Energy Testimony

Nathan Willcox, PennEnvironment Energy & Clean Air Advocate

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman White, Chairman Musto and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present testimony to you today on the important issue of biofuels in Pennsylvania.  As you may know, PennEnvironment is a statewide non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy organization with roughly 15,000 citizen members across the state.  PennEnvironment has been active on renewable energy and transportation issues at the state and national level, and has worked to educate the public and decision makers on these issues.

Summary:  Sustainably-produced biofuels are a potentially important tool in the fight to cut air pollution, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and tackle the problem of global warming.  For these reasons, PennEnvironment applauds the efforts of Gov. Rendell and many state legislators to promote biofuels production in Pennsylvania.  There are, however, several flaws with the current legislation (House Bill 1202 and Senate Bill 789) being considered by the state House and Senate, and we are eager to work with lawmakers to correct these flaws.  Specifically, PennEnvironment feels strongly that coal-to-liquids or “liquid coal” should not be part of any biofuels proposal, that there should be a global warming pollution standard for any biofuels program, and that there needs to be more of a focus on the long-term promotion of cellulosic ethanol than exists in the current legislation.

Background & Need for Biofuels:  Despite recent advancements in the production of clean, renewable energy in the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania, like the rest of the country and the world, is currently far too dependent on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.   This is especially true in the case of our transportation sector, where petroleum is essentially the only fuel source used to power our cars and trucks.

AIR POLLUTION IN PENNSYLVANIA: Our dependence on petroleum to fuel our transportation sector carries with it many serious environmental and public health impacts, stemming from emissions of smog-forming, soot and global warming pollution.  With regard to smog and soot pollution, while air quality has improved in Pennsylvania and across the country over the last three decades, Pennsylvania still suffers from air pollution levels that pose significant public health and environmental threats.  One air pollutant of primary concern is ground-level ozone or ‘smog’ pollution.  Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with heat and sunlight to create the smog that prompts “Code Red” ozone alert days advising citizens to limit their outdoor activities.  Most recently, the American Lung Association, in its 2007 State of the AirPennsylvania.  The best grade given to any Pennsylvania county in the American Lung Association’s report was a ‘C’. [1]  In addition to creating smog pollution, nitrogen oxides also react with other substances in the air to form acid rain, which damages forests, lakes, rivers and streams. report, gave grades of ‘F’ for ozone pollution levels to 14 counties across

With regard to soot pollution, fine particle ‘soot’ pollution is the nation’s deadliest air pollutant.  This pollution, which is created mainly by coal-fired power plants and diesel engines, plagues many communities across Pennsylvania.  The American Lung Association recently ranked the Pittsburgh, Lancaster, York/Gettysburg area, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas as having the 2nd, 11th, 14th and 24th worst year-round soot pollution among metropolitan areas nationally. [2]

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF SMOG AND SOOT POLLUTION: Ozone smog and fine particle soot pollution create a host of public health problems.  With regard to smog, much like a sunburn affects the skin, ozone burns our lungs and airways, causing them to become inflamed, reddened, and swollen.  Children, senior citizens, and people with respiratory diseases are particularly vulnerable to the health effects of ozone smog pollution.  In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that, even when inhaled at very low levels, ozone smog pollution can cause chest pain, aggravate asthma, reduce lung function, increase emergency room visits for respiratory problems, and lead to irreversible lung damage. [3] Here in Pennsylvania, ozone pollution triggers roughly 300,000 asthma attacks annually, and leads to roughly 7,000 hospital admissions each year. [4]  In addition, some studies point to even more serious health effects associated with exposure to ozone smog pollution, including the development of asthma in individuals (vs. the triggering of asthma attacks), [5] the development of cardiovascular diseases, [6] increased risk of birth defects in the children of pregnant women exposed to ozone smog pollution, [7] and premature mortality. [8]

With regard to fine particle soot pollution, these pollutants can lodge deep in the lungs or even enter the blood stream, causing serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems including asthma attacks, heart attacks and lung cancer.  In fact, these small particles are so dangerous that they are estimated to cause 5,000 premature deaths in Pennsylvania, and tens of thousands of premature deaths across the country annually.  Soot pollution is also estimated to trigger 500,000 asthma attacks each year in Pennsylvania.  Air pollution also has serious societal and economic impacts for the Commonwealth, as it is estimated that air pollution is responsible for roughly 800,000 missed work days and 900,000 missed school days each year in Pennsylvania. [9]

