Secretary Chu Announces $80M for Biofuels
DOE Secretary Chu's announcement today regarding $80 million of ARRA funding for biofuels is potentially a positive development for the long-term development of the biofuels industry. What is worrisome from a practical perspective is the division of funding. The National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts, centered in St. Louis, received $44 million to develop a systems approach for the sustainable commercialization of algal biofuel and bioproducts. The National Advanced Biofuels Consortium, based here in the Pacific Northwest, received up to $34 million to develop infrastructure compatible biomass-based fuels. Meanwhile eight infrastructure projects received up to $1.6 million to support expanded fueling infrastructure for ethanol blends. While the Administration is ahead of the curve in recognizing the importance of long-term support for the development of advanced biofuels, it is overlooking the increasingly challenging environment in first generation biofuels. Simply put- and purely in my opinion- there will be no second generation of biofuels if the first generation does not again thrive. The ethanol industry has hit a blend wall that the EPA has not been willing to help them overcome in the short term. Adding $1.6 million in E-85 infrastructure is but a chip in that wall when one considers the massive costs involved in building a national infrastructure. On the biodiesel side, the current industry has not yet received an extension of its tax credit and was already facing severe challenges. The investors who supported the expansion of the first generation biofuels industry are still tracking their investments and the policy support for the industry. While government funding will further the development of the science of advanced biofuels, private sector involvement will be essential to the ultimate commercialization of these fuels. To accomplish its ultimate goals, the Administration will need to begin to address these issues in a systematic manner.
President Obama Clamps Down on Lobbyists and First Amendment
On March 20th, President Obama issued a directive to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies. The directive is aimed at achieving the laudable goal of ensuring merit based decision-making for grants and other forms of stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (usually referred to as the Stimulus Bill). It seems that while candidate Obama promised repeatedly during his campaign to limit the influence of lobbyists in Washington DC, the passage of the Stimulus Bill has sent record numbers of lobbyists to D.C. to scramble for federal dollars.
In apparent response to this, President Obama has singled out registered lobbyists and regulated their contacts with the executive branch. His directive provides that “executive department or agency officials shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.” Officials are directed to inquire regarding the possible presence of registered lobbyists both upon the scheduling and commencement of phone calls and in-person conversations “with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act.” If any registered lobbyists are detected, the directive forbids them from attending the meeting or participating in the phone call.
Not surprisingly, the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) has objected to the Obama Administrations restrictions. In a demonstration that politics does indeed sometimes make strange bedfellow, ALL has been joined by the ACLU and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). In a letter to the President released Tuesday, these three groups requested that President Obama rescind the constitutionally offensive provisions of the directive immediately.
As tempting a political target as they may be, registered lobbyists have a place in our political system and rights under our Constitution. The President should heed the groups’ advice and tailor his directive to enable transparency while not muzzling any voices--including those paid to advocate.
Will California be Able to Regulate GHG Tailpipe Emissions?
The California Air Resources Board may soon get its wish. Back in 2005, ARB first requested a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to allow California to regulate motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. EPA denied the waiver two years later, after California threatened to sue EPA to force the agency to take action on the request. The very day after President Obama's inauguration into office, ARB filed with EPA a request for reconsideration of its waiver request. Several days later, President Obama himself signed a Presidential Memorandum directing EPA to assess whether denial of the waiver was appropriate in light of the Clean Air Act. Last Friday, Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, issued a Notice for Public Hearing and Comment on California's request for consideration of the previous waiver denial, which officially initiates reconsideration by EPA. Discussion at the public hearing on March 5, 2009 may get interesting, as the Notice's 'supplementary information' included a brief discussion on how the waiver denial had "significantly departed from EPA's longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act's waiver provisions and from the Agency's history, after appropriate review, of granting waivers to California for its new motor vehicle emission program." Stay tuned.
California ARB's request for a waiver is premised on the Clean Air Act provision that allows states to enact stricter motor vehicle emission standards than the federal government's, provided EPA has approved a waiver for the state to do so. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must grant a waiver unless it finds that the state:
- was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its proposed standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards,
- does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
- has proposed standards not consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
In denying ARB's original waiver request, the EPA administrator at the time, Stephen Johnson, noted that President Bush had just signed an energy bill that would work to reduce emissions throughout the U.S. and that increased fuel economy standards. The energy bill increased fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 40% by 202, to an average of 35 mpg. This is in fact the biggest increase by Congress in fuel economy standards since the program was created in 1975. As Johnson announced in December 2007, "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." It's true that if the waiver is granted, California would enact a more stringent fuel economy standard than in any other state. But, 16 other states have pledged that if California can move forward with its higher standard, they would in turn adopt California's standard as their own.
AGREEMENT REACHED ON STIMULUS PACKAGE
Congressional leaders have just announced that they have reached an agreement on the details of a stimulus package. The details have yet to be announced, other than the total cost of the bill is estimated to be $789 billion. That amount is less than either the House or Senate bill.
We will post details as they become available and will be sending out an alert. Congressional leaders are currently meeting with their respective caucuses to obtain their approval. The Conference Committee is expected to meet in formal session immediately after.
