Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Washington Legislature Adopts Biodiesel, Ethanol Mandate

March 9, 2006 | 10 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Bellingham, Washington [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Bipartisan cooperation for a major new energy policy can be hard to come by, but not when both parties agree on calling for new energy independence strategies. In legislative session, Senate Bill 6508 calling for a minimum renewable energy standard passed the Washington State Senate and is off to the Governor for an expected signature into law.

"This is truly a bill the entire state can be proud of. We're talking about new jobs, cleaner air, and more independence from oil. That's a win-win for all citizens of Washington."

-- 13th District Rep. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake

Senate Bill 6508 mandates fuel dealers to sell 2 percent biodiesel out of their total diesel sales and 2 percent ethanol out of total gasoline sales. This new state biofuels standard makes Washington a leader among other states that are moving in the direction of supporting renewable energy. It also complements a similar Federal law called the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that mandates the US reach 7.5 billion gallons of biofuel use by 2012.

These figures also act as a baseline as the law is designed to increase biofuel use as the state's capacity to grow and produce biofuels increases. The standards start at 2%, and ramp up to 5% for biodiesel and 10% for ethanol. State vehicles will use higher percentages of biodiesel. The state also has a huge potential to produce advanced biofuels, like ethanol from wheat straw, that can provide major reductions in fossil fuel use and global warming pollution in the future.

In addition to establishing market access for ethanol and biodiesel, and a variety of incentives for in-state fuel crops and production facilities, the RFS will open a new market for biofuels in Washington State, attract jobs, provide farm income and relieve concerns about oil prices and global warming, say supporters of the bill.

"This is truly a bill the entire state can be proud of. We're talking about new jobs, cleaner air, and more independence from oil," said 13th District Rep. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake. "That's a win-win for all citizens of Washington." Rep. Holmquist is also a member of the House Economic Development, Agriculture and Trade Committee and sponsored a similar House Bill 2738. She has been recognized as a leading proponent of biofuels legislation in the state. Earlier calls from Governor Christine Gregoire helped to drive the legislative effort.

Scheduled to take effect in 2008, after an advisory group helps the Department of Agriculture develop rules for implementation, the RFS, which industry experts anticipate will attract substantial investment in growing biofuel feedstocks and producing the fuel, is said to be one of the first in the nation.

The Washington State Apollo Alliance of Washington made the renewable fuel standard a priority this year, and the Washington State Labor Council, Washington's environmental community, Washington Agriculture, Washington Farm Bureau all endorsed the measure.

Additional Information

Bioenergy, Other

10 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 10

wayne-bostick-35964

March 10, 2006

Nothing wrong with biodiesel but lets get real about how much of it we can produce at what real cost and energy requirement?

If you think $2.50 diesel is bad wait until you start producing with $6.00 + soybeans and the politicians start taxing it. In addition look at the modifiers required for storage, stability, and temperature.

Hate to say it but biodiesel isn't going to solve the problem !

Comment
2 of 10

charlie-peters-14578

March 10, 2006

Is this a refinery welfare program?

Comment
3 of 10

jon-norling-43886

March 10, 2006

The original legislation was to be implemented in 2007, but a 2 year delay was sought in order to allow the Washington biodiesel industry to progress to a point that it could meet the 2% demand (equal to 20 millian gal/yr) without having to resort to imports.

Comment
4 of 10

reeves-clippard-37472

March 10, 2006

2% to start in two years? Come on Washington, I expected more. Renewable advocates need to stop aiming for small numbers. We can't afford to be timid. We have enough public support to be more agressive with RP- and RFSs.

Comment
5 of 10

david-bainbridge-40434

March 14, 2006

Making Washington a leader? Please! Since 1997, all gasoline sold in Minnesota must contain at least 10 percent ethanol, a product derived mainly from corn. As of September 29, 2005, Minnesota requires nearly all diesel fuel sold in the state to contain at least a 2 percent biodiesel blend.

