The White House shouldn’t crack corn with the ethanol lobby. And lawmakers should ignore its proposal for billions in taxpayer dollars for corn ethanol subsidies and deregulation of the biofuels industry. Contrary to popular belief, the biofuels widely used today (mainly ethanol derived from corn) come at an expensive environmental cost. In fact, corn ethanol energy production diverts huge tracts of land from growing corn for food and livestock feed to growing it for fuel, and can lead to deforestation and the loss of carbon-trapping forest lands -- key drivers of global climate change and the loss of plant and animal life around the world.

In addition, industrial-scale production of biofuel crops also require large quantities of chemicals such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticide, which often are carried by runoff into streams and rivers -- causing “downstream” water pollution. A distressing example lies in the Gulf of Mexico, where algae blooms – largely caused by runoff from Midwestern corn fields along the Mississippi River – have cast a massive, oxygen-deprived “dead zone” over parts of the Gulf of Mexico.

At the kernel of the biofuels policy debate is a proposal by Growth Energy, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association that would give more federal subsidies to Big Oil, could divert up to half of our nation’s corn crops to fuel production, and require significant taxpayer investment in ethanol pipelines and infrastructure. This isn’t a forward-looking policy that will lead to a healthier environment and clean energy security. It’s an industry “wish list” that would pump billions of scarce taxpayer dollars into a polluting technology, while eliminating critical environmental protections in current biofuels law.

Since 2006, oil companies have been receiving tax breaks of 45 cents per gallon to blend our gasoline with up to 10 percent ethanol. The ethanol lobby wants to extend this tax incentive, which would otherwise expire this year, further lining Big Oil’s pockets with some $31 billion over five years at the taxpayers’ expense. Given that the Environmental Protection Agency just last week approved blending up to 15 percent ethanol in new cars, there is already the potential for a huge expansion of the ethanol market, and certainly no need to extend tax subsidies.

In addition to more tax breaks for Big Oil, the ethanol lobby wants the government to back loans for new ethanol pipelines. The biofuels field is rapidly evolving. Advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, offer a more environmentally responsible alternative to corn-based ethanol. The Obama administration should be investing in the development of new, better-performing biofuels rather than spending tax dollars on an entirely new infrastructure that locks ethanol fuels in the marketplace.

Obviously, these proposed measures would instigate more demand for corn ethanol and likely result in greater impacts on the environment. To help fulfill this artificially inflated demand, the proposal seeks to expand the definition of “advanced” biofuels to include corn ethanol in the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which would allow for more of its production. Under the current definition, the “advanced” biofuels category is reserved for cleaner, cutting-edge technologies such as producing fuel from algae. By including the centuries old practice of distilling corn ethanol in the RFS “advanced” definition, the U.S. Congress would increase the federal ethanol mandate from 15 billion gallons to 20 billion gallons. The move would require approximately 41 million acres of corn, diverting roughly half the nation’s food and feed corn harvest to fuel and increasing food prices in the process.

But that’s not all: The proposal would also weaken production regulations, stripping away the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to monitor and regulate greenhouse gas pollution released by converting land to ethanol production and distilling corn into fuel. When you consider land-use conversion and the energy it takes to grow and distill corn, ethanol production creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline it is supposed to replace. Ignoring these emissions will result in an incomplete assessment of our overall carbon footprint -- greatly jeopardizing our ability to reduce our emissions and prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

Biofuels can be part of the solution as our nation works to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If properly grown, harvested and produced, biofuel crops can be beneficial for wildlife, the environment, rural economies and energy independence. But without adequate land protection measures, any legislation that mandates a significant ramp up in biofuel production will result in unintended pressure on forests, conservation lands, native prairie and critical wildlife habitat. A Renewable Fuel Standard must include private and public land protections and establish necessary safeguards for sensitive natural lands and wildlife habitat.

Clearly, the most cost-effective way to reduce the amount of oil consumed by the transportation sector is to raise the price of gasoline. Taxing all petroleum is even a better way to move the economy away from petroleum consumption – but that is for another day. Of course, there does not appear to be any political appetite for taxing gasoline or any oil products, and instead, Congress is conserving regulatory approaches to reduce oil consumption. So, I will stick to the question at hand – assuming that taxes are off the table, are CAFE standards and natural gas for heavy duty trucks a good idea?

A recent study released by RFF researchers examined 35 different policy options – with the dual goals of reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions (see: Towards a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options). Our study used a consistent theoretical and modeling framework based on the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s National Energy Modeling System. Several of these policy options focused on the transportation sector.

CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles were examined, assuming a policy like that adopted in California – with a 52.2 mpg standard by 2030. While we found this approach to be only slightly more expensive than oil and gas taxes (in terms of cost per barrel of oil reduced), it was considerably less effective, reducing oil consumption by about 750,000 barrels per day in 2030 – about half what our oil tax would achieve. One reason for this is that we project manufacturers will oftentimes find it more cost effective to pay noncompliance fines than actually meeting the mpg standard, especially in the later years. Since the Obama Administration is considering even stricter CAFE standards in even a tighter timeframe, our projections suggest that tightening these standards will have little further impact on oil consumption – unless noncompliance penalties were to increase dramatically beyond what is being contemplated. The moral of the story is while CAFE standards might be cost effective, “more” is not always better…

Our researchers also looked at a hybrid subsidy, designed to bring more fuel efficient cars into the fleet. They found, however, that in the presence of a binding CAFE standard, the hybrid subsidy doesn’t achieve any additional oil reductions. This is because the CAFE standards are fleet-wide, meaning that any growth in the number of hybrids – which increases fleet fuel efficiency – is offset by manufacturers who simply do not improve the fuel efficiency of their remaining gasoline fleet.

Finally, they looked at a policy that would effectively mandate liquefied natural gas (LNG) for heavy-duty diesel trucks over a 10-year period – so that by 2020, all new heavy-duty trucks run on LNG. This policy actually led to a greater reduction in oil use than any other policy they looked at – 2.2 million barrels per day in 2030 – and at a fairly low cost per barrel. At this point, such a rapid conversion to LNG is unlikely given a lack of sufficient infrastructure – but it does show the importance of working with these high-VMT, low-fuel efficiency vehicles in some way.

Clean, fuel-efficient vehicles are not just a vision for the future. We have the technology right now to build affordable cars and trucks with less pollution and reduced overreliance on oil. American auto companies are already on track to significantly increase fuel efficiency by 2016. And looking to the future, plug-in electric cars can be dramatically more efficient than gasoline vehicles, with fuel costs as low as the equivalent of $1 per gallon.

Clean vehicles are expected to rapidly become affordable. Batteries will become cheaper, last longer and take a shorter amount of time to charge. And we can plug these cars into a smart, efficient electricity grid that delivers clean and renewable energy.

The single most important step we can take to encourage this technological progress is a commitment to continued and expanded fuel economy standards. We applaud the Obama administration for raising the standard to 35.5 miles per gallon and placing the first-ever limit on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide. And this month, federal agencies found it could be technically achievable to set standards as high as 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

Making our vehicles cleaner is a critical part of our strategy to solve the climate crisis. Climate change has grown only more urgent now that 2010 is likely to be the warmest year on record. And at the same time we reduce pollution through greater fuel efficiency, we'll allow American families to save money on gasoline and create new jobs for manufacturers. The United Auto Workers recently found that supplying the market with more efficient vehicles can lead to 150,000 new jobs.

But improving our vehicles can't be all that we do. Congress and the executive branch must also move forward with pollution limits on power plants and other sources of greenhouse gases. Making polluters pay will encourage investment in wind, solar, geothermal and energy efficiency. And this will only enhance our ability to deliver clean energy to the next generation of vehicles.

Reducing dependence on oil is a necessity recognized by both political parties. Increasingly, they also recognize that electrification is an essential part of the solution for the transportation sector.

Electric drive transportation, that is hybrids, plug-in vehicles and fuel cells, provides a domestic, affordable, efficient and cleaner alternative to oil. If 60 percent of U.S. light vehicles were powered by today’s electric grid, greenhouse gas emissions from this sector would drop by one-third, according to a 2008 study released by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council. They also estimate that greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 450 million metric tons, which is equivalent to removing 82 million cars from the road.

An electric drive technology transportation sector will also provide benefits upstream. Advanced batteries will help clean the grid by providing energy storage options for intermittent renewable power sources.

Transforming the transportation sector, however, requires a comprehensive approach. In addition to technology-cognizant standards, federal policies should accelerate the mainstreaming of electric drive by supporting deployment of vehicles and infrastructure, investing in technology advances and helping consumers put them on the road.

The federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for plug-in electric drive vehicles is an important incentive for light duty buyers; a commensurate incentive for electric drive trucks would help make the medium and heavy duty segment more efficient. Support for infrastructure is also important. More than 15 different models of plug-in electric vehicles will be coming to market by the end of 2012, but the incentive for alternative fueling investments expires at the end of this year. Congress needs to pass a multi-year extension of that credit to speed the proliferation of diverse charging options for plug-in vehicle owners. A national program to accelerate deployment, which includes large-scale regional efforts, will also help communities and consumers to adopt electric drive and maximize its benefits.

These policies, in combination with industry and government investment in technology research, development and manufacturing, will help establish a sustainable energy future built on clean, efficient and secure domestic electricity.

