Recent evolution of U.S.

emissions policy

SUBMITTED TO:
Ed Ray
Sustainable Energy Initiative President

SUBMITTED BY:
Jack Baker
Pre-Environmental Engineer Major
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
June 2012

Figure 0. Fuel nozzle

Baker 1

Table of contents:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................3
Scope.................................................................................................................3
Methodology.......................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................4
Scope.................................................................................................................4
Methodology.......................................................................................................5

FINDINGS..........................................................................................................5-13
Recent research in biofuels................................................................................5-6
Transportation emission reduction programs and legislature..................................7-9
Evolution of policy concerning greenhouse gas emissions...................................10-13

CONCLUSION................................................................................................13-14
Recommendations..........................................................................................................14

REFERENCES.................................................................................................15-16
List of figures cited...........................................................................................................17

Baker 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report provides a look at the evolving role of federal agencies in regulating the
nation's transportation fuel supply by summarizing and organizing a combination of pamphlets,
bills, scientific studies, court cases, and announcements into three categories. The first category
provides a look at recent research in biofuel efficiency, the second category looks at bills and
acts related to transportation efficiency, and the third category looks at some significant political
decisions and cases which are changing policy and legislature concerning greenhouse gas
emissions.
Biofuels have been coming under closer examination as the industrialization of foreign countries
and exponential growth in the human population increases the demand for petroleum energy. The
U.S. has been heavily subsidizing corn-derived ethanol in an effort to increase domestic energy
production, but many indirect issues involving monocultures of food used as fuel have begun to
emerge as a result. Biofuels using materials such as rapeseed, soybean, palm, sunflower, wheat,
maize, sugar beet, and potatoes are being explored, along with biohydrogen, biogas, and natural
gas in order to lessen the demand on foods as fuel, and to pinpoint more efficient conversions of
biomass into liquid fuel.
Similarly, the forces that spur research in biofuel development also put additional responsibilities
of energy diversification into the hands federal government agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation. Goals that these
agencies push for include increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, reducing vehicle fuel emissions, and
diversifying fuel sources in order to increase energy independence.
There is also an emerging call for increasing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in order to
slow the rate of global climate change. Before recent supreme court cases and presidential calls
for action and policy, much of the country and federal agencies weren't equipped or ready to deal
with the profound impact from greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. As these consequences
are becoming increasingly proved and accepted, new policies, programs, and collaborations
between federal agencies are being implemented with previous legislative frameworks to address
the multifaceted problem of energy use and it's consequences.

SCOPE
This report looks at effects from the increasing global demand for petroleum energy, which has
recently spurred research in biofuels, changes in US federal policies regarding energy efficiency,
and most recently collaboration between separate and independent federal agencies in an effort
to address global climate change.

METHODOLOGY
The sources secured for this paper were primarily found on government agency websites which
provide the public with copies of federal mandates, statutes, and pamphlets. The OSU online
database was also used to find articles discussing the emergence of new biofuel production
techniques and their efficiencies.
Baker 3

INTRODUCTION
The following report examines the evolving role of government agencies in regulating the
nation's transportation fuel supply by summarizing and organizing a combination of federal
pamphlets, bills, scientific studies, court cases, and announcements into three categories. The
first category provides a look at recent research in biofuel efficiency, the second category looks
at transportation emission programs and legislature designed to increase transportation energy
efficiency, and the third category looks at some recent federal decisions and cases which are
changing policy and legislature concerning greenhouse gas emissions.
The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA), 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPAct), 2007 Energy Independence
and Security Act (EISA), and programs such as the reformulated gasoline program and clean
cities program have been making contributions in securing energy independence, reducing
emissions of toxic air-borne pollutants, and making petroleum energy more efficient and
affordable in the US. To meet these goals, federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy have drafted various bills and
programs which require increases in fuel efficiency, reductions in toxic emissions, and increases
in alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. A heavily used strategy of the federal
government involves lowering the price of corn through subsidizations so farmers have
incentives to plant massive monocultures for ethanol blenders. This ethanol is most often mixed
in a 10:1 ratio with petroleum gasoline to make what's called an E10 fuel mixture. E10 fuel
mixture gasoline is often the only kind of gasoline available at commercial gas stations in the
United States. This means that ethanol blenders, farmers, and states with fertile agricultural land
are nearly always voting for further ethanol subsidizations and less regulation of dangerous but
effective nitrogen fertilizers.
In the past twenty or so years however, there has been an increasingly urgent call for the federal
government to create and enforce mandatory standards for petroleum greenhouse gas emissions
as the impact on the climate is becoming more dramatic. Because actions to address these
problems are often multi-faceted, controversial, and costly, there has been a slow political
response to the scientifically grounded urgency of atmosphere-insulating emissions. It is widely
recognized that it is not healthy for Earth's climate to accumulate excess amounts of insulating
chemicals. As sunlight enters the atmosphere these emissions act as insulators slowing the rate at
which incoming heat reflects from the Earth's surface back into space, which slowly raises the
overall temperature of the climate. This phenomena has become known as the 'greenhouse
effect', because the trapping of heat in a greenhouse is a similar and easily understood
comparison. This is also why gaseous insulating compounds are call 'greenhouse gases' (GHG).
SCOPE
This report looks at effects from the increasing rate of energy consumption, which has recently
spurred research in biofuels, changes in federal policies regarding transportation efficiency, and
collaboration between federal agencies to address global climate change.
Baker 4