GLOBAL WARMING AND PENNSYLVANIA: In recent years, global warming has emerged as the most pressing environmental problem facing Pennsylvania, the country and the planet.  Potential impacts of global warming for Pennsylvania range from more heat-related deaths [10] and threats to native plant and animal species, [11] to more severe flooding and unhealthy air days, to negative economic impacts on the state’s agricultural sector.  Broadly, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that unchecked global warming will result in Pennsylvania’s climate resembling that of present-day Alabama and Georgia by the end of the century. [12]

Avoiding the worst consequences of global warming will require a truly global effort, but Pennsylvania has a moral obligation to be part of the solution, given that the Commonwealth creates more global warming pollution than any other state besides Texas and California. [13]  Scientists have said that we need to achieve global reductions in global warming pollution of 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. [14] PennEnvironment believes that Pennsylvania should be working to achieve these same reductions at the state level.

Thankfully, there is a wide array of clean energy solutions at our fingertips that can enable Pennsylvania to make significant strides towards these reductions in global warming pollution, ranging from wind and solar power, to energy efficiency and conservation, to sustainably-produced biofuels.  What we absolutely cannot afford to do, however, is to make energy decisions at the state or local level that increase the amount of global warming pollution we’re creating.

CARS’ AND TRUCKS’ CONTRIBUTION TO AIR POLLUTION: In Pennsylvania, highway vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of the air pollution created.  Specifically, in 2001, highway vehicles emitted over 300,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides—or 37 percent of the state’s total emissions—and over 180,000 tons of volatile organic compound emissions (VOCs), or 30 percent of the VOC emissions in Pennsylvania. [15]  In 2004, Pennsylvania’s transportation sector produced 70 million metric tons of the global warming gas carbon dioxide—a nearly 20 percent increase from the transportation sector’s 1990 carbon dioxide emission levels, and roughly one quarter of Pennsylvania’s total emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption in 2004. [16]  

The Promise of Biofuels:  Thankfully, biofuels—broadly defined as liquid transportation fuels created from biomass—offer a tremendous opportunity for Pennsylvania to cut these levels of air pollution while also providing a boost to the state’s agricultural sector and decreasing our dependence on oil.  This testimony will walk through the three main types of biofuels being discussed in policy arenas today, as well as their advantages and disadvantages from an environmental perspective.

CORN ETHANOL: Ethanol is essentially pure grain alcohol produced from the fermentation of plant material, typically in the presence of heat.  And while corn is the source of most ethanol produced in the United States, other crops such as sugar cane can also be used to make ethanol.  Corn ethanol blends are typically labeled by the percentage of ethanol mixed with regular gasoline.  For instance, E10 is 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent regular gasoline, while E85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent regular gasoline.

From an environmental and economic perspective, corn ethanol has both positives and negatives.  The largest obvious economic benefit is a decrease in petroleum use—along the lines of 95 percent per energy-equivalent unit. [17] While much of the savings in petroleum is countered by increases in the use of other fossil fuels to produce the corn ethanol, corn ethanol can play a role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

With regard to smog pollution, the use of corn ethanol in high-percentage blends like E85 produces fewer smog-forming emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles than gasoline (although, as with many questions surrounding biofuels, there is some disagreement among researchers). Conversely, the use of low-percentage corn ethanol blends like E10 can actually increase emissions of smog-forming pollutants from vehicles as compared with regular gasoline. [18]  With regard to global warming pollution, current methods of corn ethanol production yield modest reductions in global warming pollution—roughly 13 percent compared with gasoline. [19]

These benefits can be significantly affected by the methods used to produce corn ethanol.  Poor farming methods, for example, can result in the release of global warming pollutants from the soil.  By contrast, the use of no-till and organic agriculture can reduce these impacts and improve the global warming pollution profile of corn ethanol. [20]  Finally, the use of coal, rather than natural gas, to provide heat for ethanol refineries—a production method being promoted by some in Pennsylvania—eliminates the global warming pollution benefits of corn ethanol use. [21]

Given these environmental benefits and impacts, PennEnvironment views corn ethanol as an important vehicle for advancing biofuels in Pennsylvania, but not an end goal in the biofuels effort. 

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL: Cellulosic ethanol is the same fuel that is produced from corn, but the method used to produce the fuel is very different.  Cellulosic ethanol production uses sugars trapped in plant cellulose, rather than the nutritive portions of the plant, like corn kernels.  “Energy crops” like switchgrass and crop residues like corn stalks are among the many potential feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production.  Due to the difficulty and cost currently associated with producing cellulosic ethanol, it is not yet being produced in large quantities anywhere.  That said, significant progress is being made in resolving these issues.