New proposed fuel economy standards have once again brought to light the need to develop passenger vehicles that reduce our country’s dependence on oil and meet consumers’ travel expectations. While hybrid and electric vehicles are capturing the attention of policymakers, some of the greatest advancements in vehicle fuel efficiency are coming in the form of new, cleaner diesel engines. By creating technology-neutral vehicle policies, auto manufacturers will have the opportunity to improve the performance of existing technologies that do not require new infrastructure investment, while providing nascent vehicle technologies with time to enter the market as infrastructure is built.

Today’s advanced diesel vehicles are ultra clean, meeting the nation’s toughest air quality standards. Advancements in the technology have achieved an average of 30 percent better fuel economy and 25 percent lower CO2 emissions than traditional gasoline engines. In fact, a VW Passat clean diesel recently set the world record of miles traveled by a production car on a single tank of fuel at 1,531 miles, or roughly 90 miles per gallon. And when combined with the use of high-quality renewable fuels, clean diesels can reduce our oil dependency even further.

These advancements are not going unnoticed. Since August 2009, according to AltTransport, the sale of diesel cars in the U.S. has risen 52 percent. The fuel efficiency, affordability and torque provided by clean diesels are helping consumers make a choice that is both economically and environmentally beneficial. Additionally, with diesel available at more than 80,000 locations across the U.S., consumers can travel long distances knowing that the ability to refuel will not be a challenge.

While diesel-powered vehicles are a regular part of transportation in Europe, support for the technology is not widespread among U.S. policymakers. As legislation to improve fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions moves forward, effective regulations on light-duty vehicles must be achieved through technology-neutral policies. By only advancing certain vehicle technology options in search of a “silver bullet” solution, consumer choices will be limited and reductions of oil use and CO2 emissions could be delayed. New legislation should build upon performance-based policies, such as tax credits for the purchase of hybrid or diesel vehicles, to reward consumers for making positive choices and advance the dual-desired outcomes of increased efficiency and reduced emissions. Performance-based policies will drive innovation in the marketplace, while empowering the consumer to decide which vehicle technology best meets their real world driving needs, today and in the future.

America’s dependence on non-North American foreign oil is a threat to our national security and a significant drag on our economy and overall quality of life. There are viable solutions very much within our reach to alleviate ourselves from this burden – some of which have gained, or regained, momentum – through the support of the current Administration.

As noted in the October 5 Washington Post, I recently highlighted the findings in a new report titled Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda. Published by the Miller School of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia with input from 80 of the nation’s leading transportation experts, the report says among many things that investment in high-speed rail (HSR) can significantly reduce congestion in America’s travel system. High-speed rail has the potential to provide a fast, efficient, and integrated alternative to driving and flying, thereby enhancing passenger connectivity in the most populated travel corridors in the country. It also can ease the pressure on air travel networks nationally by reducing congestion through some of the nation’s busiest airports. Fewer cars on the road and planes in the air means less dependence on fossil fuels.

America’s robust natural gas supply offers us another perfect opportunity to lessen our carbon footprint. The new supplies of natural gas, found in abundance in regions as diverse as Texas, Colorado, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, will give us another domestic fuel source which is perfect for fleet vehicles, in city buses, long haul trucks, and airport shuttles. Our H&K client, America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), is one group helping push for an increased use of cleaner natural gas in our electricity portfolio (which could help power electric and hybrid-electric vehicles) and for direct use in natural gas vehicles ( NGVs).

What’s great about these solutions is that they not only lead to greater energy efficiency here at home, but also pave the way for job creation and economic growth.

Automakers share the goals of increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Alliance is committed to working collaboratively with EPA, NHTSA and California to achieve these goals in a way that allows consumers to choose and afford vehicles that fit their needs.

We remain convinced that a single national program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the best approach for the environment, our customers, and our economy

Prior to the May 2009 announcement of the national program, automakers were facing a potential maze of state and federal regulations. And while we recognize the important role of States play in reducing emissions it was important to avoid a patchwork of conflicting regulations that would have left the industry wondering what types of technologies and products we should be investing in — hardly an efficient or effective way of doing business.

Our hope is that the continuation of the national program for 2017 and beyond will ensure that carmakers have the regulatory stability, guidelines and necessary lead time to plan the next generation of products with confidence. With this a clear regulatory path to the future, we begin moving ahead and building the next generation of automobiles.

As the agencies acknowledge, the assumptions in the Notice of Intent – and the potential ranges of improvements that they imply – are based on very preliminary and incomplete data at this point, and inevitably will change as more information is brought to the process.

EPA and DOT should now engage a broad range of independent experts to undertake a thorough analysis and balance the technological opportunities to improve vehicle and fleet fuel economy with the economic challenges they present – for automakers and American consumers.

In the coming weeks, we will carefully review the technical assessment’s assumptions regarding factors that will impact vehicle fuel economy increases over this time period. These include vehicle technologies and technology costs, the cost of gasoline, development of low-carbon fuels, and development of infrastructure to charge plug-in hybrids and battery electrics. Our hope is that the final product will be a comprehensive and realistic set of rules that all stakeholders can be proud of.