Comment
6 of 10

zecyor

June 13, 2006

Was the whole deal with biodiesel & ethanol to watch our pocketbooks? No. Alternatives will provide an opportunity for the market to become more competitive and versatile. Traditional fuel companies HAVE NO COMPETITION at the current moment. Even hybrid vehicles are run on petrol. If we are concerned with fuel prices, however, and we introduce aggressive measures to bring alternative fuels into the market, "[petroleum companies] will drive the price of fuels down so low that [they] will push alternative fuels out of the market." We still pay pennies for our fuels compared to other countries. We need to take a "increase of quality of life" approach and legislative efforts that demand these fuel alternatives. Hurrah Washington. You are taking the right step!

Comment
7 of 10

charlie-peters-14578

June 23, 2007

<div>Ethanol Economics… Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007 </div> <div>The public policy farce that the “Green Governor” unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called “greenhouse gas” law) continues.  Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.   First, a few basic facts.  Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol.  Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre.  That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement.  But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds.  Get the picture?  The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country).  And that’s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.   As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels.  And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion.  And here’s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and – you guessed it – carbon dioxide.       Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and it’s more expensive – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.   The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store.  By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating.  Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.   The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard – but they will hit starving third world populations even harder.  Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries. So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right.  They’re creating it.  </div>  <a href="http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&blog_id=136&category_id=&start=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=&curyear=&curmonth=&curday" target="_blank">http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&blog_id=136&category_id=&start=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=&curyear=&curmonth=&curday</a>=

Comment
8 of 10

charlie-peters-14578

July 14, 2007

Saturday, July 14, 2007 NO on AB118* Currently $0.51 per gallon goes to oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gasoline. That is about $500,000,000.00 per year corporate welfare.* AB118 may add over $1.00 per gallon to additional gasoline profits in California* This is about the money from your pocket* The corn ethanol waiver in the 2005 federal energy bill will lower gasoline prices, improve miles per gallon, lower oil use and improve the air. * NO on AB118. Contact your elected officials and share your opinion(make copies and give to your friends)Clean Air Performance Professionals

Comment
9 of 10

charlie-peters-14578

August 8, 2007

The Farce About Ethanol... By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007 In response to my blog, "<a href="http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&blog_id=136" target="_blank">Ethanol Economics</a>," Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, "The Facts About Ethanol."  Just for fun, let's run "<a href="http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?postID=2007062523454845" target="_blank">The Facts About Ethanol</a>" through the old fact-checker:  "Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market." That's only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon - or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents - on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch.  "Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices." Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline - meaning you'll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage.  "CARB's recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas..." Let's walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao.  "Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent." Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed - meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January?  "Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline." Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you're not using this formula, you're not producing ethanol. And if you are, you're also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)  <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts" target="_blank">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts</a> * NO on “car tax” AB118 (Nunez) * Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP)  supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year. * Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit * Ethanol uses lots of water * A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year.  Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never * A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used  * About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the "renewable fuel" CAFE credit

