Twitter headlines« Oil Sands to Fuel 30% Increase in 10 Years in Alberta’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Main | X Prize Foundation Issues Draft Competition Guidelines for Auto X Prize »
US Senators Introduce Bill to Nationalize California Tailpipe Greenhouse Gas Standard
2 April 2007
US Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both R-ME) have introduced a measure (S.1073) that would require automakers to reduce new vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2002 levels by 2016. This would nationalize California’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas reduction standard. The EPA would be required to tighten the reductions every five years.
The bill also requires fuel suppliers to increase the percentage of low-carbon fuels—biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol E85, hydrogen, electricity, and others—in the motor vehicle fuel supply by 2015. This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10% below projected levels by 2030.
It’s clear that if we are serious about addressing the global warming challenge, reducing emissions from the use of motor vehicles must be a top priority. With more than 240 million vehicles on the road, this one sector alone produces 32% of all US greenhouse gas emissions. So, this legislation would slash emissions from this sector by 22% below anticipated levels by 2030.
—Senator Feinstein
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his support for this legislation and urged members of Congress to pass the legislation immediately. Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger ordered a Low Carbon Fuel Standard bill to require fuel producers in California to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases on a full lifecycle basis by 10% by 2020. (Earlier post.)
Other components of the bill include:
By 2009, EPA must quantify the total emissions of each fuel, including emissions created during production, transportation, and end-use (or the lifecycle of a fuel).
EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.
By 2015, require oil refiners and importers to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire motor vehicle fuel pool by 3% below 2007 levels. Each five years thereafter, fuel providers would have to reduce emissions of the motor vehicle fuel pool by another 3% below the current level in that year.
Establish a carbon-credit trading program to help fuel providers meet the emissions reduction target levels.
Require automakers to optimize vehicles that run on gasoline and low-carbon fuels to achieve better fuel economy when powered by low-carbon fuels. Currently, these vehicles are optimized to run on traditional gasoline.
Require automakers to use a green fuel cap for all vehicles powered by low-carbon fuels. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can use low-carbon fuels.
Senator Feinstein has also introduced legislation for a national cap-and trade program for the electricity sector (S.317); and increasing the fuel economy for cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years (S.357). Two other bills, a national cap-and-trade program for the industrial sector and a national energy efficiency program are in progress.
Resources:
April 2, 2007 in Climate Change, Emissions, Policy | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Energex42 | April 02, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Could any body brief out in what way the prices of corn comesdown with regard to this Bill passed
Posted by: SAG | April 02, 2007 at 09:30 PM
There is a whole family of devils in the details of fuel economy with ethanol blends and the actual footprint of ethanol manufacturing. The ethanol industry is sticking to their own study showing that E10 causes a drop in MPG of aprox 3%. I don't buy it based on my personal experience, but that is what they use. The "low carbon" fuel lanuage is based on fuel lifecycle, not actual carbon content at the pump. Make fuel from a renewable (non-geologic timescale renewal, smart guy) resource and it is going to have a smaller footprint. Ironically, ethanol is low carbon content, and when combined with the MPG drop is is not as carbon-neutral as it is touted. When you add it all up the result is that corn-ethanol is maybe a surrogate fuel for a real small-footprint biofuel. Corn to ethanol is inefficient, and the fuel is inefficient. A better solution is converting waste cellulose to a fuel source, optimizing IC technology for that fuel, and investing in robust conservation programs. Making ethanol out of food-grade corn, and burning it in gasoline engines is a fool's errand. The good news is that it is at least pointing in the right direction.
Posted by: frink for president | April 03, 2007 at 06:55 AM
Idiots,
Global warming causes CO2, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/trailer.html
Posted by: Johnny Bopp | April 03, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Brilliant Johnny Bopp!
I was starting to get worried too but then I realized that since the Earth is a flat disc, it's rotation would just fling all the CO2 out into space! I do have concerns regarding the effects of CO2 on the Sun and planets that rotate around the Earth. Do you have any ideas on how those issues can be resolved?
Posted by: R | April 03, 2007 at 10:10 AM
children. both of you. this is a civilized website that deserves civil discussion in its forums.
to address a few comments i've read so far...
diesel motors are around 30% more efficient (mpg-wise) than gasoline motors for many reasons, one of the lesser of which is the actual energy content of the fuel. more important factors in diesel motor efficiency are the mechanical design capabilities DUE TO the nature of diesel fuel. check diesel motors out on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
with regard to the market v. policy discussion...
i feel strongly that the people should determine the direction of the market, but not by attacking the market. rather in order to affect the market we should turn to the policymakers in charge of telling us (and the automakers) what we can and cannot do. yes, the lobbyists have money, but we have popularity in this country and the politicians still need it to hold office. money or power...on this matter they shouldn't be allowed both. furthermore, we elected our officials because we wanted them to use their intelligence and experience for our benefit. isn't that why we elected them? then again i'm a student and a socialist at heart, so what do i know.
peace.
Posted by: Tim | April 03, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Hell with it, WE CAN limit CO2 emissions in our vehicles. The UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/)say so, and not only that, the techologies involved are already shipping in some vehicle models(http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/ucs-vanguard.html). There just hasn't been a vehicle that has utilized all of them. Moreover, it can be done without Hybrid Technology which would make it costlier than a regular one, though it would be nice.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | April 06, 2007 at 08:05 PM
I live in california and i want to get a moped. Everywhere i look they will send them to every state except california. the reason they give is something to do with epa. I dont understand why a moped that gets 100mpg isnt allowed by epa regulations. i can buy motorcycles and cars, which pollute more, just fuel efficient mopeds. why is this? can anyone give me an answer? i want to drive a moped to work...
Posted by: Nick | August 06, 2007 at 06:57 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834fc96a553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Senators Introduce Bill to Nationalize California Tailpipe Greenhouse Gas Standard:
Now we have the ball rolling in the right direction, I like to see synchronized actions of US and EU, so that we can go in the same direction, perhaps ending up with a single power-train that can be sold in US and EU.