Ultimately, to achieve our goals we will need an integrated approach that takes into account not only autos, but also fuels, infrastructure and consumers. Automakers are producing advanced gasoline-powered cars, diesels, hybrids and vehicles powered by biofuels, electricity, hydrogen and more. Energy providers play a big role by providing lower-carbon fuels and energy infrastructure. Consumers need to buy new auto technologies and low-carbon fuels in large volumes, as well as practice “green driving.” And, government has an important role to play in providing market incentives needed to achieve policy goals, in providing investments in energy infrastructure and in planning for roads and traffic management systems that facilitate safe, efficient travel.

(These comments were submitted by Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.)

The Obama administration has taken salvos from both the right and left for its environmental policies. From the left most recently in a The New Yorker article that quoted an anonymous environmentalist as branding President Obama “the James Buchanan of climate change.”

No doubt some leftward criticism seems in order: for the President’s blithe assurance – pre-Deepwater Horizon -- that “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” For the incessant support of “clean coal,” whatever that is. (Hint: it’s an effort to retain votes in coal-heavy states.) For the upcoming plan to stick more ethanol in regular gasoline even though my sources report recent tests show increases in smog-forming pollution from some cars. (Hint: it’s an effort to retain votes in corn states.)

But one area where the administration deserves real praise is its continuing effort to reduce oil use from motor vehicles. And here, the administration is showing that it doesn’t have to wait for a fickle and dysfunctional Senate.

The Obama White House started by helping broker a deal between the auto industry and the state of California, which along with more than a dozen other states had set greenhouse gas limits for cars and light trucks. The end result was an historic national standard which will reduce motor vehicle greenhouse gases by 30 percent – and chop oil use in the process while saving consumers money over time.

One of the great and little-recognized triumphs here was giving the U.S. EPA some clout in inter-agency negotiations. Pre-Obama, the more industry-friendly Transportation Department had dominated discussions while EPA was basically told to go sit in the corner.

The White House isn’t resting on its laurels, however. It soon will announce proposed new standards aimed at reducing greenhouse gases (and oil use) from heavy trucks. This action was informed by research from Northeastern state environmental officials, who showed that highway truck fuel use could use reduced significantly through existing technology.

And now the administration is moving forward with a third initiative aimed at making further reductions in greenhouse gases – and even better fuel economy – in cars and light trucks starting with 2017 model year. Future cars could be meeting standards of 60 miles per gallon, or more.

It sounds bold, but as Peter Lehner notes, it can be done by improving technologies already available or right around the corner. Note, for example, plans by Peugeot to start selling a diesel hybrid car in Europe next spring that will meet the equivalent of 62 mpg.

Reducing oil use doesn’t depend on picking “winners” (for example, some T. Boondoggle Pickens type of plan or moving the corn market from high-fructose corn syrup to high-fructose gasoline.) The Obama administration is showing that it can and must be done by setting rigorous by achievable emission standards.

Fuel economy standards and promoting electric cars are piecemeal policies that cost too much and gain too little. If fiddling around the edges of greenhouse gas restrictions is all we can hope for in the current contentious political environment, so be it, but for the biggest impact at the lowest cost, what is needed is a wholesale cap-and-trade on motor vehicle fuels.

Despite their protestations about EPA moving forward on greenhouse gas regulation, Congress has proven unwilling to take on this issue in a serious way, and the chances of progress after the midterm elections seem even bleaker.

On the other hand, the current law requires EPA to proceed with efforts to reduce our carbon pollution. The Clean Air Act, bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, gives Administrator Lisa Jackson wide latitude to curb our climate pollutants and in some cases, creates mandatory duties for emissions restrictions.

Luckily she can do so in a way that most economists would approve of: EPA can use sections 211 of the Clean Air Act to put motor vehicle fuel under an efficient cap-and-trade program. This provision allows EPA to do more than just set emissions standards; instead, it allows EPA to “control” or “prohibit” the manufacture—including importing and refining—or sale of fuel.

The Institute for Policy Integrity filed a legal petition with the agency last year that serves as a prompt for just such an action. We requested that EPA cap the amount of emissions released from the use of motor fuels—this would be done through the companies that sell the oil in America.

Using an auction, permits would be sold, and over time, the cap would come down making permits more expensive and making non-polluting alternatives more attractive.

And politicos needn’t fear the dreaded “gas tax” stigma since the system can be put in place with a buffer for consumers who would normally see the costs of this mechanism passed on at the pump: EPA can use the proceeds of the permit auction to refund the public for all or most of the per-gallon increase.

And those for whom climate change is not a priority could still have good reason to support such a measure. It would reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum supplies, reduce conventional pollution, and ultimately keep investment dollars in the United States.

It will always be preferable for Congress to make a law than for an agency to promulgate a regulation, especially one this complex. But our legislative branch has failed to accomplish much and is not poised to break the gridlock it currently faces.