METHODOLOGY
The sources secured for this paper were primarily found on government agency websites which
provide the public with copies of federal mandates and statutes, and their pamphlets. The OSU
online database was also used to find articles discussing the emergence of new biofuel
production techniques and their efficiencies.

FINDINGS
Recent research in biofuels
Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean
and Sunflower:
The following statement can be used to sum up Pimentel's and Patzek's report regarding ethanol
and biodiesel efficiency; "In contrast to the USDA, numerous scientific studies have concluded
that ethanol production does not provide a net energy balance, that ethanol is not a renewable
energy source, is not an economical fuel, and its production and use contribute to air, water, and
soil pollution and global warming" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 66). The authors support these
claims by citing both their own and others scientific findings. The report looks at ethanol derived
from corn, switchgrass, and wood, and biodiesel from soybean and sunflowers. There are
significant problems with corn derived ethanol, particularly issues resulting from using corn as a
fuel rather than food. "An average U.S. automobile travels about 20,000 miles/yr and uses about
1,000 gallons of gasoline per yr (USBC, 2003). To replace only a third of this gasoline with
ethanol, 0.6 ha [1.48 acres] of corn must be grown. Currently, 0.5 ha [1.24 acres] of cropland is
required to feed each American. Therefore...to feed one automobile with ethanol, substituting
only one third of the gasoline used per year, Americans would require more cropland than they
need to feed themselves" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 67). This means that further ethanol
subsidization "can be expected to increase corn prices further for beef production and ultimately
increase costs to the consumer. Therefore, in addition to paying the $8.4 billion in taxes for
ethanol and corn subsidies, consumers are expected to pay significantly higher meat, milk, and
egg prices in the market place" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 68). Switch grass derived ethanol,
similar to corn, "results in a negative energy return...[of] 50%,...slightly higher than the negative
energy return for corn ethanol production" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 70). Pimentel and
Patzek also find that "about 57% more energy is required to produce a liter of ethanol using
wood than the energy harvested as ethanol" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 71). For biodiesel, oil
derived from soybeans and sunflowers is primarily used. For soybeans, after factoring in the
usable byproducts of production, " the net loss in terms of energy is 8%" (Patzek & Pimentel,
2005, p. 72). To produce sunflower-derived biodiesel, "the fossil energy input is 118% higher
than the energy content of the sunflower biodiesel" (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 73). In their
conclusion, the authors recommend the use of photo-voltaics for energy, which can capture about
10% of the sunlight they are exposed to. In contrast, plants, which gain their biomass through the
same process, capture and convert on average only 0.1% of the energy they are exposed to by
the sun (Patzek & Pimentel, 2005, p. 73).

