GS CleanTech to Offer Biomass Gasification and Fuels Technology to Improve Corn Ethanol Yield
New Mexico Commuter Train to Run on B20 Biodiesel Blend

Bill: ANWR Revenue to Support Development of Cellulosic Ethanol, Solar, Fuel-Cells and Coal-to-Liquids

US Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced the “American-Made Energy Trust Fund” bill ( H.R. 5890). The bill’s provisions would increase the tax credits for cellulosic biomass ethanol, extend tax incentives for solar and fuel cell property, promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities, and open up ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) for oil and gas exploration and production.

The bill would take the lease and royalty revenues from ANWR and place them in a trust fund. All monies placed in the American-Made Energy Trust Fund could only be used for the development of new alternative energy technologies. ANWR’s direct revenue to the US Treasury is estimated at $40 billion during its lifetime of production at today’s oil prices.

Specifically, the fund would implement the following provisions:

  • Cellulosic Ethanol Tax Credit. The cellulosic-based ethanol (CBE) credit will be $0.74/gallon on top of $.51/gallon for corn ethanol blender’s credit (VEETC) for a total of $1.25/gallon. This credit will be capped at $1.25 billion. The CBE credit will disappear at $71 a barrel.

  • Coal-to-Liquid Tax Credit. Extends the $0.50/gallon Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) excise tax credit from the current sunset of 2009 to 2023 and sets an overall cap of 3 billion gallons. The CTL credit would be phased out as the price per barrel of oil goes above $45 and will disappear at $70 a barrel.

  • Solar and Fuel-Cell Investment Tax Credits. Extends Energy Policy Act residential and business solar and fuel cell investment tax credits through 2012, with enhanced modifications to the residential solar credit ($2,000 per .5kW installed). Extends the residential and business tax credit through 2012.

  • Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program Funding. Provides grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, and other commercial purposes (authorized at $500 million).

  • Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration and University Biodiesel Programs Funding. Develops programs on cellulosic biomass, biofuels, bio-based products, and integrated biorefineries, as well as biodiesel fuel for electric power generation with industry and institutions of higher education.

  • Improved Biomass Use Grant Program Funding. Commercial byproducts from municipal solid waste (MSW) and cellulosic biomass loan guarantee program. This will assist institutions in the construction of facilities for the processing and conversion of MSW and cellulosic biomass into fuel ethanol and other commercial byproducts.

  • Investment in production technology, facility construction, and capacity improvements. Provides loan guarantees for four projects to demonstrate the commercial feasibility and viability of converting cellulosic biomass or sucrose into ethanol. Furthermore, provides funding for research, development, and implementation of renewable fuel production technologies.

  • Commitment to Clean Energy Fund. Provides financial commitment by investing in projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. This includes but is not limited to such projects as advanced fossil energy, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced nuclear energy, carbon sequestration, and energy efficiency technologies.

The bill has been referred to the Committees on Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Science.


  • The American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890)




Just our "government" trying another approach to raping the Atric.


Artic (!)


Perhaps 'Arctic'?

I like this proposal. It's foolish for us not to be producing this oil, and at least this way it will help support those technologies that will ultimately get us off of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.


I'd rather be drilling in ANWR than buying Saudi oil.


If they are willing to put $40B into renewables AND another $40B into the general fund, to reduce the deficit, I would consider the proposal.


I think it is a good idea but the incentives for innovation and production of domestic sources of energy, i.e. coal to liquids, biofuels, etc. would be useful sooner, rather than later. Despite the recent surge in oil prices, it is still relatively cheap. It would be in our best interest to do the innovation before the energy crunch really hits hard in 3 or 4 years.


And this bill will lead to free apple pie also. I'm not joklng; you can be sure the Washington State Apple Growers want a slice too. Hey, apples spoil. Pollution, research must be funded.

Toss in anti-gravity funding which may allow us to send that bad greenhouse gas into space.

If there is a reasonable amount of oil in the ANWR then drilling is OK by me.

But when Congress bundles ANWR, ethanol, solar, fuel cells, and other renewables in the same package it means lunch at the pig trough as each politican throws in useless goodies for big contributors.


When the founders wrote our Constitution they said that impeachable offenses included, "Bribery, Treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Wonder what they would say about what is happening today?

I've long been sorry that they didn't limit politicians to one term in office.


Even if ANWR could provide a lot of oil (it can't!) without a massive environmental footprint (nope) in a wildlife refuge, it's still a bad bill.