So, with a Supreme Court mandate in hand, EPA is well positioned to lead the charge on oil. And if Congress doesn’t like it, they should come up with their own robust solution or risk a presidential veto if they try to restrict agency action.

Please not again—not another Congressional attempt to pick technology winners and losers. To think that we can or should pour billions of dollars into subsidizing a wholesale switch to new technologies at this time is a mistake. Investing in smart grid technology benefits all electricity users not just future electric car chargers. But the massive subsidizes and investments needed to make natural gas more appealing to truckers is far-fetched; how about applying a little "build it and they will come" instead?

Truckers can, and do, already buy natural gas trucks today-- if they want them, IF it makes sense for their operations. But trying to shove through a mandate for another fuel that doesn’t work for everyone is doomed for failure at the outset. Let natural gas compete on its warts and merits along with everyone else.

The Obama Administration’s truck fuel efficiency program (coming soon) will likely establish a framework for getting wider implementation of proven technologies that will make commercial trucks that we rely on to move our economy do their job more fuel efficiently. They consume a lot of fuel so small improvements have the potential for big benefits. And nowhere in there is it contemplated that they are switching fuels from diesel to natural gas.

Right now manipulating the market to switch fuels and technologies or as is also the case -- overlay it with enough uncertainty about major climate policies is a surefire way to delay investments in newer and more efficient technology and the jobs that go with making them. So, older less efficient technology hangs around longer. Fuel economy gains are lost, emissions go up, and the result is a worse condition instead of a better one.

Time and time again it is the slow and steady improvements from proven technologies that get overlooked in favor of the benefits of something new and different -- even though it might be 20 years away. Near term small gains in efficiency across a large swath of energy consumption will make a bigger difference than waiting to switch an entire transportation economy built on gasoline to electric. It doesn’t make sense to simply trade one “reliance” on oil for another “reliance” on lithium/electricity/natural gas. As the saying goes there are many silver pellets—but no silver bullets.

For cars,efforts should not be limited to only incentives for electric vehicles, We ought to be encouraging incentives for more use of the near-term energy efficient technologies that we have right now—like clean diesel cars. Already widely accepted by consumers, clean diesel is vital because it will allow automakers to efficiently power larger vehicles like pickup trucks that are still the top selling vehicles in the U.S. Diesel will deliver 30 percent better fuel efficiency right now, not just 10 years from now.

Everyone it seems is an expert on knowing what kind of fuel and technology is best for the other guy, but can't seem to get it right on tax policy. As part of a truckers deal a decade ago to allocate revenues from higher fuel taxes to maintaining roads, the federal government today taxes diesel fuel 6 cents more per gallon yet a diesel car gets 30 percent more fuel economy than a gasoline model. Add to that the 17 state tax differentials and the signals to a consumer are opposite of what they should be..

There is already a comprehensive set of federal policies in place to create space for alternatives to petroleum in the transportation sector. What’s needed right at this moment is for those policies to be implemented in an integrated way that helps technology developers bring solutions out of the lab and into the market.

The Renewable Fuel Standard was designed to create market space for both conventional and advanced biofuels, but the rules took a long time to implement and still lack an effective enforcement mechanism. Cellulosic biofuel pioneers have been unable to obtain financing for first-of-a-kind projects, and so the EPA continues to waive the obligation for fuel retailers to provide this alternative to consumers. Other advanced biofuels – including algae and biobutanol – are preparing to scale up to commercial production, but their status in the RFS rules is still uncertain.

The DOE is required to issue loan guarantees to help de-risk investment in building commercial-scale advanced biofuel refineries, but instead they’ve created a situation where biofuels are measured against mature electricity generation technologies such as wind and solar. In addition, the loan guarantee program is not derisking advanced biofuels projects enough. The federal government is in effect behaving like a commercial bank in terms of calculating risk it will shoulder. And tax credits that were intended to reward advanced biofuel producers who were first to market will expire before many can make use of them. There are other programs, such as a reverse auction for cellulosic biofuels, that is still awaiting funding for implementation.

Modern petroleum refineries produce more than just fuel. To really reduce reliance on foreign oil, federal tax credits and other policies should support production of all products from a biorefinery – biofuels and renewable chemicals and plastics. There should be flexibility in the types of tax credits available – both production and investment tax credits – so that biorefineries can choose an option that best fits their business model. Advanced biofuel pathways should be incorporated into the Renewable Fuel Standard as quickly as possible, and obligated parties should be truly obligated to obtain and sell them. And authorized money for biofuel loan guarantees should be distributed ASAP.

Perhaps the most important step that could be taken to seriously move away from oil is greater electrification of the transportation sector to allow pure, clean, domestic sources of energy like wind power to directly power our vehicles. While wind energy is already significantly reducing the carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence of our economy, those savings would be expanded even further if wind energy could directly reduce the use of oil in the transportation sector.

