BRAWLING FOR BIOFUELS: The Renewable Fuel Standard will get a fresh hearing this morning before the Senate EPW Committee, just as the Biden administration works to finalize its biofuel blending mandates under the program that has long divided the corn and oil industries. Emily Skor, CEO of the biofuels trade group Growth Energy, will tout the environmental advantages from home-grown fuel to lawmakers, and she'll posit that the full potential of the RFS as a climate solution remains untapped. But Taxpayers for Common Sense argued in a letter to the committee that the RFS has failed to achieve its climate goals "and federal bioenergy subsidies have resulted in more harm than good for taxpayers." The hearing lands on the heels of a new report published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences that found that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is likely at least 24 percent higher than gasoline. The biofuels industry has disputed the study, with Geoff Cooper, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, calling it "a completely fictional and erroneous account of the environmental impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard." The committee members could also generate some heat: Ranking member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), for one, has pressed EPA to reconsider its proposed blanket denial of small refinery exemptions, while committee members Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) have introduced legislation, S. 3380 , to prohibit EPA from retroactively reducing any blending requirements under the program. Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.) represents a refining industry in his state that has previously called for relief under the program. Also on tap: The committee will consider the nominations of David Uhlmann for assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance at EPA and Carlton Waterhouse for assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste. GAS TAX HOLIDAY: Senate Democrats have been batting around suspending the federal gasoline tax to lower prices, and the idea came up at their weekly lunch on Tuesday. But it's not clear the entire caucus is on board, and the White House isn't diving in directly, only stating that "all options remain on the table." Republicans, meanwhile, aren't eager to help Democrats address what they view as a partially self-inflicted wound from high energy prices. "This administration has made it more expensive to produce American energy. Now they want to get rid of the gas tax," Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the top Republican of the Energy Committee, told Pro's Josh Siegel. "This flies in the face of this administration's policies." Barrasso also noted that a quartet of Democrats up for election in 2022 are among those proposing a suspension of the 18-cents-per-gallon gas tax through the end of the year. Meanwhile, Joe Manchin, the centrist Energy Committee chairman, agrees with Republicans opposing a federal gas tax holiday, telling Punchbowl News, "it doesn't make any more sense than taking oil out of the strategic oil reserves." The federal gas tax was last raised in 1993, and its actual cost has been cut in half by inflation since then. Democrats are also dismissing criticism that pausing the tax as a deflationary mechanism would conflict with their decarbonization agenda by fueling demand for gasoline. "I don't think it makes sense to tie short-term responses to inflation and short-term economic issues to long-term climate issues," Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) told Josh. "To the extent we can find policies that really shield people from some of the current impacts of inflation while all of the supply chain efficiencies catch up, it's worth entertaining." EJ HEARING GETS TESTY: A House Natural Resources hearing on Democrats' flagship environmental justice bill descended into a partisan mud fight on the nature of racism. The Environmental Justice for All Act, H.R. 2021 (117), would open legal avenues for communities to sue over environmental discrimination and add programs and regulations to ensure marginalized communities don't suffer from disproportionate environmental harm. Those are measures Democrats say are vital to protect vulnerable communities from unscrupulous industrial interests and to account for cumulative pollution impacts not addressed under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Republicans meanwhile contend the measure would kneecap economic activity in low-income areas — prompting Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to later retort "Do jobs fix cancer?" Republicans also disputed that environmental inequality is a racial issue. Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said intentional environmental discrimination was a "conspiracy of racism," and he argued his district, whose population is over a quarter Black, has a heavy industrial presence because of its location on the Mississippi River. "I've got more chemical and oil and gas plants within a few miles of my house than any of you and I'm not out here yelling about discrimination," he said. "There's a fit there. I chose to live here." Rep. Don McEachin (D-Va.) replied that Graves has the resources to relocate if he wanted to, while many residents of vulnerable communities do not. Related: " White House Takes Aim at Environmental Racism, but Won't Mention Race," via NYT's Lisa Friedman.
|
Comments
Post a Comment