross-subsidization, that [pre-emptive] approach seemed wholly inappropriate, since it would produce unnecessary conflict between federal and state regulators,” Kelliher said.

FERC is currently reviewing a proposed rule that would require a “code of conduct” when regulated and market-based companies had transactions.

But the GAO report said merely requiring merger companies to disclose existing or planned cross-subsidization and to promise not to engage in cross-subsidization is not strong enough regulation.

Several states have established “strong ring fencing” rules, including Oregon and Arizona, and have asked FERC not to adopt “pre-emptive” merger regulations.

All five FERC commissioners will testify, as well as representatives from state regulators, consumer advocates, GAO and the electric industry.

The League of Conservation Voters is holding their 2008 Annual Washington, DC Dinner at Union Station on April 30.

Featured Speakers:

• Congressman Tom Udall (NM)
• Congressman Mark Udall (CO)

Union Station – East Hall 50 Massachusetts Avenue, NE 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Benefit Committee: $10,000

Host Committee: $5,000

Ticket price: $500

Dress: Business Attire

To RSVP, visit the website or contact Amy Eckenroth:

[email protected], 202-454-4568

E&E News:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will consider a pair of Bush administration nominees for posts at the Interior and Energy departments, both of which have already been serving in those positions for months on an acting basis.

Jeffrey Kupfer is nominated to be DOE’s deputy secretary, the No. 2 position at the department. Kupfer is already serving on an acting basis, replacing Clay Sell, who left the department at the end of February.

Kupfer previously served as chief of staff for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Before that, he served as a special assistant to the president for economic policy at the White House and earlier as executive director of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

During the first half of the decade, Kupfer held several positions at the Treasury Department, and the Harvard-educated lawyer has also worked on Capitol Hill as counsel for multiple committees. Interior water and science

At Interior, Kameran Onley would become assistant secretary for water and science. She has been doing that job since July, while also serving as assistant deputy secretary since January 2006.

She previously served as a special assistant to the chairman of the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality. Onley led the policy group that produced Bush’s Ocean Action Plan, an interagency effort to enhance leadership and coordination on ocean management.

At Interior, Onley has led the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and co-chaired the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. She also served as the lead Interior official in the management of the new Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in Hawaii.

Prior to joining the Bush administration, Onley was an associate director at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. She earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from Seattle University and a master’s in agricultural economics from Clemson University.

View the webcast.

E&E News:

With an agreement among key farm bill negotiators finally in hand, the conference committee is expected to make swift work this week on the reauthorization of the five-year bill overseeing agriculture, conservation, energy and nutrition programs.

The committee will hold a formal conference meeting this evening, where they are expected to approve a new framework for funding and offsets for the bill that key House-Senate negotiators from the tax and agriculture panels agreed to late Friday.

Energy Harvest: Power From the Farm—An E&E Special Report

The new framework for the bill includes a $4 billion boost above the current baseline for conservation programs and $10.3 billion in new spending on nutrition.

Crop subsidies and reductions to a proposed disaster relief program took the brunt of the spending cuts to offset the new spending, lawmakers said.

The framework also includes a pared-down version of the Senate’s tax package that would roll back tax cuts for corn-based ethanol and give new tax breaks for the cellulosic ethanol and timber industries.

The leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees reached the agreement Friday after several days of intense closed-door negotiations in the Capitol. Lawmakers still have to work out some details of the $300 billion, five-year measure, but they said they expect a swift resolution of the conference this week.

“There were some tough spots, but we were able to get by all of that,” House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said after meetings Friday. “Any member can offer any amendment [in the conference committee], but I don’t see a need for any votes—I think we’ve got this so it won’t require any of that.”

The agreement still must reach approval of the conference committee and the full House and Senate, as well as the White House. President Bush has held a hard line with the farm bill, threatening to veto it unless it reforms crop subsidies and avoid tax increases.

Bush administration officials were not present for the negotiations last week. A White House spokesman said they are reserving judgment until they can review the entire package.