Wind works to produce manufacturing and construction jobs, so using our nation's abundant, domestic wind energy to power vehicles would be a win-win for our economy and the environment, while at the same time reducing our current dependence on fossil fuels. Plug-in hybrid autos can be manufactured with technology available today, and will soon be introduced to the market. They'll get 80 miles per gallon, and will allow wind energy to help reduce oil imports. Growth in their adoption would bring thousands of new manufacturing jobs both in wind and in the hard-pressed automobile industry. Additional oil savings could be realized by using natural gas that is produced in an environmentally responsible manner for long-haul trucking, a transportation application for which electric vehicles are not well suited.

Estimates of the U.S. wind resource have consistently found it to be abundant. That conclusion was underlined in a pair of studies this year from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The first found that U.S. winds over land could generate 37 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, or nearly nine times the nation’s total electricity use. The second found a similarly vast resource offshore--enough to generate three to four times the total amount of electricity we are using. Clearly, there is substantial potential to put that resource to work in the transportation sector. Many states and utilities already offer wind-powered electrical service where power is purchased from wind farms across the region, so as soon as people buy their new electric cars, fully wind-powered transportation will be available to many drivers, and in other cases, the cars will be powered by the electricity mix of the utility, which often includes significant amounts of renewable energy.

Wind-powered transportation means: more American manufacturing jobs; greater national security; less carbon in our atmosphere; and revitalization of rural and seaport communities. It's difficult to imagine an energy policy initiative with greater across-the-board impact on a range of national priorities.

Our dependency on oil is crippling to our economy and our national security -- and it limits our fuel options. Every dollar we spend on foreign oil sends $1.55 out of the U.S. economy, as much as $300 billion annually, or $1,000-a-year for every man, woman and child in the United States.

But there is a commercially viable alternative to foreign oil: domestic ethanol. We can break free of oil’s grip, and put more Americans back to work while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening national security, by giving American motorists more choices at the pump.

Ethanol is cleaner for our air, safer for our shores and an instant job creator. In 2009 alone, U.S. production and use of ethanol eliminated the need to import at least 364 million barrels of oil—keeping $21.3 billion in the U.S. economy—supported more than 400,000 green jobs, and cut emissions by approximately 16.5 million tons.

Ethanol’s contributions to our nation’s energy independence are undeniable. But our potential has been captive to an arbitrary cap on access to the U.S. fuels market, an artificial barrier set in the 1970s that mandates that at least 90 percent of all transportation fuel be gasoline, despite the fact that two-thirds of oil is from overseas. Opening up the fuel market to more ethanol will break oil’s hold over our nation’s economy and strengthen our national security.

Approval of Growth Energy’s Green Jobs Waiver to increase the allowable blend of ethanol in fuel from 10 percent to 15 percent is a step we can take today to reduce the amount of oil we import by 7 billion gallons, create 136,000 green jobs and eliminate as much as 20 million metric tons of GHG emissions from the air in a year.

A long-term investment in blender pumps and Flex Fuel Vehicles would provide drivers with a choice of mid- and high-level ethanol blends at filling stations. Growth Energy’s Fueling Freedom Plan calls for the build out of 200,000 blender pumps and 120 million flex fuel vehicles (U.S. automakers have already started adding more FFVs to their fleets). This would create permanent access to the fuel market – far outliving any public financing – and spur the private investment necessary to commercialize cellulosic ethanol.

If we truly want to break free of oil’s grip, we need new vehicles that enable a whole new kind of fuel competition—and we need them fast.

Studies indicate that electric vehicles will not reach a market penetration deep enough to threaten Big Oil before 2030. That is too long to wait. OPEC just celebrated its 50^th anniversary last month – that is 50 years of a foreign cartel controlling our economy through the coordinated manipulation of the production of oil.

Every blender pump we install and every flex fuel vehicle we produce will help make our country more energy independent and more secure, simply by giving consumers a choice other than oil.

With 80% of all the oil used in America today going to the transportation sector, the question we have to ask ourselves as a country is how quickly can we really move away from oil? Two transportation companies that have publicly stated they are actively working to decrease their reliance on oil, DHL and FedEx, have less than 5% of their fleets right now using alternative energy.

While it's critical that we implement policies that encourage the increased use of electric cars and natural gas fueled trucks, the reality is that the technology for widespread adoption is not there yet, and it will take no less than 60 years to reduce our current oil consumption levels. We simply cannot move from an oil economy to an alternative energy economy overnight. And it’s certainly not economically viable for our economy right now.

While Congress works to incentivize the great innovators of our country to come up with technologically and economically viable options for our country’s transportation needs, it’s just as critical that we continue to fight to ensure that we have access to affordable energy now. CEA believes that a balanced energy policy -- one that promotes affordable and consistent access to domestic energy, protects oil industry jobs and stimulates economic development -- is an integral to keeping our economy healthy enough to identify future alternative sources of energy.