Researchers believe that cellulosic ethanol will significantly outperform corn ethanol on every measure of environmental sustainability—including fossil fuel energy use, global warming pollution, and environmental impacts from agriculture.  Specifically, cellulosic ethanol could reduce life-cycle global warming pollution by at least 40 percent over gasoline. [22]  With regard to smog pollution, the impacts of cellulosic ethanol use are roughly the same as those for corn ethanol. Energy crops such as switchgrass are also superior for sequestering carbon in the soil.

Cellulosic ethanol also holds several advantages over other biofuels with regard to other environmental impacts.  For instance, energy crops produce far more energy per acre than corn or soybeans (a popular fuel source for biodiesel), which means that the amount of land needed to produce meaningful quantities of cellulosic ethanol could be far less than for corn or biodiesel. [23]  

Because of the many environmental advantages of cellulosic ethanol, PennEnvironment feels that the advancement of cellulosic ethanol should be a central part of any state-level biofuels policy in Pennsylvania.

BIODIESEL: Biodiesel is produced from oils and fats which tend to come from oil crops such as soybeans or from used vegetable oil and animal fats.  As with ethanol, there are different grades of biodiesel blends, with each grade containing a different blend of biodiesel and conventional diesel fuel.  For instance, B20 is a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent conventional diesel. 

From an environmental perspective, production and use of biodiesel produces significant reductions in petroleum use as well as total fossil fuel energy consumption. [24]  Biodiesel also produces lower life cycle global warming pollution—between 40 to 60 percent less—than conventional diesel fuel. [25]  However, as with corn ethanol, poor agricultural practices can erode or reverse the global warming benefits of biodiesel. [26] With regard to soot pollution, biodiesel produces up to 50 percent less fine particle soot pollution than conventional diesel fuel.  However, biodiesel use also results in an increase in smog-forming pollution as compared to conventional diesel fuel, with these pollution levels rising as the percentage of biodiesel blended into the fuel increases. [27]  Finally, one obstacle that exists to producing huge amounts of biodiesel is that oil crops like soybeans produce far less energy per acre than cellulosic sources or corn, [28]  meaning that a dramatic expansion of biodiesel production could lead to land-use conflicts with agriculture or environmentally sensitive lands.

For these reasons, PennEnvironment feels that biodiesel holds many environmental advantages over conventional diesel, and should be a part of any state-level biofuels effort.  At the same time, any state-level biofuels effort should recognize the limits to a dramatic expansion of biodiesel production.

Currently Proposed Alternative Fuels Legislation in Pennsylvania:  This legislation would require an increasing percentage of ethanol and biodiesel to be included in transportation fuels in Pennsylvania, with the percentage requirement tied to in-state production of these fuels.  At its peak, this legislation would require all diesel fuel to contain at least 20 percent biodiesel one year after in-state production of biodiesel reached 300 million gallons, and would require all gasoline to contain at least 10 percent ethanol one year after in-state production of ethanol had reached 200 million gallons. [29]  PennEnvironment agrees that the time is right for promoting biofuels in Pennsylvania, but we see several serious flaws with the legislation’s current language.  Our concerns are outlined below, as well as potential solutions to these concerns, and we are anxious to work with legislators and the Rendell administration to implement these solutions in the coming weeks and months. Recognizing the need to diversify our fuel supply, the Rendell administration and many state legislators are pushing ahead with legislation—House Bill 1202 and Senate Bill 789—to boost the production of alternative fuels in

LIQUID COAL: The legislation contains a provision allowing fuel suppliers to meet the biodiesel requirement with coal-to-liquids or ‘liquid coal’ fuel, a transportation fuel produced from coal.  Its proponents claim that it is environmentally beneficial because it emits much less soot pollution than conventional fuels, but liquid coal is an incredibly expensive technology that creates roughly twice as much life-cycle global warming pollution as conventional fuels. [30]  For example, using liquid coal in a hybrid car would mean doubling the carbon dioxide emissions from that vehicle, which would be equivalent to operating a Hummer H3 run on conventional gasoline.  Even with the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions at a liquid coal plant, the U.S. EPA has found that liquid coal produces more global warming pollution than conventional fuels. [31]  And while HB 1202 and SB 789 would require carbon pollution from liquid coal to be sequestered or offset, neither of these are viable solutions for addressing the increase in global warming pollution that would result from the advancement of liquid coal.