Look at where the subsidies are going: coal and ethanol. Neither have much promise at long term gains. The solar stuff is good, but there's just not enough of it.

If they were taking $40B and putting it into solar, wind, biomass, and public transit, it might be worth the trade off. But, the reality is that they ain't doing that. It looks good on the surface, but its rotten inside.


There are other places in Alaska that should be drilled before spoiling the arctic wildlife reserve, such as the National Naval Petroleum Reserves which haven't been tapped either and don't have the extreme environmental considerations (high extraction costs) associated with drilling in a wildlife reserve. I have a feeling this is being done so that other environmentally sensitive sites will be easier to open in the future as the domino effect takes hold.


According to this article:
ANWR at peak production (quite a short time) would lower US imports by 4% and lower the price per barrel by 50 cents. Is 50 cents worth the environmental damage? Personally I would pay an extra couple of dollars to keep the place pristine.


Remember 50 cents is lowering the present price per barrel by 0.7%

Ron Fischer

If the lease and royalty revenues are legislated away to motivate production (especially if crunch comes) this bill's funding will zero out.


You mean instead of paying $3.149, I would only have to pay $3.167!!!


Lets all RAPE the Arctic!


Heck. Instead of paying $3.50 a gallon you would pay $3.48 (other things being equal). Are you willing to spoil the arctic to make 2 cents? Someone had better give me a better reason than that. The real justification is to enable US oil companies to make even more profits. While this may not be a bad thing in itself, I think they are making enough as it is without spoiling the arctic refuge.



$3.147 ...


Double OOPS!

$3.127 !!!


Everyone is willing to formulate an opinion on this bill based upon a 2+ year old MSNBC article? That estimate was based upon oil being $27/barrel, even though at the time the market price was $37. That suggests this analysis assumed the price of oil was going to go down from the levels at the time. Given how off that prediction was, I see very little validity to this article.

The market price of oil has just as much to do with perception than cold, hard facts. No one has a clue what Middle East oil reserves really are either. The botton line is that a slight decline in total US production (which will be more likely without drilling in ANWAR)is a BIG difference from the slight increase with this drilling, in terms of the market's perception. That doesn't even include the influence of the investments in energy alternatives that will come out of this.

As long as this bill clearly earmarks these revenues for both shorter term and longer term alternatives, it's in our best interest. Environmentally and economically.

Hey, I wish we wouldn't have to do this, but we've already made our boat. People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas, and in my humble opinion, this is not a bad tradeoff. Of course, there are a lot of contingencies, such as making sure this drilling is actually performed in an environmentally responsible way. I believe they can do that. In this information age, it's really tough for any corporation to get away with such misdeeds without the public becoming aware eventually. Given that this is a longer term proposition, even the evil oil corporations won't risk losing out on such revenue streams by being careless.

In terms of these funds not being totally devoted to non-fossil alternatives, that is also a compromise we'll have to make to get such a deal done. As no one has proven any one strategy to be the ultimate solution to our woes, it's in our best interest to promote anything that will improve our situation, nomatter what the degree of improvement or timeframe. We need short term, medium term and long term solutions. Market forces will almost definitely produce the winners in the end, and we'll be stronger as a country because of it.


Anything that includes coal and ethanol is not worth the tradeoff. That is not a tradeoff.

The world is running out of oil. Not the next generation, but the generation after that would appreciate it if we did not drain what little is left within the United States.

Oil is fungible. What little they are able to get out of the Arctic will do virtually nothing to free us from dependence upon Open and non Opec.

We might as well start now in doing everything humanly possible to wean ourselves from oil. Ethanol is clearly not the answer either. The world is burning. We must get off fossil fuels even if it requires that we cut our driving in half. We have been conditioned to believe that life cannot go on without the automobile. Well, civilization didn't begin with the automobile and it won't end without it.

We have not even begun to do what we can do to conserve. I refuse to support a bill that requires we drill in ANWR so that my next door neighbor can drive his 12 mpg SUV alone to work 60 miles away.


As t is saying, what we need isn't more oil, its less dependence on oil. An extremely short term increase in oil supply at the expense of the refuge just doesn't add up, except for the oil companies. More than the estimated peak production rate from ANWR (876,000 bd) could have been saved by 2025 if the NHTSA had simply raised fuel efficiency standards from 24 to 26 mpg by 2011 and applied it to all light trucks (saving 1 million bpd see "This would have met 20 percent of the president's target of cutting oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025. Why didn't it happen?