What federal policies can help the transportation sector wean itself off oil? The question could be more correctly asked as what policies can cost-effectively reduce oil use. The word wean implies addiction which at best is pejorative. We use oil as a transportation fuel because it is abundant, high in energy content and affordable. Alternatives lack those qualities and promoting them before they are commercially competitive only imposes hidden costs on the transportation system, which means consumers and businesses.

There are only two reasons for the stated objective. First national security and second climate change. Many nations import more oil than we do. Our imports are higher than they need to be because we have chosen not to produce offshore, in parts of Alaska, and now in the Gulf of Mexico. The national security issue is shallow. As for the second reason, climate change, over the past decade we did better than most EU nations in slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. We have steadily reduced the carbon intensity of our economy and will continue to do so as the mix of economic activity changes and new technology is deployed.

The problem with policies designed to “wean” the nation off of oil is that they almost certainly will be technology and market forcing. And, technology forcing raises issues of reliability and costs. The new CAFE standards for 2016 are estimated to increase the cost of light duty vehicles by an average of $1000 which will affect the sale of new vehicles and the turnover of existing ones.

The market is moving in the direction of more efficient vehicle systems which will lower CO2 emissions. Some believe that gasoline consumption peaked several years ago as a result of gasoline prices and improved efficiency. Even if it has, it will take decades for the existing fleet of well over 200 million vehicles to completely turnover and fully utilize new technologies.

What federal policy should do is look for impediments to faster deployment of technologies instead of driving consumers to Washington desired outcomes through subsidies or overly aggressive CAFE standards. Hybrids remain more expensive than their conventional counterparts and battery technology remains a serious constraint both in terms of replacement cost and life time. Plug-ins are not ready for prime time and the power generation system is not ready either. And, all electric vehicles are too expensive and lack adequate range. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines but they also are more expensive.

The Obama Administration’s announcement of a proposed CAFE rulemaking for the 2016 model year and beyond could have serious disruptive consequences by pushing mileage standards well beyond what can be economically justified. Demographics will continue to have a big impact on personal vehicle choice. Urban dwellers can better utilize high mileage vehicles like the Smart car and Ford Fiesta. But, those are not suited for most suburban and rural families. If drivers are forced into smaller vehicles safety will be a problem as study after study has demonstrated. Full size vehicles and SUVs are not a luxury for people who live in rural or less dense areas. The about to be proposed standards will undoubtedly make driving more expensive for those who need larger cars and SUVs.

Natural gas could make a big contribution in reducing emissions if used for city buses and delivery vehicles. Natural gas vehicles for personal transportation are not practical because of limited range and the amount of space required for the tank.

The Federal Government has a dismal record at mandating technologies for consumers to buy and use. There is no reason to believe that the current push to force new transportation technologies will be any more successful. Instead of setting arbitrary and overly aggressive CAFE standards, the goal of reducing automotive emissions would be better achieved with a carbon tax with a payroll tax offset.

(These comments were submitted by Kathryn Phillips, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s California Transportation and Air Initiative.)

Transportation is the addicted friend who keeps promising to do better. Today, it accounts for nearly 70 percent of the nation’s oil use, and every year, the billions of barrels needed to feed that addiction grow.

Our oil addiction is directly linked to transportation inefficiencies that we have tolerated for too long. Our vehicles have lousy fuel economy, and our infrastructure is outdated, designed in a way that enhances inefficiency.

To reduce the addiction requires working on at least two levels at once: fixing fuel economy and fixing the infrastructure. Taken together, fixing a sector that includes more than 245 million cars in the United States alone and an outdated infrastructure that needs hundreds of billions just to bring it up to a state of good repair seems daunting. The good news is that we can take discreet actions in the next year that will have a big pay off and create a substantial dent in our fuel demand.

The first of these involves fuel economy. Last week’s joint release by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a plan for increasing light-duty vehicle fuel economy for the period from 2017 to 2025 is the latest and arguably the most important in a string of recent EPA actions that require the auto industry to perform better for the environment and for consumers. This new fuel economy regulation—combined with fuel economy standards adopted earlier this year for cars and light-duty trucks manufactured in 2012-2016—would reduce oil dependence in 2025 by about two million barrels a day, more than the level of oil imported into the United States in 2009.

Notably, the auto industry isn’t publicly whining —as it has so often in the past—that the standards under consideration are impossible for the industry to meet. Of course, public restraint doesn’t mean that the auto industry won’t fight to get the weakest standard possible. EPA and NHTSA need to be strong and shoot for the highest standard under consideration, one that would achieve an average fuel economy of 62 miles per gallon by 2025. Moreover, the agencies need to keep on track with their earlier announced schedule to also establish the first-ever fuel-economy standard for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. This new standard will help the freight industry reduce oil dependence and pollution.