“As we’ve said in the past, the president believes that a new farm bill should include important reforms, not raise taxes and be fiscally responsible,” said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The leaders of the House and Senate tax panel agreed to rely on customs-users fees to offset much of the $10 billion in new spending for the bill. The fees, most of which would come from importers, do not classify as a tax and have not raised a red flag with the White House.

But other advocates for overhauling the farm bill are hopeful the White House will continue to press for more changes to the measure. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said he hopes Bush “will stand firm in his commitment to a better bill.” Kind is one of the leaders of a group of House members pushing to throw out much of the current subsidy program.

“Negotiators managed to avoid every opportunity to reform wasteful, outdated subsidies while piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending,” said Kind. “It looks as though nothing has been done to address the waste and abuse that has been well documented over the last year.” No limits for farmers

One of the outstanding issues for the bill is limitations on crop subsidies—a controversial area where reformers like Kind would like to see more change.

Lawmakers said they are still working out a deal on income limits for crop subsidy recipients. Peterson said it would likely lower the cap for people who make most of their income off the farm, but have no limitation for on-farm income.

“The people who are going to take a big hit in the bill are non-farmers,” said Peterson.

Advocates for farm bill reform want to place more stringent limits on how much money landowners can receive in federal subsidies—regardless of where their income comes from.

The Bush administration proposed barring anyone who makes more than $200,000 per year from farm supports.

The Senate’s version of the farm bill, approved in December, would stop payments to non-farmers who make more than $750,000 a year. It had no income caps for farmers. The House bill would cut off farm payments for millionaire farmers or non-farmers who make more than $500,000. Both prompted veto threats from Bush. Corn gives way to cellulosic subsidies

The agreement also includes a package of tax incentives that totals close to $1.5 billion, according to members of the Finance Committee.

The package includes extensions and reductions of the ethanol tax credits and tariffs, said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). The move is a step toward gradually transitioning the corn-ethanol industry to standing on its own. The package instead favors supports for cellulosic ethanol.

“It is a signal we are ready to shift to other less disruptive forms of ethanol production,” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said of the package.

Corn-ethanol subsidies would see an almost 12 percent hit. The current 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for corn-based ethanol would drop to 45 cents. In conjunction with that, it would also reduce the tariff on imported ethanol, Grassley said.

The winner in the tax package is cellulosic ethanol—made from corn stalks, woody plants or grasses. It would get a $1-per-gallon subsidy.

The move marks a significant shift for the farm-state lawmakers, who have been some of the biggest advocates for ethanol supports, and the booming grain and refinery industries that have come with them.

“This is a signal to the country that we’re starting to move away from corn to cellulose,” Peterson said. Sodsaver exemptions

The agreement includes protections for virgin prairie, long-sought from environmental groups, but has loopholes to allow some states to ignore them.

Conservation advocates have been pushing for years for a sodsaver program to bar federal subsidies for farmers who plow up native prairie.

The Senate sodsaver language, favored by conservation groups, would block crop insurance and disaster payments for farmers who plant on native prairie. The House bill limits the crop insurance ineligibility to four years.

The conference agreement has an “amalgam” of the House and Senate sodsaver provisions, Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Friday. All of the prairie pothole states would have to comply, but Montana and North Dakota would only opt in at their governors’ discretion.

Sodsaver is intended to address what conservation groups say is a backward system in current farm policy. The 2002 farm bill offers landowners conservation payments to conserve grasslands, but also gives crop insurance and crop subsidies that encourage plowing them up.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report this fall calling federal subsidies an “important factor” in encouraging the conversion of millions of acres of grasslands to row crops. The United States lost almost 25 million acres of privately owned grasslands between 1982 and 2003, GAO said. Conservation

The $4 billion increase for conservation trails the numbers negotiators had previously discussed, but still would give a significant boost to most farmland conservation programs.

Much of the conservation money would go to restore funding for programs that would otherwise expire under current law. The expiring Wetlands Reserve Program would get $1.3 billion above the 10-year baseline and the Grasslands Reserve Program would get $300 million.

