Daily News Update, Dec. 7, 2007
House approves bill to increase
mandate for RFS
As
Congress returned to Washington this week, energy legislation took
the spotlight with deals being brokered on a new House energy bill
which passed Dec. 6 by a vote of 235-181. The bill now heads to the
Senate where consideration is expected in the near future.
The "new"
bill, H.R. 6, the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007,
turns a blind eye to the concerns of livestock and food producers by
requiring the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by
2022, including a 15 billion gallon mandate for feedgrain-based fuel
by 2016. The remainder is to be produced from cellulosic or other
advanced biofuels.
Cattle
producers have tirelessly argued for a market-based approach to
renewable fuels development. But some policymakers have insisted on
an increase to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which currently
calls for the production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. NCBA member
policy is specifically opposed to increasing the government mandate
for feedgrain-based ethanol.
" In
its current form, this bill does not provide any mechanism to reduce
the mandate in the event of adverse weather conditions or
infrastructure bottlenecks, which we've already seen affect corn
production in the past," said Jason Jordan, NCBA's manager of
legislative issues. "The House of Representatives failed to address
how the country will handle demands for corn in the fuel, feed and
food industries if corn supplies are inadequate."
If passed
by the Senate, it is likely that President Bush will veto the bill.
A Statement of Administrative Policy released Dec. 6 reports that
the bill would fragment the market by picking and choosing among
fuel types instead of relying on market forces to develop new, more
advanced technologies and the next generation of fuels with lower
greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, the policy continues, a new alternative fuel standard
should include an effective safety valve, should be technology
neutral, and should rely on market innovation instead of excessive
statutory prescription.
If H.R. 6 were
presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill |
|