The second action involves infrastructure. The White House and Congress need to focus attention on authorizing a new federal transportation bill. They must get most of the work done by June of 2011 to avoid the election-year hurdles that have hindered advancing a bill this year, and that could block it when the next election cycle begins. President Obama said in his Labor Day speech that a transportation bill is high on his priority list. That announcement was good news to House and Senate members who have been trying to craft a bill.

However, not just any bill will do. If we keep funding the transportation bill the same way we’ve been funding in the past, we’ll just use more oil every year. This time, the transportation bill needs to emphasize repairing broken infrastructure, better managing the system, shifting more dollars to transit—in both rural and urban areas—and modernizing the freight transportation infrastructure while reducing its environmental impacts. Transportation policy needs to continue moving away from its outdated focus on increasing lane miles and declaring success.

The third action involves members of Congress who, in the aftermath of defeating clean energy/climate legislation, tried to undermine EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If these efforts continue and succeed, the United States risks playing second fiddle to our economic competitors—such as China—that are rapidly employing efficiencies to reduce the world’s expensive dependence on fossil fuels. Congressional leadership must protect EPA’s authority in 2011, or be held in contempt by the next generation as it bears the full impact of climate change and oil addiction.

Oil is an extraordinarily valuable resource. We should be using it as efficiently as we possibly can, not wasting it by using outdated engines and old technologies. As I explain in my new book, In Deep Water, The Anatomy of a Disaster, the Fate of the Gulf, and the How to End Our Oil Addiction <http://bit.ly/inDeepWater> , American ingenuity can break our addiction to oil and begin moving this country to safer, cleaner, more sustainable sources of fuel.

But we need smart policies to unleash that ingenuity.

Legislation to promote electric vehicles is certainly a good start, but we also need to improve the efficiency of our entire fleet, give drivers more choices other than driving alone, and begin to replace oil with cleaner, low carbon fuels.

Last week, Obama Administration officials said they are considering issuing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks equivalent to at least 47 miles per gallon and as high as 62 gallons by 2025, based on a proposed 3 to 6 percent rate of emissions improvement starting in 2017.

The administration is on the right path here, but the problem with setting the bar at just a 3 percent improvement per year is that it puts the U.S. auto industry on a path towards mediocrity. Setting the bar at 6 percent will save 80 percent more oil than setting the bar low at 3%. So when it comes to getting off of oil, the choice is clear. A 6 percent improvement will also encourage more innovative ideas, create more jobs, and do more to end our oil addiction and reduce global warming pollution.

Achieving 60 miles per gallon may sound bold, but we can achieve it by using and improving on technologies that already exist.

America could make further cuts in our oil dependence by redirecting transportation funding. Right now, highways get 80 cents of every federal transportation dollar, yet 80 percent of the economic activity in this country occurs in the nation's hundred largest cities. If we devoted a proportionate amount of our transportation dollars toward building and improving public transit there, we'd have more options for supporting the kind of clean, energy-efficient economic growth that can genuinely improve our standard of living.

Ultimately we can't escape the fact to solve this problem we must replace oil, with cleaner, low carbon fuels. We have three very promising options: electricity from a low carbon grid, biofuels from sustainable feedstocks, and hydrogen from renewable sources. To promote these replacements in a rationale manner, we need to adopt a national policy modeled after California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This model is performance-based and doesn't pick winners and losers-it simply tells the oil industry to steadily decrease the pollution from their products.

Right now and in the immediate future, there is only one fuel that can replace oil, and that fuel is ethanol. For the years ahead, there are many exciting ideas for alternative fuels, environmentally-friendly vehicles, and the technologies that will make them possible. The question is: How can we get there from here?

The answer is a comprehensive longterm strategy that recognizes that we can’t create the next generation of alternative fuels without supporting and sustaining the current generation. In the short term, that means encouraging the production and use of ethanol (including grain ethanol as well as other feedstocks), flexible fuel vehicles, and the infrastructure that they need. In the longer term, that means a combination of renewable fuels and hybrid technologies, along with other innovative ideas that are currently in development.

Moving forward from the short-term to the longterm requires some combination of federal standards encouraging higher ethanol blends in gasoline, tax incentives for ethanol producers, and expanded efforts to develop the needed infrastructure, from pumps to pipelines.

Such policies will work in tandem with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and electrical power plants. Since anxieties about job losses often stymie such policies, we should remember that the US ethanol industry supports nearly 400,000 jobs in every sector of the economy and adds $35.3 billion to the Gross Domestic Product. Producing and using American-made biofuels is one policy that protects the environment and generates jobs.

The US ethanol industry is eager to continue working with the Administration, the Congress, the auto industry, the energy industry and the environmental community to develop policies that can bring the nation closer to the “clean energy future” that President Obama has challenged all Americans to embrace.