Comment
10 of 10

charlie-peters-14578

August 14, 2007

A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol and Unintended Consequences For California Prepared by Juliette Anthony, M.A., M.S.August 2007 Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of which are beneficial to the economy or the environment of the state. The consequences include major impacts on our overcommitted water resources, on the price of food, on our air quality and on the financial burden to citizens while private investors profit.  Assembly Bill 118 in its present form (a reworking of the defeated Prop. 87), and other promised subsidies for the development and deployment of alternative fuels here in California, will develop a Food for Fuel program, affecting our food prices, our water use, and even  aspects of our air quality.    WATER IMPACTS “Food Grows Where Water Flows,” –The billboard message flashes by on Route 5 through California’s Central Valley. Water is a precious commodity in California.  Our water delivery systems makes growing crops in California’s Central Valley possible.  The large amounts of water required to produce ethanol competes with agricultural needs and has been overlooked or deliberately ignored by leading proponents of ethanol.  Corn ethanol requires 3.7 to 5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol just in the manufacturing process which does not take into consideration the water needed to grow the corn..  (Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well to Tank Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts, Prepared for the CEC, p. 6-17)  According to BlueFire, a cellulosic ethanol producer, cellulosic ethanol requires 6 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol during the manufacturing process, though the energy output is said to be at least 4-5 times greater than for corn ethanol per gallon [telephone conversation with BlueFire, June 2007].  And the future of cellulosic ethanol is an indeterminate number of years into the future—possibly five, six or more depending upon research and costs.    “The ethanol industry is mining our groundwater,” states the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.  In several places ethanol plants have been shut down, and some granted only 3 year permits to operate because the groundwater supply has been so depleted.   “’Mining water that is closer to the surface could result in dryer landscapes,” says Bob Libra, a geologist with Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources.  ‘Some of that stuff has been in place for hundreds of thousands of years.  If you take that out of the bank, you don’t know when you’re going to get it back.’”(Minnesota Environmental Partnership).  Many places in California, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, have already sunk down many feet because of groundwater mining.  In Iowa and Indiana, The Sierra Club has sued ethanol plants which have caused neighbors to become ill from toxics in the air and water. Surely, the air quality effects of an ethanol plant, if toxic for people, will be toxic for nearby  cattle as well.  Ethanol plants do not make good neighbors. (The Indiana Sierran-hppt:<a href="http://www.indiana.sierraclub.org/Sierran/03-1/EthanolPlants.asp" target="_blank">www.indiana.sierraclub.org/Sierran/03-1/EthanolPlants.asp</a>)  AB118, now before the State Senate, will provide subsidies of 130 million dollars a year from the citizens of California through additional car and boat registration fees to research and develop infrastructure for “alternative fuels.”   Although the AB118 does not specify corn ethanol, it is currently the only biofuel in the marketplace.  Simply by default and timing, it will receive a lion’s share of funding.  The Governor, while extolling the virtues of a water intensive ethanol industry, promotes new dams and a peripheral canal to deal with our shrinking water supply.  The Governor giveth and taketh away. Perhaps the two most popular myths about corn ethanol are that 1) it is a renewable energy source, and 2) its use as a motor fuel substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gasoline…If all the vehicles in California operated on E85 [the Governor and Legislature’s policy], the ethanol required would consume 70 percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, but only 13.6 percent of the energy in the fuel would be renewable…”  (Contra Costa Times 8/05/07) Daniel F. Anthrop, Professor Emeritus at San Jose State writes in Ethanol No Panacea For Rising Energy Demand”, “It is worth noting that approximately 14 percent of the U.S. corn crop is irrigated and that this irrigated acreage consumes almost 18 million acre-feet per year of water – much of which is overdrafted from the Ogallala aquifer in the Great Plains.  To put this water requirement in some perspective, the average annual flow of the Colorado River at Lee’s Ferry is only about 14 million acre-feet per year.  Moreover, much of this corn acreage in the Great Plains is easily erodable land, and a number of studies have conclusively demonstrated that row crops, such as corn, result in much higher erosion rates than cereal grains or forage crops.” FOOD FOR FUEL POLICY The potential consequences of growing “Food For Fuel” appear to be intentionally overlooked by the framers and supporters of AB118. Water flowing through the Central Valley enables California to produce ”more than half the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts . . . Due to the vast size of the produce industry, minor problems with the distribution chain . . . can cause [consequences] throughout the nation’s food system.” as we saw with the e-coli episode in the Salinas Valley last year.  (Life in the USA <a href="http://www.lifeintheusa.com/food/vegetables.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lifeintheusa.com/food/vegetables.htm</a>)  Almost all of this agriculture is dependent on irrigation.  Millions of gallons of water potentially diverted from California farms to ethanol could cause major disruptions in the food supply for the nation, and the move to growing corn, a very water intensive crop,  will also add to the pesticide and fossil fuel fertilizer run-off polluting our waterways. Shifting our valuable farmland from vegetables to mono-cropping corn is already happening in Kern County, and could prove devastating to many low income families. This is a world-wide phenomenon which AB118 would only aggravate.       Gwynne Dyer, reporter for The New Zealand Herald, wrote the following on July 10, 2007: “We are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.  The first is simply demand…the global population is continuing to grow – about an extra Turkey or Vietnam every year – but as Asian economies race ahead, more people in those populous countries are starting to eat meat.  The animals will need a great deal of grain, and meeting that demand will require shifting huge amounts grain-growing land from human to animal consumption – so the price of grain and of meat will both go up.  …If the price of grain goes up, some of them will starve…the mania for bio-fuels is shifting huge amounts land out of food production…This attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming – although the claims are deeply suspect… The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 percent in the past year alone and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.” (http:<a href="http://www.nzherald.july/" target="_blank">www.nzherald.july</a> 10, 2007) Because the cost of a bushel of corn has doubled since September of 2006, hog and cattle farmers are bringing their animals to market early in efforts to save money on feed.  Even though last year’s harvest of corn was 10.6 billion bushels, the third largest crop ever, the corn is increasingly transformed into fuel for cars, leaving the farmers short and food prices rising in the supermarkets.   “If all the scores of factories under construction or planned go into operation, fuel will gobble up no less than half of the entire corn harvest by 2008.”  And “Corn is . . . is a lousy raw material for fuel because producing 10 gallons of ethanol consumes the energy equivalent of about 7 gallons of gasoline, and greenhouse gas reductions are minuscule.”  (businessweek.com/7/30/2007)  This from a conservative business magazine, not an environmentally biased treatise on the definite downsides of corn ethanol.   The first step is to limit the extent of corn ethanol’s subsidies.   Further planting of fossil fuel intensive fertilized corn fields should be discouraged.  Let the Venture Capitalists who are seeking subsidies have the privilege of risking their own funds to research better non-food crop solutions and bring them to market when they are ready.   Vinod Khosla claims that “only 49 million acres could (italics are the editor’s) supply 139 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2030.” (Business Week, July 30, 2007).  If a reporter in The New Zealand Herald and a reporter at Business Week understand that there are real problems with biofuels in general and corn ethanol in particular, why has the California Press only written a few articles about AB118, and its stealth movement through the California Assembly and through two California Senate Committees? The Sierra Club, The Coalition for Clean Air, and The American Lung Association, are all aligned with Vinod Khosla and the oil companies in favor of AB118.  This is reminiscent of what happened with MTBE in the late eighties and early nineties when major environmental groups backed the use of MTBE.  They all, including Bluewater Network and its spin-off in D.C., the Renewable Energy Action Project (REAP), fought to  preserve the oxygenate mandate so that ethanol could move in seamlessly to replace MTBE.  MTBE was removed in January of 2007 and replaced by corn ethanol in all the areas of California mandated by the Clean Air Act to use an oxygenate.  This includes the San Joaquin and SacramentoValleys, and the Los Angeles Basin down to the Mexican Border.   Only after many wells in California were contaminated, did NRDC and the Sierra Club realize that MTBE was a serious water quality problem and support its removal.  We want to avoid a repeat of such an environmental error.  Ethanol presents a considerably larger problem than MTBE.  The demand for corn for ethanol production already has global effects on food supply.  There were riots in June because people were not able to afford corn for tortillas, and the NPR morning news reported on August 9th that countries in Central America were speaking out against President Bush’s corn ethanol  policy because it is playing havoc with their food supplies.         