DOE proposes to delay energy bill's 2010 alternative fuel deadline 20 years
Here's a lesson in legislation over-estimating reality. In 1992, Congress passed an aggressive energy bill requiring that 30 percent of the fuel powering U.S. cars come from sources other than gasoline. Sounds great, but the problem is that we're no where near meeting that deadline. Due to a recent environmental group lawsuit, the Department of Energy was required to develop a revised goal. Last Tuesday, the DOE proposed that goal be pushed back 20 years and be set at 2030.
According to DOE figures, alternative fuels currently represent 2.5 percent of the country's annual fuel consumption, a figure, the department says, that has remained nearly stagnant over the last 10 years.
In 2010, U.S. oil demand is expected to be over 12 million barrels per day, 30 percent of which would be about 3.7 million barrels.
[Correction: Tom pointed out a factual error that we'd like to correct. In 2010, U.S.
If we were to rest our hopes solely on ethanol to fill the gap, the predicted numbers come up staggeringly short. The Renewable Fuels Association says that current U.S. production capacity for ethanol is only at 313,000 barrels a day. New plants seem to pop up every week, but, national ethanol production won't come close to account for the shortcoming any time soon. The DOE estimates that even if all the corn currently grown by American farmers were converted to ethanol, it would provide just 1.17 million barrels a day, far short of the total expected 3.7 million barrel per day requirement.
There's lots more after the jump.
How does this translate to vehicle sales? The DOE has some figures for that as well. There are roughly 6 million alternative fuel vehicles currently on U.S. roads. To cover enough alternative fuel consumption to meet the 30 percent mandate that number would have to grow by a factor of 15 to 90 million vehicles over the next three years.
So what went wrong? Was Congress merely overly optimistic 14 years ago? Have we not implemented enough short-term policies that would have gradually lead to a more favorable outcome? Or is it simply an issue of historically low gas prices? In this article from NPR's All Things Considered, Dana O'Hara, a spokesman for the DOE, says that our failure to meet the requirement lies in the fact that the law didn't set mandates to encourage the private sector to either manufacture or purchase alternative fuels and alternative-fueled vehicles. He also says that in 1992 oil prices seemed destined to rise but instead plummeted, drastically limiting the viability of alternative fuel and vehicle research.
Consider this a wake-up call. We need to debate the combination of factors that brought us here, but not for the next 23 years. If we don't confront our lethargic response to our energy problem we'll be destined to have this same conversation under the pressure of another missed deadline.
As required by law, the DOE will be taking public comment through November 3rd.
[Source: Monsters and Critics]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tony Belding 12:41PM (10/05/2006)
This is a strange story. I'm not sure I even understand the 1992 law. From what I'm reading this law "set a goal" or "required" 30% alternative fuel by 2010, but didn't actually include any kind of incentives, or subsidies, or mandates, or allocate any research funding to help bring that about, nor apparently did it specify what would happen if the requirement wasn't met. So. . . It wasn't really a *law* in any normal sense of the word. It was just political posturing. It was just lawmakers waving a green flag and saying "Yay for us! Look how green we are! Look at what we hope will happen!" while accomplishing nothing.
As Dr. Z famously observed, hope is not a valid substitute for a strategy.
Reply
loikll 3:13PM (10/05/2006)
***To cover enough alternative fuel consumption to meet the 30 percent mandate that number would have to grow by a factor of 15 to 90 million vehicles over the next three years.***
Completely impossible, since we only sell about 17 million vehicles a year!
Wow, I wish I'd been paying attention back in 1992, I would've recognized what an idiotic "goal" that was. Even in 1992 congressman would've anticipated that US vehicles-in-use as of 2010 would've been 250-300 million. At that time light vehicle sales were running at under 13 million a year. How did they expect US car sales of alternative fuel cars to ramp up from virtually zero to a total of 100 million sold in 18 years?
You would've had to mandate something like 50% of new sales be alt-fuel cars by 2000 and 100% by 2005, Should've been clear that that was completely unrealistic, even if there had been mandates and penalties. What a bunch of idiots.
Reply
Derrick Y. Noh 3:14PM (10/05/2006)
Not sure if this will clarify anything, but here's some detailed information regarding the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Section 502 requires that the Energy Secretary:
1) estimate the production capacity for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles
2) determine the feasibility of achieving the replacement of petroleum-based fuels with alternative fuels for following goals in equivalent energy capacity:
a) at least 10 percent by 2000
b) at least 30 percent by 2010
3) determine the most suitable means and methods to achieve said goals
4) identify ways to encourage the development of alternative fuels and alternative-fueled vehicles
5) determine greenhouse gas emission implications
As for setting mandates, Section 504(c) says, "The Secretary shall have no authority under this Act to mandate the production of alternative fueled vehicles or to specify, as applicable, the models, lines, or types of, or marketing or pricing practices, policies, or strategies for, vehicles subject to this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to give the Secretary authority to mandate marketing or pricing practices, policies, or strategies for alternative fuels or to mandate the production or delivery of such fuels."
Reply
Tom Barrett 9:40AM (10/06/2006)
> In 2010, U.S. oil demand is expected to be over 12 million barrels per day
It's 19 million/day now, so it is expected to drop 30% by then?
Reply
Derrick Y. Noh 3:38PM (10/20/2006)
Thanks for pointing out the factual error, Tom. I went ahead and added a correction tag under the paragraph in question.
Reply