The framework shifts almost $2.5 billion from the Conservation Reserve Program to other conservation programs—cutting down the Agriculture Department’s largest conservation program but infusing other working-lands programs with some of the money in its budget.

Lawmakers said it lowers the acreage cap for CRP to more closely reflect the reality of the program, which pays farmers to idle land.

The framework allots for 32 million acres in CRP. That total is less than the current limit of 39 million acres but still more land than most USDA officials expect to see in the program in the next several years. Enticed by high commodity prices, farmers have been taking some land out of the program, and USDA has held off on new open enrollments.

Other conservation programs would see a boost under the framework. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program would see a $2.4 billion increase over baseline levels, the Conservation Stewardship Program gets $1.1 billion, and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program gets $560 million. A new program for the Chesapeake Bay comes in at $372 million.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing examining the impact global warming is having on the earth’s oceans and ecosystems. Featuring renowned explorer Sylvia Earle and other ocean experts, the hearing will discuss how carbon dioxide emissions and the effects from global warming are harming the earth’s coral reefs, increasing the acidity and sea-levels of oceans across the globe, and putting fish stocks at risk during an already burgeoning food crisis.

Witnesses

• Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic Society
• Dr. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of The Ocean Conservancy
• Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University
• Dr. Joan Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Witnesses

• James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances, United States Environmental Protection Agency
• John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources & Environment, U.S. Government and Accountability Office

Panel 2

• Linda Giudice MD, PhD, Chair, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences Department, University of California, San Francisco
• Annette Gellert, Co-Founder and Chair, WELL Network
• V.M. DeLisi, Fanwood Chemical, Inc., On behalf of the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association
• Laura Plunkett, Ph.D, Integrative Biostrategies, LLC
• Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH, Chair, Interdepartmental Program in Applied Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Health, Johns Hopkins University

E&E News:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will meet tomorrow to discuss changes U.S. EPA made earlier this month to a key chemical database that would allow federal stakeholders, scientists and the public to weigh in early in the chemical risk assessment process.

The agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) provides access to research on chemicals found in the environment and their potential health effects. The risk assessments are used to create public health standards.

Under the new plan, EPA not only would invite other agencies to participate in the risk assessment process earlier but also would hold listening sessions to “allow for broader participation and engagement of interested parties,” according to the agency’s Research and Development Office. EPA also said the changes would result in an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments.

EPW Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the changes would be problematic. “They put politics before science by letting the White House and federal polluters derail EPA’s scientific assessment of toxic chemicals,” she said in a statement.

The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue a report that addresses Boxer’s concerns (Greenwire, April 11).

But some Republicans hope the hearing will give EPA a chance to promote the progress they have made on knowing and understanding the many chemicals that are out in the public sphere.

“The perception is that there are all of these chemicals in commercial use that EPA doesn’t know about,” said a Republican aide to the committee. “We think that’s erroneous. EPA has done a good job in recent years to try to increase what we know about the risks and toxicity [of chemicals]. It’s done a lot through voluntary steps, as well as some statutory ones, so I think it’s important that EPA talk about what they’ve been doing.”

Witnesses:

Panel I

• Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, Department of the Interior
• Ronald D. Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, Office of Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security
• The Honorable Chad Foster, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, Texas
• Ned Norris Jr., Chairman, Tohono O’odham Nation
• Juliet V. Garcia, Ph.D, President, University of Texas at Brownsville and Southmost College

Panel 2

• The Most Rev. Raymundo J. Pena, Bishop of Brownsville
• Betty Perez, Local private land owner
• Rosemary Jenks, Director, Government Relations, NumbersUSA
• Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council

Panel 3

• John McClung, President and CEO, Texas Produce Association
• Ken Merritt, Private Citizen Laura Peterson, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxpayers for Common Sense
• Zack Taylor, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Retired)

Lecture Hall Science, Engineering and Technology Building (SET-B) University of Texas-Brownsville

E&E News:

Two House subcommittees will be in Texas today to discuss the implications of the Homeland Security Department’s decision to bypass environmental laws and begin construction of 267 miles of fence along the U.S-Mexico border.