As a state and as a nation, we cannot afford to be implementing policies that promote new ways to increase global warming pollution.  I am also submitting with my testimony an opinion piece from the Cato Institute opposing liquid coal technology for financial reasons, as well as a letter signed by 12 of the leading state and national environmental and conservation organizations, urging the removal of the liquid coal provision from House Bill 1202 and Senate Bill 789. 

Solution: PennEnvironment urges lawmakers to remove the liquid coal option in the alternative fuels legislation.  We can avoid incentivizing an increase in global warming pollution, while still accomplishing all of the stated purposes of the legislation, by promoting the use of sustainable biofuels and not liquid coal.

GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION: Biofuels can achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution, but farming and production methods can lessen or completely eliminate these potential reductions.  This is especially true in the case of processing ethanol using power from coal instead of natural gas. [32]  The current legislation lacks significant safeguards against the potential for Pennsylvania’s promotion of biofuels to create an increase in global warming pollution.  In promoting biofuels, we must make sure that we are achieving global warming pollution reductions and not promoting new ways to increase global warming pollution.

Solution: PennEnvironment urges lawmakers to add a ‘global warming pollution standard’ to this legislation.  This standard would require all alternative fuels qualifying for credit under this legislation to achieve life-cycle global warming pollution levels a certain percentage lower than conventional fuels.  Biodiesel, as well as cellulosic ethanol and most corn ethanol, would have no trouble meeting a global warming pollution standard of 20 percent below conventional fuels, according to EPA data. [33]  This would also be a good way to promote cellulosic ethanol within the legislation, given its lower global warming pollution emissions.

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL: Cellulosic ethanol holds the most promise for energy savings and environmental benefits among all biofuels, yet the current legislation does not contain enough incentives or mandates for the production of cellulosic ethanol specifically. 

There are two important steps that Pennsylvania should take to realize the promise of cellulosic ethanol. The first is to prepare the state’s infrastructure to accommodate increasing biofuels use in the years to come. The second is to take prudent steps to promote the production and use of cellulosic ethanol once the technology has been commercialized.

Unfortunately, the legislation’s current language fails to achieve these goals. With regard to infrastructure development, the legislation imposes a per-gallon requirement for ethanol blending, and by doing so misses an important opportunity to expand the state’s infrastructure for delivering and using higher blends of ethanol—like E85—that are both more environmentally beneficial and that can accommodate the use of greater quantities of cellulosic ethanol when it becomes available. Because all cars and fueling stations can use E10 today without any changes in technology (whereas the use of E85 does require changes in vehicles and fueling stations), this scenario could result in Pennsylvania meeting this legislation’s biofuels requirement without making any of the infrastructure changes in vehicles and fueling stations necessary to accommodate E85.

Second, there are no specific requirements for cellulosic ethanol or extra credits given to promote the technology.  Just like lawmakers wisely included specific support for solar power within Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, there should be similar specific support for cellulosic ethanol within our biofuels policy.

Solution: PennEnvironment urges lawmakers to consider several options for the promotion of cellulosic ethanol within the biofuels legislation, in addition to the global warming pollution standard previously discussed:
1) Create an ethanol requirement based on overall sales volume instead of the current language’s requirement that every gallon of gasoline contain at least 10 percent ethanol.  Specifically, such a requirement could require fuel suppliers to ensure that X percent of the total fuel they were producing was ethanol.  This would encourage the production and distribution of higher ethanol blends like E85 because a percentage requirement on the total sales volume could be met more quickly if more E85 was being produced and distributed, as compared to lower blends like E10.  This would then spur the infrastructure changes necessary to accommodate E85, which in turn would mean that the state would be better prepared to distribute fuel with 85 percent cellulosic ethanol as opposed to fuel containing only 10 percent cellulosic ethanol.
2) Create a tax incentive for the production and distribution of E85.  For reference, Iowa has a biofuels policy in place which does this. [34]
3) Create a specific, steadily increasing carve-out for cellulosic biofuels.  Establishing this requirement to take affect in the near future would obviously not be prudent given that cellulosic ethanol is not yet market ready, but a standard for cellulosic fuel production and use that took affect by 2015 would be another way to promote cellulosic ethanol.

Conclusion:  Biofuels must play a role in efforts to combat air pollution and global warming pollution from our transportation sector, and we applaud Gov. Rendell and state legislators for working to promote a policy in Pennsylvania which will boost the production and use of biofuels in the Commonwealth.  PennEnvironment is however very concerned with the aspects of the legislation highlighted above, and their potential negative impacts on Pennsylvania’s environment.  We look forward to working with legislators and the Rendell administration to resolve these issues and move forward with the promotion of biofuels in Pennsylvania.  Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.     

---