State Senator Tom McClintock (R) summed it up as follows: “The CARB regulations [to enforce the low carbon fuel standard] will undoubtedly hit Californians hard—but they will hit starving third world populations even harder.  Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.” (Blog: Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-07)  The details of the Food for Fuel policy are beautifully delineated in the publication “Rush to Ethanol” from Food and WaterWatch (foodandwaterwatch.org/food/pubs/reports/rush).  Mono-cropping, fossil fuel fertilizers, air and water contamination, and the financial detriments to the economy are laid out in no nonsense language, supported by meticulous scientific research.  The need to be careful with new cellulosic crops is clearly stated.  If not farmed sustainably, cellulosic ethanol crops like switch grass can also wreak havoc with our soil and previously protected land reserves.  “Loss of protected acres to energy crop production would be a major setback for water, soil, plant, and wildlife conservation efforts.”  Cutting down of any forest anywhere in the Globe only increases global climate change, the very thing all these subsidies are supposed to curtail.  Increasing sugar imports from Brazil means more rainforest degradation.  Burning the forests outside Singapore to plant palm oil trees for biofuel destroyed air quality there for months.   And what of our air quality here in California?  Biofuels are not quite as clean as they would have us believe. NEGATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS  The myth that ethanol is “clean” needs to be dispelled.  While the Governor would like us to focus on a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which makes the use of ethanol “look good” next to gasoline for reduction of the carbon greenhouse gasses in fuel, there are other negative air quality impacts with the use of ethanol—increased VOCs, Nox and ozone.  “Overall, the results tend to support that the ozone impact of permeation VOC (volatile organic compounds) relative to CO is overwhelming and significant.”  Ethanol molecules escape the gas tanks and hoses because they are microscopically small enough to permeate the walls of the tanks and the hoses.  (Dongmin Luo, Research Division, CARB, January 2006:”Draft-The Ozone Impact of Permeation VOC relative to Carbon Monoxide). Ethanol increased NOx by 5%, and for every 18 Degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature, evaporative emissions doubled, according to a presentation at South Coast Air Quality Management District, Oxygenate Issues and Options on June 15, 2006.  “As a matter of public health policy, we believe that ARB is obligated to address the full range of possible adverse ozone air quality effects…”  said the SCAQMD to the California Air Resources Board in a letter dated June 13, 2007. “Ozone is the prime ingredient of smog in our cities and other areas of the country…When inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, . . . impair the body’s immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia . . .Ground level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food, so that growth, reproduction and overall plant health are compromised” states the Federal EPA on its Fact Sheet for Health and Environmental Effects of Ground level ozone. <a href="http://www/epa.gov/ttn/naaqsfin/o3health.html" target="_blank">http://www/epa.gov/ttn/naaqsfin/o3health.html</a>. While the ARB is required by state law to ensure that control measures do not increase emissions (SB989), ethanol is being used throughout the state while plans for mitigation are underway, but not yet implemented.  In truth it could be several more years before these mitigations have jumped through all the enforcement hoops and reach the California consumer.  Meanwhile ethanol with its permeation problems is present in our gas tanks. The SCAQMD presentation concluded, “Low level blends of ethanol create excess emissions and air quality impacts.”   Low level blends are all that is widely available currently and for the foreseeable future in California FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO INVESTORS  AB118 is Proposition 87 repackaged.  The alternative fuels plan in Prop 87 was to be paid for by taxes on profits from oil extracted in California.  It was defeated on the November 2006 Ballot.  Since the cost will now be paid for by extra fees on the registered owners of cars and boats, the citizens will not be happy when they discover that not only has the Legislature passed what they voted against, but is also making them pay for it.   Back in October of 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger promised to repeal the car tax that he inherited from Governor Davis.  “I campaigned that I will not raise taxes and I say this again: I will not raise taxes,”  <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/recall.main/index/html" target="_blank">www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/recall.main/index/html</a>  Whether it is called a tax or a fee, the citizens of California will pay, and the low-income and disadvantaged will be the hardest hit.   The oil companies fought Proposition 87 vigorously, and with citizen participation successfully overcame the 146 million dollars that Vinod Kohsla, Steven Bing and other ethanol entrepreneurs had invested in this ballot measure.  