The House’s National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee and Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee will hold their joint field hearing at the University of Texas in Brownsville to hear from witnesses about the effect constructing a border fence will have on the environment and communities along the border.

Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced plans to use his authority under REAL ID to dismiss all environmental laws so it can finish building 470 miles of border fence by year’s end.

The waiver would allow the federal government to sidestep the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act and other cultural and environmental laws and regulations.

Officials at the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge in Texas have told Chertoff he would need to invoke his waiver authority to build the fence through the refuge, because the project would conflict with the refuge’s mission to protect important cross-border wildlife migration corridors.

Chertoff has previously invoked environmental exemptions for two other sections of the fence. The most recent waiver is by far the largest to date (Land Letter, April 3).

“The decision to invoke a waiver for fence construction will devastate the region and is an insult to those of us who live near the border,” Parks Subcommittee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said last week. “This administration believes that it is above the laws that protect the environment, health and human safety of border communities.”

Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have challenged the REAL ID provision in court, and 14 members of Congress, including the chairmen of the Energy & Commerce, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Transportation, Rules, Intelligence, Veterans Affairs and Education and Labor committees, have indicated they wish to file an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case (E&E Daily, April 8).

The hearing will also touch on Grijalva’s H.R. 2593, to allow DHS to determine the best approach to securing a particular area of the border, ranging from fences to detection technologies such as cameras and sensors to other options, and calls for full public input. It would also fund mitigation initiatives to address environmental impacts. It would also repeal the wavier authority granted to Chertoff under REAL ID.

Are all biofuels equal in terms of their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to the use of gasoline? If not, what factors determine which biofuels have greater capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? What is the most reliable method of measuring a biofuel’s effectiveness for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? What role does land conversion make in determining the effectiveness of biofuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Which biofuels of the future are likely to result in maximal reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? How close are we to that future?

Moderator:

• Dr. Anthony Socci, Senior Science Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Speakers:

• Dr. Joseph E. Fargione, Regional Science Director, The Nature Conservancy, Central US Region, Minneapolis, MN
• Timothy Searchinger, Visiting Scholar and Lecturer in Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton, NJ
• Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy, Professor in the Energy and Resources Group Energy and Resources Group (ERG) , Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy, Professor of Nuclear Engineering in the Department of Nuclear Engineering, and Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and Founding Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), University of California, Berkeley, CA
• Dr. G. David Tilman, Regents’ Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Program Summary

Biofuels: Threats and Opportunities

• It is possible to make biofuels that reduce carbon emissions, but only if we ensure that they do not lead to additional land clearing.
• When land is cleared for agriculture, carbon that is locked up in the plants and soil is released through burning and decomposition. The carbon is released as carbon dioxide, which is an important greenhouse gas, and causes further global warming.
• Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse gas reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.
• Depending on future biofuel production, the effects of this clearing could be significant for climate change: globally, there is almost three times as much carbon locked up in the plants and soils of the Earth as there is in the air and 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from land use change.
• Global demand for food is expected to double in the next 50 years and is unlikely to be met entirely from yield increases, thus requiring significant land clearing. If existing cropland is insufficient to meet imminent food demands, then any dedicated biofuel crop production will necessarily create demand for additional cropland to be cleared.
• Several forms of biofuels do not cause land clearing, including biofuels made from algae, from waste biomass, or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials.

Present Generation of Biofuels: Reducing or Enhancing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Previous studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gasses because growing the crops for biofuels sequesters takes carbon out of the air that burning only puts back, while gasoline takes carbon out of the ground and puts it into the air. These analyses have typically not taken into consideration carbon emissions that result from farmers worldwide converting forest or grassland to produce biofuels, or that result from farmers worldwide responding to higher prices and converting forest and grassland into new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Our revised analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions from the land use changes described above, for most biofuels that use productive land, are likely to substantially increase over the next 30 years. Even advanced biofuels from biomass, if produced on good cropland, could have adverse greenhouse gas effects. At the same time, diverting productive land raises crop prices and reduces consumption among the 2.8 billion people who live on less than $2 per day.