Baker 5

Progress and Recent trends in Biofuels

This is a very extensive article from Ayhan Demirbas that uses over 127 sources in 18 pages to
define the variety of biofuels in use today and those that will be in use in the future, the chemical
processes and energy inputs involved in producing these, the benefits and ease of societal
integration of each type of fuel, and the advantages for adopting them in the future. The paper
gives global biofuels scenarios based on today's political climate and future prices of petroleum
fossil fuels. The paper takes a look at current production technologies and economic advantages
of biohydrogen, bioethanol, biodiesel, biomethanol, and bio-oil, all derived from modern
biomass. In the abstract Demirbas states that these modern biofuels can be used for "efficient and
clean combustion technologies and sustained supply of biomass resources, environmentally
sound and competitive fuels, heat, and electricity [if] using modern conversion technologies"
(Demirbas, 2006, p. 1). Figure 1 provides projections of the percentage and type of alternative
fuels that will be phased into the global petroleum fuel supply. Figure 2 illustrates the "resources
of main liquid biofuels for automotives" (Demirbas, 2006, 4).

Figure 1

Figure 2

The study looks at petroleum displacement scenarios using biofuels and the resulting cropland
normally used to grow food that would be sacrificed growing resources used to manufacture
these biofuels. "According to International Energy Agency (IEA), scenarios developed for the
USA and the EU indicate that near-term targets of up to 6% displacement of petroleum fuels
with biofuels appear feasible using conventional biofuels, given available cropland. A 5%
displacement of gasoline in the EU requires about 5% of available cropland to produce ethanol
while in the USA 8% is required. A 5% displacement of diesel requires 13% of USA cropland,
15% in the EU [32]" (Demirbas, 2006, 3).

Baker 6

Transportation emission reduction programs and legislature

EPA reformulated gasoline phase II
This is a well designed pamphlet made by the
EPA to easily communicate the purpose, costs,
and benefits of phase I (1995-1999), and phase
II (2000-present) of the reformulated gasoline
program. The switch to reformulated gasoline
(RFG) was a strategy outlined in the Clean Air
Act. The program's first phase "cut smogforming pollutant levels by about 17 percent
Figure 3
compared to conventional gasoline in
communities where 75 million people live and
work" (EPA, 1999). The pamphlet gives concise
figures for comparisons; "The combined impact
of Phase I and Phase II of the reformulated gasoline program will be substantial. Reducing
emissions of smog-forming chemicals by 105,000 tons is the equivalent of taking about 16
million vehicles that burn conventional gasoline off the road" (EPA 1999). Figure 3 shows the
reduction in smog-forming pollutants VOCs (volatile organic compounds), NOx (Nitrogen
oxides), along with gaseous toxic pollutants.
Clean Cities Fact Sheet: Low-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends
This is a two page fact sheet authored by Clean Cities, a voluntary initiative born from the U.S.
Department of Energy. The Clean Cities act was formed to provide information on how to
comply with U.S. Energy Policy Act (EPACT) statutes and regulations of 1992, particularly with
implementation of alternative fuel vehicles in government fleets. The two page fact sheet gives a
brief background on the initiative and is focused on the GHG emissions from fossil fuels as a
reason to blend with ethanol. According to the article, ethanol fuel blends' "reduction of CO can
be significant (20% to 30%)" (DOE, 2005). The pamphlet also brings up how "Production costs
for ethanol, currently more expensive than for gasoline, are subsidized by about $0.50 per gallon
of ethanol, taken as a tax credit by blenders" (DOE, 2005). The controversy of ethanol fuel
efficiency and subsidization are outlined in the summary of David Pimentel's and Tad W.
Patzek's report regarding ethanol and biodiesel energy returns.
Review of Energy Policy act of 1992 (EPACT)
1992, Congress passed the first Energy Policy Act (EPACT) in order to " to facilitate the
introduction of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) and replacement fuels into the U.S.
transportation sector and to improve air quality" (Report to Congress, 2008, p. 4). One of the
most significant components of this bill are Titles III, IV, and V, which outline "mandatory and
voluntary measures to promote replacement fuels to the maximum extent practicable and to
Baker 7

reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil" (Report to Congress, 2008, p. 4). Under title III of
EPACT 1992, 75% of light-duty vehicles
acquired by federal fleets for use "in U.S. metropolitan areas must be alternative fuel vehicles
(AFVs)" (DOE, 2007, p. 1). The second component of title III provides agencies with credits for
"each light-, medium-, or heavyduty AFV they acquire each year
Figure 4
and for biodiesel (typically used
in B20, a blend of 20% biodiesel,
80% petroleum diesel) used in
fleet vehicles" (DOE, 2007, p. 1).
Title IV of EPACT 1992
"includes programs focused on
alternative fuel trucks and buses,
public information, state and local incentives, and technician training" (Report to Congress,
2008, p. 7). Title V outlines AFV acquisition requirements for "AFPs [Alternative Fuel
Providers], state governments, private companies, and local governments" (Report to Congress,
2008, p. 8). Title V primarily sets and defines replacement fuel production goals for the motor
fuels sector with a goals to be met by 2010. This 1992 act aimed to replace 10% of the nation's
transportation fuel with a biofuel by 2000, and 30% of U.S. fuel by 2010. However, after the
2005 Clean Energy Act amendment enacted by George W. Bush through executive order, the
DOE now has the ability to modify the goal's replacement percentage and timeframe. Although
10% replacement goal has been met by the original timeframe, on March 6, 2007 the "DOE
determined through its analysis that the 30 percent Replacement Fuel Goal cannot be met by
2010" (Report to Congress, 2008, p. 9). After completing the analysis the "DOE determined that
the 30 percent goal can be achieved by 2030, and revised the replacement fuel goal accordingly"
(Report to Congress, 2008, p. 9). Together, title IV and V of this act form the basis for the Clean
Cities program activities which provides information for the public regarding AFV's and
alternative fuels. A goal of the Clean Cities program to increase ethanol fuel blends was
examined in the previous summary.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
The purpose of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) is "To move the United
States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean
renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and
vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to
improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes" (110th
Congress, 2007, p. 1492). One of the most significant elements of this bill is "TITLE II
ENERGY SECURITY THROUGH INCREASED PRODUCTION OF BIOFUELS" (110th
Congress, 2007, p. 1492), where congress defined the seven different types of advanced biofuels
that are currently recognized and encouraged for implementation in conjunction with annually
decided replacement fuel goals. The biofuels and their definitions are as follows:
"(I)
(II)

Ethanol derived from cellulose, hemi-cellulose, or lignin.

Ethanol derived from sugar or starch (other than corn starch).
Baker 8

(III)

Ethanol derived from waste material, including crop residue, other vegetative waste
material, animal waste, and food waste and yard waste.
(IV) Biomass-based diesel.
(V)
Biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment gas) produced through the
conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass.
(VI) Butanol or other alcohols produced through the conversion of organic matter from
renewable biomass.
(VII) Other fuel derived from cellulosic biomass" (110th Congress, 2007, p. 1519-1520).
Costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act: 1990-2020
This report provides cost, benefit, and emission scenarios of EPA's 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)
which uses data ranging from 1990 to the data projections for 2020. It then compares these data
sets to projected scenarios also dating from 1990-2020 in which the United States and earth are
living without the Clean Air Act. The report uses figures to communicate the many levels of
economic benefits resulting from the act, compared right next to the cost which are 2000-2020
projections (figures 5 and 6). Comparisons of "key pollutant emissions" can be seen in figure 6.
Figure 5

Figure 6

Baker 9

Evolution of policy and legislature concerning greenhouse gas emissions

Proposal for Updated National Renewable Fuel Standards for 2010 and beyond
On May 9th 2009 the EPA proposed revisions for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program
(RFS1) born from the Massachusetts vs. EPA case and Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. The changes include "new specific volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel each
year" (EPA, 2009, p. 1). The revision of the definition of lifecycle GHG emissions now includes
the "production and transport of the feedstock; land use change; production, distribution, and
blending of the renewable fuel; and end use of the renewable fuel" (EPA, 2009, p. 1). The
lifecycle GHG emissions from these renewable fuels is then compared to the lifecycle GHG
emissions of 2005 petroleum gas and diesel to define GHG displacement thresholds for these
renewable fuels using new specific volume standards. The specific volume standards and GHG
emission displacement thresholds can be
Figure 7
Figure 8