Now the oil companies have joined the ethanol Venture Capitalist group of Vinod Kholsa, Steven Bing and Pacific Ethanol’s Koehler Brothers, along with the Sierra Club, Coalition for Clean Air, Union of Concerned Scientists, and NRDC in supporting AB 118.  Apparently what the oil companies didn’t like in Proposition 87 was that they were going to have to pay the bill.  Now that the citizens will pay, the plan is fine.   While the press heavily covered Prop 87, there has been almost no coverage of AB118.  With Speaker Nunez sponsoring the bill and with all the big environmental groups supporting, legislators are expected to vote positively.  The voters, however, may have reservations come election time when they assess the damage to their pocket books,  and to their air and water supply.  Very much like the original backers of MTBE, who adamantly ignored the warnings regarding MTBE’s propensities to contaminate drinking water, these same people are avoiding the unintended consequences of changing California’s crop structure and diverting millions of gallons of water into ethanol plants.  They also fail to mention that across the Midwest the Sierra Club and local communities have mounted lawsuits to oppose the building of ethanol processing plants. “Already there are 235 ethanol plants under construction or in planning stages across the county, in addition to 111 operating plants…The problem:  There just isn’t enough corn to go around. “ (Los Angeles Business Journal, 7/09/2007) The Federal Government is financially propping up this industry from beginning to end.  The major agribusinesses, ADM and Cargill, are subsidized to grow corn, the entrepreneurs are given funds to build plants, and the refiners are given 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into our gasoline.  Now they want California’s citizens to add their hard earned money to already well-subsidized private ventures, and then pay more at the pump and supermarket.  A gallon of ethanol is less expensive than gasoline, but we must pay exactly the same amount for it at the pump.  The oil companies profit by selling us a gallon of less expensive fuel for the same amount per gallon that we are now paying for gasoline.  In addition, we get less gas mileage from that gallon of ethanol, so we have to purchase more gasoline to drive the same number of miles.  Everywhere the money is flowing out of our pockets into theirs.  And those who will be harmed the most are those who are always harmed the most by corporate welfare, the poorest citizens. News organizations all over the country are just beginning to put out wake-up calls in their headlines and articles.  “Think you’re paying more for milk?  Well, you are…When milk prices go up it’s devastating…People who supplement their grocery budgets with food stamps also are affected”, said Tom Shanahan, spokesman for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.  Families receive a set amount of money in food stamps and do not receive more when milk or other food prices rise. (IdahoStatesman.com, July 15, 2007)  Even Robert J. Samuelson, writing an article Prius Politics for the Washington Post, July 25, 2007, says, “Driven by demand for feed and fuel, corn prices have soared.  With food costs increasing, inflation has worsened.  The program is mostly an income transfer from consumers to producers and ethanol refiners.” CONCLUSION Professor Donald F. Anthrop cited above in the Contra Costa Times says it best.  “Ethanol is not going to solve this problem, and it is time for the politicians and environmentalists to stop pretending it will…  These people need a reality check.”  There are alternatives to biofuels if we understand that an alternative source of energy for transportation does not have to be a liquid fuel.  Photon International Magazine in their April 2007 issue offered an interesting comparison between the renewable effectiveness and environmental impacts of plug-in hybrid vehicles powered by PV solar panels versus biofuels.  Once a PV panel has been installed, it will supply energy for twenty-five or more years with very little maintenance.  Any crop that is grown for ethanol requires energy annually, expensive processing and distribution.  Why not put PV panels on carport structures on the top open air layer of public garages, with outlets for recharging.  Use subsidies for this long lasting low environmental impact fuel rather than for corn ethanol.  Specific subsidies for a single PV panel on private homes for hybrid vehicles could also be suggested.    It would be most helpful for as many people as possible to notify their respective Assembly person or State Senator that AB118 and SB210 are not acceptable in their current form, that developing ethanol plants and changing our vegetable and fruit crops into corn will raise prices to levels prohibitive for many people, and that restricting our water usage so that Venture Capitalists can use it for their benefit is not beneficial to the majority of Californians.   Juliette Anthony is an environmental research consultant,  former twelve year Board Member of The Coalition for Clean Air, and research consultant on MTBE  for Communities for a Better Environment.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!