Hello there everyone, sorry for the late date on this month’s newsletter—our UCS all-staff retreat earlier this week kept everyone here away from their computers. But we’re back now, and so are some interesting developments in vehicle standards and technologies. So let’s get right to it.
Scott Nathanson
UCS National Field Organizer &
HybridCenter.org Administrator
In this issue:
 Ever Since Ford unveiled its Escape Hybrid flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) prototype back in 2006, there has been a buzz about the potential for efficient technologies to combine with bio-based fuels to give consumers new choices that would really dip their carbon footprint.
That said, as I noted last month in reaction to Bob Lutz of GM’s latest missive (with the emphasis on “miss”) on corn-based ethanol, living green by going yellow isn’t as simple as the slogan sounds. Next week, the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality will take a crack at delving into the complexities of biofuels, holding a hearing entitled: “The Renewable Fuel Standard: Issues, Implementation, and Opportunities.”
That Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was passed last year along side a major increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards—though it flew a little bit below the radar. As we’ve noted, there are some important changes in this version of the RFS compared to its 2005 incarnation. Most importantly it “counts carbon and makes carbon count.” The new RFS:
-
Requires renewable fuels from new facilities to reduce global warming pollution by at least 20 percent as measured on a lifecycle basis. The lifecycle emissions include land use conversion when lands that were previously not used for agriculture are converted to cropland.
-
Caps corn ethanol’s contribution to the RFS at 15 billion gallons a year in 2015 and requires that 21 billion gallons a year will be supplied by cellulosic ethanol (16 billion), advanced ethanol (4 billion), or biodiesel (1 billion). These fuels must reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 60 percent for cellulosic and 50 percent for advanced ethanol and biodiesel.
-
Contains critical environmental safeguards to protect sensitive ecosystems and wildlife on federal lands.
 But here’s the rub: Since the global warming standards only apply to new ethanol production—current facilities and those projected to go online by around 2010 don’t have to meet these standards—and those facilities account for in the range of 80 percent of the 15 billion gallons of ethanol required under the new RFS.
Today’s corn ethanol could have much higher emissions than gasoline, especially when land conversion is taken into account (more details to follow below). It’s possible that much of the emissions benefits of the RFS could be eroded by these grandfathered corn ethanol plants. Also, the new RFS allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lower the global warming emissions benefits of corn ethanol to just 10 percent if the Agency considers the costs to be too high.
But, if everything goes according to plan, the implementation of the new RFS would avoid the emission of about 100 million metric tons of CO2 a year by 2022.
That, however, is a big if. To achieve these benefits, the EPA needs to use accurate information to define “lifecycle emissions” for measuring carbon output. While the direct carbon output of using land to raise biofuels crops (energy tilling the land, fertilizer use, etc.) is on a relative scale more easily measurable, the indirect effect on land use is a harder nut to crack—but a vital one.
Land conversion is kind of the “wack-a-mole” issue of sound biofuels development. Given there is a constant, if not growing, need for crops like corn and soy for non-fuel uses in the world, if a U.S. farmer takes a food crop and dedicates it to fuel, another farmer, somewhere else is going to pop up and compensate for the non-fuel crop gap by planting new farm land. If that new farm land is made, say, by clearing out rain forest, the carbon impact is massively negative. Plus, as prices increase for biofuel feedstocks that are also used to feed people, there could be a growing backlash against biofuels for causing increased food price spikes and shortages.
This is the crux of the situation that Congress, the EPA, and consumers are facing. Congress needs to weigh in and ensure that the lifecycle-carbon counting is comprehensive—or biofuels could cause massive increases in global warming pollution. In addition, Congress needs to voice its support for the environmental safeguards included in the RFS which are under attack. The EPA needs to use the latest and most sound science, something still rapidly evolving on this issue, to make sure the market is moving toward truly lower carbon cultivation and production practices.
 And, finally, consumers need to make themselves heard. There will be a public comment period when the EPA releases their proposed rule for implementing the RFS. I’ll be sure to alert you when they are accepting feedback. We also need to speak out when we see Flex Fuel Vehicle automakers and ethanol producers trying to greenwash ethanol use. Our senior analyst on biofuels issues caught this little diddy from the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council in a promo for gas pump tags that say “Enriched with E10” (meaning 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol). Their highly distorted environmental plug reads:
Ethanol-enriched fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 35-46%, which is
comparable to removing 100 million cars from the nation’s highways each year.
This, of course, is nothing that even resembles the truth—and that’s bad for both consumers and the environment.
I urge all DCN members to keep an eye out online and in your community for evidence of unsubstantiated advertisements for “green ethanol.” If you have a picture of a gas pump, or a brochure, or a TV or radio ad, please let me know about it and I’ll spread the word both here and on HybridBlog.org. Consumer power is as important a tool as strong standards in driving change.