Simply avoiding biofuels produced from new land conversion – as proposed by a draft European Union law – does not avoid these global warming emissions because the world’s farmers will replace existing crops or cropland used for biofuels by expanding into other lands. The key to avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and hunger from land use change is to use feedstocks that do not divert the existing productive capacity of land – whether that production stores carbon (as in forest and grassland) or generates food or wood products. Waste products, including municipal and slash forest waste from private lands, agricultural residues and cover crops provide promising opportunities. There may also be opportunities to use highly unproductive grasslands where biomass crops can be grown productively, but those opportunities must be explored carefully.

Biofuels and a Low-Carbon Economy

The low-carbon fuel standard is a concept and legal requirement in California and an expanding number of states that targets the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of energy delivered to the vehicle, or carbon intensity. In January 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, which called for a 10-percent reduction in the carbon intensity of his state’s transportation fuels by 2020. A research team in which Dr. Kammen participated developed a technical analysis of low-carbon fuels that could be used to meet that mandate. That analysis employs a life-cycle, “cradle to grave” analysis of different fuel types, taking into consideration the ecological footprint of all activities included in the production, transport, storage, and use of the fuel.

Under a low-carbon fuel standard, fuel providers would track the “global warming intensity” (GWI) of their products and express it as a standardized unit of measure—the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent per amount of fuel delivered to the vehicle (gCO2e/MJ). This value measures vehicle emissions as well as other trade-offs, such as land-use changes that may result from biofuel production. For example, an analysis of ethanol shows that not all biofuels are created equal. While ethanol derived from corn but distilled in a coal-powered refinery is in fact worse on average than gasoline, some cellulosic-based biofuels – largely those with little or no impact on agricultural or pristine lands have the potential for a dramatically lower GWI.

Equipped with detailed measurements that relate directly to the objectives of a low-carbon fuel standard, policy makers are in a position to set standards for a state or nation, and then regulate the value down over time. The standard applies to the mix of fuels sold in a region, so aggressively pursuing cleaner fuels permits some percentage of more traditional, dirtier fuels to remain, a flexibility that can enhance the ability to introduce and enforce a new standard.

The most important conclusions from this analysis are that biofuels can play a role in sustainable energy future, but the opportunities for truly low-carbon biofuels may be far more limited than initially thought. Second, a low-carbon economy requires a holistic approach to energy sources – both clean supply options and demand management – where consistent metrics for actual carbon emissions and impacts are utilized to evaluate options. Third, land-use impacts of biofuel choices have global, not just local, impact, and a wider range of options, including, plug-in hybrid vehicles, dramatically improved land-use practices including sprawl management and curtailment, and greatly increased and improved public transport all have major roles to play.

Biofuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Better Path Forward

The recent controversy over biofuels notwithstanding, the US has the potential to meet the legislated 21 billion gallon biofuel goal with biofuels that, on average, exceed the targeted reduction in greenhouse gas release, but only if feedstocks are produced properly and biofuel facilities meet their energy demands with biomass.

A diversity of alternative feedstocks can offer great GHG benefits. The largest GHG benefits will come from dedicated perennial crops grown with low inputs of fertilizer on degraded lands, and especially from those crops that increase carbon storage in soil (e.g., switchgrass, mixed species prairie, and Miscanthus). These may offer 100% or perhaps greater reductions in GHG relative to gasoline. Agricultural and forestry residues, and dedicated woody crops, including hybrid poplar and traditional pulp-like operations, should achieve 50% GHG reductions.

In contrast, if biofuel production leads to direct or indirect land clearing, the resultant carbon debt can negate for decades or longer any greenhouse gas benefits a biofuel could otherwise provide. Current legislation, which is outcome based, has anticipated this problem by mandating GHG standards for current and next generation biofuels.

