With climate change playing as a divisive partisan issue in the 114th Congress, it does not seem likely that parties would come together on an environmental issue in this day and age (How could we possible agree on science?). What caught my eye in this week’s news cycle was the bipartisan support behind the Renewable Fuel Standards Reform Act. Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Steve Womack (R-Ariz.), and Jim Costa (D-Calif.) reintroduced this bill in a continued effort to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current requirements for corn-based ethanol in the Renewable Fuel Standard. In this blog post I will briefly dive into the reasoning behind the Renewable Fuel Standards put out by the EPA and then examine more heavily the individual motivations for this bipartisan action during a period of immense partisanship as well as the potential actors influencing this debate. The more theoretical examination would be to discuss whether or not investments in renewable energy should be support through government action or private industry action (Gallagher et al. 2012). However, since it is clearly already a mix of both I will emphasis analysis of the process and the actors in this piece.
Some legislators have picked up on these negatives as well as the economic impacts the ethanol industry is having within their states. The objective of the RFS Reform Act is to repeal the corn-based ethanol-blending mandate of 15 percent and reduce the cap on the required levels to realistic production amounts (Read the full bill text here). The proponents of this bill are not the only ones advocating for reform of the RFS program. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published 40 policy alternatives to reform the RFS program rather than repealing the regulations completely. BPC acknowledges the complexity of the biofuels problem and provides a wide array of solutions from regulatory to legislative impacting production, consumption, mandates, implementation, and environment and agriculture. BPC emphasizes how multiple solutions are needed to address the problems left unsolved by the RFS program. Check out this interactive inventory to explore renewable fuel policy options.
Although transportation fuel efficiency through renewable fuels only represents a small portion of the actions to be taken against climate change, it is clearly an intricate issue involving many different actors and interests. The process and actors involved with the RFS Reform Act bring light to the economic burdens of environmental policy but also force us to think critically about policies we may have automatically assigned to be, “environmentally friendly.” In this instance economic and industry interests represented common ground for Republican and Democratic Congressmen and potentially opens the door for more innovative responses to renewable energy such as the one’s put forth by BPC.
Gallagher, Kelly Sims, Arnulf Grübler, Laura Kuhl, Gregory Nemet, and Charlie Wilson. "The energy technology innovation system." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (2012): 137-162.
Huang, Haixiao, Madhu Khanna, Hayri Önal, and Xiaoguang Chen. "Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications." Energy Policy 56 (2013): 5-15.
Powers, Melissa. “King Corn: Will the Renewable Fuel Standard Eventually End Corn Ethanol's Reign?” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law (2010): 11-667.