Summary of public hearings on proposed Alternative fuel mandate
|
Summary of public hearings on proposed Alternative fuel mandate |
by Senator Ray Musto
As the Senate continues to discuss an alternative energy strategy for Pennsylvania, the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee recently held two public hearings on the proposed alternative fuel mandate.
The committee heard from numerous witnesses who offered suggestions and concerns on mandating certain types of alternative fuels that could decrease our dependence on foreign oil, yield clean-burning emissions and create a local industry for both crop and biofuel production.
We received descriptions of three prominent types of fuels — ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol — from Nathan Willcox, the energy and clean air advocate for PennEnvironment, which is a statewide non-profit environmental advocacy organization.
Ethanol is pure grain alcohol produced from the fermentation of corn and is blended with regular gasoline. Biodiesel is produced from the oils and fats of soybeans, used vegetable oil and animals and, like ethanol, it is blended with regular gas. Cellulosic ethanol uses sugars trapped in plant cellulose, rather than the nutritive parts of the plant, like corn kernels. This production method is still in its infancy but could be the future of alternative fuels.
While biofuel production presents great promise for improving our environment and bringing homegrown fuel and crop business to Pennsylvania, it is also an emerging technology that scientists will continue to study and improve on to find even better production methods and other renewable resources.
Robert Leidich, the manager of BP’s Regulatory and Advocacy Group, cautioned the commission on the legislature’s interest in issuing biofuel mandates. Although ethanol and biodiesel are popular forms of clean energy now, technology is constantly evolving. Mandating a renewable fuel — like ethanol and biodiesel — prematurely may impose a cost structure that would be disadvantageous to the customer, Leidich explained.
As a legislature, want naturally want to mandate alternative fuels that best protect our environment and enhance our economy. However, we also must cautiously consider our options because we must make sure we do not mandate a process that will end up obsolete or detrimental to consumers and businesses.
Kathleen McGinty, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, suggested that our committee identify the issues raised with biofuels because there is a sense of urgency in terms of the global supply in the planet’s fuel reserves. She said manufacturing biofuels would relieve Pennsylvania of relying heavily on foreign fuel sources. It would also make Pennsylvania a business leader in the production and exporting of biofuels, she added.
Conversely, Rolf Hanson, the executive director of Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, argued that state biofuel mandates interfere with the flexibility of federal plans, and that mandates need to be issued on a federal level. State-specific requirements for biofuels would interfere with the clear jurisdiction of the federal government and only disrupt supply.
However, Pennsylvania and many other states are exploring biofuel mandates because we are unhappy with the federal government’s plans. Biofuel production and consumption offer positive results for states, which is why our legislature is dedicating an entire special session to this landmark issue.
The public hearings also enlightened the committee on the effects on our crops and food if we mandate biofuel production.
James Dunn, professor of agricultural economics at Penn State University, argued that utilizing corn for ethanol is a “bad idea” because Pennsylvania is a “corn deficient” state that uses most of its corn supply as feed for livestock.
Tim Reardon, vice president of Risk Management and Support Services at Giant Food Stores, also expressed concern over the price of corn. He said that the cost of beef, pork, poultry and corn-based products has increased as the cost of corn has risen. He believes that setting an ethanol mandate in Pennsylvania will spur an increase in the cost of corn that will, in turn, drive up the price of food and adversely affect Pennsylvania consumers.
However, Dennis Wolff, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Joel Rotz from the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, both testified about misconceptions on how ethanol production and corn prices are driving up food and dairy costs. They argued that increased energy costs, global supply and demand, and even the recent weather are contributing factors to the rise in cost of dairy, meat and other food products, not speculation on ethanol production. They believe ethanol production will lower energy costs, resulting in lower food prices.
The public hearings provided numerous viewpoints and suggestions for the committee. As the special session on energy continues, I will carefully consider the testimony offered during the public hearing and will work toward a viable strategy that will make Pennsylvania a clean energy leader.
Senator Musto (D-14, Luzerne, Carbon, Monroe) is minority chairman of the Environmental and Resources and Energy Committee of the Pennsylvania senate.
September 27, 2007