Biographies

Dr. Joseph E. Fargione is the Regional Science Director for The Nature Conservancy’s Central US Region. He received his doctorate in Ecology from the University of Minnesota in 2004. Prior to the joining The Nature Conservancy, he held positions as Assistant Research Faculty at the University of New Mexico (Biology Department), Assistant Professor at Purdue University (Departments of Biology and Forestry and Natural Resources), and Research Associate at the University of Minnesota (Departments of Applied Economics and Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior).

His work has focused on the benefits of biodiversity and the causes and consequences of its loss. Most recently, he has studied the effect of increasing demand for biofuels on land use, wildlife, and carbon emissions. He has authored 18 papers published in leading scientific journals, including Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Ecology, and Ecology Letters, and he was a coordinating lead author for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment chapter titled “Biodiversity and the regulation of ecosystem services.” His recent paper in Science, “Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt” was covered in many national media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, NBC Nightly News, and Time Magazine.

Timothy Searchinger is a Visiting Scholar and Lecturer in Public and International Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. He is also a Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and a Senior Fellow at the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute. Trained as a lawyer, Dr. Searchinger now works primarily on interdisciplinary environmental issues related to agriculture.

Timothy Searchinger previously worked at the Environmental Defense Fund, where he co-founded the Center for Conservation Incentives, and supervised work on agricultural incentive and wetland protection programs. He was also a deputy General Counsel to Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania and a law clerk to Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is a graduate, summa cum laude, of Amherst College and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Timothy Searchinger first proposed the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to USDA and worked closely with state officials to develop programs that have now restored one million acres of riparian buffers and wetlands to protect important rivers and bays. Searchinger received a National Wetlands Protection Award from the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 for a book about the functions of seasonal wetlands of which he was principal author. His most recent writings focus on the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, and agricultural conservation strategies to clean-up nutrient runoff. He is also presently writing a book on the effects of agriculture on the environment and ways to reduce them.

Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor in the Energy and Resources Group (ERG), in the Goldman School of Public Policy and in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also the founding Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) and Co-Director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment.

Previously in his career, Dr. Kammen was an Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and also played a key role in developing the interdisciplinary Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program at Princeton as STEP Chair from 1997 – 1999. In July of 1998 Kammen joined ERG as an Associate Professor of Energy and Society.

Dr. Kammen received his undergraduate degree in physics from Cornell University (1984), and his masters and doctorate in physics from Harvard University (1986 & 1988) for work on theoretical solid state physics and computational biophysics. First at Caltech and then as a Lecturer in Physics and in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Dr. Kammen developed a number of projects focused on renewable energy technologies and environmental resource management.

Dr. Kammen’s research interests include: the science, engineering, and policy of renewable energy systems; health and environmental impacts of energy generation and use; rural resource management, including issues of gender and ethnicity; international R&D policy, climate change; and energy forecasting and risk analysis. He is the author of over 200 peer-reviewed journal publications, a book on environmental, technological, and health risks, and numerous reports on renewable energy and development. He has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Dr. G. David Tilman is Regents’ Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology at the University of Minnesota. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, and has served on editorial boards of nine scholarly journals, including Science. He serves on the Advisory Board for the Max Plank Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. He has received the Ecological Society of America’s Cooper Award and its MacArthur Award, the Botanical Society of America’s Centennial Award, the Princeton Environmental Prize and was named a J. S. Guggenheim Fellow. He has written two books, edited three books, and published more than 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, including more than 30 papers in Science, Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. The Institute for Scientific Information recently designated him as the world’s most highly cited environmental scientist of the decade.

Dr. Tilman’s recent research explores how managed and natural ecosystems can sustainably meet human needs for food, energy and ecosystem services. A long-term focus of his research is on the causes, consequence and conservation of biological diversity, including using biodiversity as a tool for biofuel production and climate stabilization through carbon sequestration. His work on renewable energy examines the full environmental, energetic and economic costs and benefits of alternative biofuels and modes of their production.