Drilling in ANWR just exacerbates the problem while damaging the environment for the sake of oil company profit.


Increasing our domestic supplies of oil does not have to have anything to do with conservation. Yes, we should decrease our consumption. Sorry, we cannot address all of our issues on one single piece of legislation.

Why are you so convinced that ethanol cannot help? We've barely scratched the surface of it's potential. There has been very little incentive to do so until the events of the last year sent a chilling reminder to everyone. There are many promising developments in the area of ethanol. If you are one of the many individuals who are basing their opinions on the current state, that seems very short-sighted. Everyone always thinks they have a better idea, but there are many valid reasons why some of these don't take off. It's not just luck that ethanol is.

If you think new investments in domestically sourced clean coal technologies that could displace even some of our middle-east sourced oil are a bad decision, I emphatically disagree. This is obviously not a long-term, sustainable solution. It's a near term band aid that can slow down the bleeding.



When I saw “Anwar” in this title, I thought, Oh, Boy! This discussion’s going to get heated, as I’ve seen this topic generate some nasties. But not so much this time!

You said, “People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas”

Well stated! One of the virtues of this site is that people from the left, right, center, and don’t care about politics, are all encouraged to state their opinions. I learn a great deal from the variety of opinions/ facts/etc. at this site, and the only negative I’ve seen is when people become intolerant of other’s opinions.

“I’ve long been sorry that they didn’t limit politicians to one term”

Here, here!


The point is that there is no compelling reason to drill in ANWR if we conserve and develop renewables. This will happen if the price keeps rising and the government implements far sighted policy changes.


I am kind of tired to read ever-repeating urban legends.
The biggest oil polluter in US/Canada (way bigger then everything else combined) is leaking oil pan gaskets, happening right where most people and most portion of continental wild life live. Somehow not only humans, but even deer population is striving. That is not to say that I am trying to “get people out of their cars”, but merely pointing out that it is worth consideration to use better materials for gaskets and legislate to change old ones. Nowhere in civilized world parking lots, roads, and back alleys are stained with leaking engine oil.

The biggest oil reserves of the world are situated on continental shelf of Arctic Ocean. Small portion of Russian Arctic (North of West Siberia) and Norway are supplying oil in excess of Saudi Arabia, and these reserves are only lightly tapped. Make no mistake, this oil is particularly expensive. But somehow wild life is surviving in these regions. I do not even touch East Siberia and Far East Arctic regions of Russia, and Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. These waste land regions are so huge, that even if we will pure all extracted oil on the ground, for wild life it will have less effect then bird shot in elephant ass. Somehow we tolerate oil exploration in down town Los Angeles, near Mexican Gulf beaches, in Norway and North Sea, on city beaches of Baku, all over Texas, but are sure that it will destroy wasteland region comparable to US Mid West. Why New Jersey is still habitable? Why it is possible to live in New York city, where 10 million tons of oil is handled (on gas stations, for example) yearly? How it is possible to bath on Briton beach after German submarines onslaught of oil-ridden ships just outside New York harbor? How Romania survived oil contamination after allied bombers decimated it Ploesti oil industry?

Get real, folks. Spare no money to assure oil exploration is clean, and it will be clean. Way cleaner than US lawn mover fleet.


In taking advantage of a small portion of these enormous deposits of oil in the Artic, we are not encouraging increased consumption. I don't think the public is going to revert back to complete ignorance this time. I see this as shifting the supply chains of oil. Billions of dollars that are otherwise going to the Middle East, and doing us no good whatsover, would be diverted to investments that could ween us off of petroleum.

In conjunction with conservation and biofuels blended into our petroleum fuels, ANWAR could very well wind up supplying far more than 4% of our demand in the future. Those estimates were based on projected levels of consumption increasing at the astronomical rates they have been and no real encouraging sign that biofuels would be economically viable on a large scale. I think all previous assumptions on these areas are being reevaluated. Far too many of the 13 mpg vehicles will continue to be produced, but the public is finally starting to shift away from them. Statistics do not lie. Even if petroleum prices level off, most of the automobile industry has already made decisions to shift their strategies to increase their offerings of small and efficient vehicles. There is a market for them in the US these days.

Sometimes it takes a couple hard knocks on the head to get through to people, and the events of the past year and the pessimism that oil will ever go below $60/barrel have really lit a fire under people. I have faith when I see realistic propositions such as this. It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

The comments to this entry are closed.