Bill fails to focus on cutting oil use
Despite its title as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," the energy and climate bill the House passed recently takes only a modest step toward reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy analysis of the climate bill: aceee.org/energy/national/WMSavingsUpdate0624.pdf
WASHINGTON — Despite its title as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," the energy and climate bill the House passed recently takes only a modest step toward reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Two studies project that the legislation would cut oil use in the future, but not enough to make much of a dent in dependence on oil from unstable or unfriendly foreign suppliers. Some experts said other steps will be needed to cut U.S. oil use significantly.
The nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy examined the bill's efficiency provisions and concluded they would save 1.4 million barrels of oil a day in 2030. That's roughly 10 percent of the projected use of 14.3 million barrels a day in that year, according to the government's Energy Information Administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put the oil savings at 700,000 barrels a day by 2030. The EPA looked mainly at the bill's terms that would put a declining cap on the amount of emissions of heat-trapping gases allowed each year and create a pollution-permit trading system.
EPA's analysis showed only a modest decrease because the bill would have little impact on the price of gasoline — and thus little impact on people's driving behavior and choice of cars. EPA estimated gasoline prices would go up about 25 cents a gallon in 2030 as a result of the bill.
EPA also projected that U.S. oil use would hold fairly steady from now to 2050.
The House-passed climate legislation focuses primarily on electricity generation. Its backers said they sought the quickest and cheapest ways to bring down U.S. emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
U.S. electricity generation is half from coal and the rest mostly from nuclear energy, hydro and renewable energy. Only about 2 percent is from oil.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office said the bill, when combined with the 2007 energy bill and the president's fuel-efficiency plan, would cut the use of oil by 5 million barrels a day in 2030.
The Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit energy-policy center, has argued that the climate bill would help establish clean sources of electricity but wouldn't solve the problem of U.S. oil dependence.
Amory Lovins, an energy expert who leads the institute, said he didn't object to the House bill's focus on climate but said other policies are needed to break dependence on oil. A reduction of oil use would sharply reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, he added.
"We just want to make sure the policy apparatus can walk and chew gum at the same time — that by focusing on climate, which is an urgent issue, it does not delay similarly urgent consideration of breaking oil dependence," he said.
Lovins said energy efficiency and greater use of natural gas and biofuels not related to food could displace much U.S. oil use.
A move away from oil could be speeded up with policies such as "feebates" for cars: People who buy inefficient cars would pay a fee, and those who buy more efficient ones would get a rebate. Lovins said such a program in France has been a "stunning success" in getting people to buy fuel-efficient cars.
The Obama administration has shifted U.S. energy policy's emphasis to efficiency and renewable energy "to a much greater extent than we've seen previously," Lovins added. "I think that ultimately will bear fruit for getting us off oil as well as reducing carbon emissions. But this does take a more specific focus on oil dependence than what we've gotten in the climate bill."
A gathering of energy, security and environmental experts brought together by the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Brookings Institution in December produced some consensus ideas for how to cut U.S. oil use.
They said the United States should reduce the use of cars through increased funding for public transit and other measures; increase the fuel-efficiency of cars; reduce the amount of fuel needed to move freight; and encourage development of alternative sources of energy for transportation.
McClatchy Newspapers reporter Kevin G. Hall contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
UPDATE - 10:01 AM
Rebels tighten hold on Libya oil port
UPDATE - 09:29 AM
Reality leads US to temper its tough talk on Libya
UPDATE - 09:38 AM
2 Ark. injection wells may be closed amid quakes
Sam and Sara Lucchese create handmade pasta out of their kitchen-garage adjacent to their Ballard home. Here, they illustrate the final steps in making pappardelle pasta.