 Automotive X-Prize early contenders: The Automotive X-Prize, a UCS-endorsed competition to develop a mass-producible 100mpg vehicle, has some early contenders. Among them is a plug-in hybrid sedan developed by West Philadelphia high school students that could go for as little as $25,000, a low-weight, low-drag German compact electric vehicle, and a plug-in pickup made in Phoenix. The key with most of the contenders is making Lithium batteries work. For more information, head to our Hybrid News Center.
- Will the new Prius be more miles, or muscle? An interesting new article by EcoGeek talks about the current rumors around the next Prius. There’s little doubt that the new vehicle will get better fuel economy, but it also looks to be larger, and more powerful. The question is whether time and design would have been better spent on breakthrough fuel economy rather than more room and “vroom.” Of course, Toyota may be turning the Prius into its own sub-brand, so the notion of a Prius compact that offers the biggest mpg bang for the buck may still be in the offing. More at the Hybrid News Center.
- Who’s Got Hybrids? Not many in Congress: An article in the New York Times continues to show that members of Congress leasing vehicles with taxpayer money are not rushing to find the most efficient vehicles they can, even in the face of $3.50 gas prices. About 125 members of the House take advantage of the taxpayer-leased vehicles, which also includes the gas bill. Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, but there are far more Chevy Tahoes, Lincoln Town Cars, and BMWs than there are Prius or Civic Hybrids. More on this in the Hybrid News Center.
 Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) release their proposed plan for how to implement the new 35 mile-per-gallon fuel economy standard that we all worked hard to get Congress to pass last year.
I wish I was clever enough to come up with this line, but our Senior Vehicles Analyst Jim Kliesch came up with this very apt analogy to describe NHTSA’s proposed rule. Here’s Jim’s little nugget:
“If this rule were a new car, it would be quick off the line, but the engine bogs above 30.”
That pretty much sums it up. NHTSA goes strong in the first few years of the program, and then slows down significantly, primarily due to a few poorly placed assumptions:
-
Projected gas prices that underestimate the reality Americans are seeing at the pump; $2.25 per gallon in 2015 and $2.36 per gallon in 2020 compared to today's $3.51 per gallon for regular gasoline;
-
An unrealistic value for reducing global warming pollution: $7 per ton of global warming pollution compared with the current $40 per ton on European markets; and
-
Deference to automaker claims that some manufacturers will not be able to meet existing fuel economy standards.
This information flies in the face of the facts. Our new report, Setting the Standard: How Cost Effective Technology Can Increase Fuel Economy, shows that proper implementation of the current standard should lead to a fleet nearing 40mpg by 2020—even without hybrid technologies. And that stat would climb well over 40mpg with the rapid market inclusion of hybrids.
As the automakers continue to complain about the difficulty of implementing these standards, I found it ironic to hear our old friend Bob Lutz, Vice President of General Motors, announce that his vision was a GM fleet of vehicles that would be 80 percent hybrids by 2020.
To me, this symbolizes two things: First, the automakers recognize the shift in the market, and that, finally, is a good thing. Second this statement signifies the vital importance of standards to keep automakers from backsliding on an aggressive agenda to make cleaner cars. NHTSA’s modest interpretation of the fuel economy rule further proves how valuable the California clean car standards are for pushing both the automakers forward and providing a needed counterbalance by giving states an opportunity to move forward with cleaner cars if the federal government continues to lag behind.
I’ll be putting up an action alert soon so you can call on NHTSA to make a more realistic interpretation of the fuel economy rules.
Who’s Got Hybrids Now?
Given it’s now May, I thought I’d take a look and see if I could find any May flowers (or pilgrims…sorry, couldn’t resist) or other fun Springtime pictures among our “Who’s Got Hybrids?” crew.
 Here’s a great one from David Bryant of Lpswich, MA in his Gen. 1 Civic Hybrid. He notes that he can push his mpg from 40mpg to 45 mpg “simply by driving the speed limit!”
 Michael Huidobro of Corona del Mar, CA sent in this green vista with his Honda Insight in the foreground. He considers the car to be a drag, but a good one, with the lowest drag resistance of any vehicle out there. In the words of the Simpson’s Comic Book Guy, Michael simply sees his Insight as the “Best…Car…Ever.”
 In a nod to UCS’s own resident surfer, California Outreach Coordinator Erin Rogers, here is Robert Foster from Newport Beach, California’s Toyota Prius Gen. 2. He notes that, “It can even carry my 11'6" longboard on the roof.” What more could you want?
 While it’s not flowers, this picture says spring to me in both the season and environmental renewal sense. Gen. 2 Prius owner Michael Custard of St. Paul, MN sent this great shot, saying he traded in his 26mpg (at best) VW for the Prius, and got over 50mpg on his first tank.
That’s it for this month. I’ll be headed down to the House of Mouse in Orlando this month, and I’m renting a hybrid again. I’ll let you know if I have similar smooth sailing in the next newsletter.
| 