found in figures 7 and 8. These standards

might vary slightly as they are reviewed
by the DOE annually to ensure they can
be carried out based on current economic
conditions and progress in reaching the
goals. This program is now known as the Renewable Fuel Standards 2 (RFS2).
Background for historic Massachusetts vs. EPA case ruling
On October 1999, 19 organizations filed a petition against the EPA for failing to issue emissions
standards for known greenhouse gases (GHG) as required by section 202(a) of the CAA. After
reviewing and considering over 50,000 public comments, on January 23, 2001 the EPA denied
the petition filed on the grounds that "the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue
mandatory regulations to address global climate change, see id., at 5292552929; and (2) that
even if the agency had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be
unwise to do so at this time" (EPA Federal Register, 2009). The EPA claimed that even if the
CAA did authorize the EPA to issue mandatory GHG regulations to address global climate
change, the economic toll would be too great, and that the agency's mandatory regulation's
Baker 10

effectiveness would be minimal, as much of the carbon prevented from being released into
ambient air will be offset by other developing country's GHG emissions. The EPA argued that
this is an issue too broad for a single government agency to deal with, that doing so would
undermine potential presidential negotiations for international GHG emission standards, and that
this issue should be dealt with by congress. In response to the EPA's denial of the petitions,
several cities and 12 states filed a lawsuit in the district of Columbia court of Appeals against the
EPA for their failure to enact GHG regulation standards for vehicle fuel emissions under the
CAA. In 2007 The court of appeals was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. This
means that the case would be handed to the Supreme Court for ruling. However, all the
petitioners were denied eligibility for lawsuit by the court on the grounds that they were not
individually affected by global warming, with the exception of the state of Massachusetts (EPA
petition denial, 2001).
Massachusetts vs. EPA
After the suit filed by Massachusetts was deemed eligible, the state argued that the EPA is failing
to set GHG emission standards which are required in the CAA. This failure regulate GHG
emissions is resulting in rising coastal waters which costs the State millions in relocating
expenditures. After the EPA argued that they did not have the authority to enforce GHG
emission standards for vehicles because that regulation is under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the court
responded, saying that because the DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk
its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the publics health
and welfare, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOTs
mandate to promote energy efficiency (Massachusetts vs. EPA, 2006). In addition to this
definition of responsibility of the EPA, the court's final ruling permanently changed the political
perception of the effects of GHG on global climate change; "The harms associated with climate
change are serious and well recognized. The Governments own objective assessment of the
relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming
threatens, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,
significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and
increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events" (Massachusetts vs. EPA,
2006). Although the final court ruling never required that the EPA make mandatory GHG
emission standards, it did define greenhouse gases as air pollutants for the purposes of the Clean
Air Act (CAA). The court then gave time to the EPA administrator to "determine whether or not
emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain for EPA to make a reasoned decision"(EPA,
NHTSA, 2010, p. 8). After the EPA administrator released a proposal of it's findings for a 60day public comment period during which over 380,000 comments were considered, the
Administrator responded to the Court's remand by issuing two findings under section 202(a) of
the Clean Air Act.

Baker 11

First, "the Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key wellmixed greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) -- in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations" (EPA,
NHTSA, 2010, p. 8).
This is referred to as the 'endangerment finding'
Second, "the Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse
gases from new motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas
pollution which threatens public health and welfare" (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 8).
This is referred to as the 'cause or contribute finding'
After extensive examinations of scientific evidence and reviews of public contributions, the EPA
found that today's "science compellingly supports a positive finding that atmospheric
concentrations of these greenhouse gases result in air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger both public health and welfare" (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 8).
This historic finding defined GHG as being a danger to "both public health and welfare", which
gives both the DOT and EPA the responsibility of mitigating these consequences of
transportation emissions.
President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy
On May 19th, 2009 Obama made history by setting in motion a new national policy aimed at
both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks
sold in the United States. The new standards, covering model years 2012-2016, and ultimately
requiring an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016, are projected to save 1.8
billion barrels of oil over the life of the program with a fuel economy gain averaging more than 5
percent per year and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas
emissions (The White House, 2009). This is the most significant plan of the federal government
to regulate and reduce GHG emissions by improving both the fuel economy of vehicles sold in
the U.S. and the sources of energy for these vehicles through the "collaboration between the
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the worlds
largest auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, leaders in the environmental community,
the State of California, and other state governments" (The White House, 2009). The policy also
simplifies standards for the public and manufacturers by setting the standard under one name
rather than separate standards required by DOT, EPA, and California agencies individually.
EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve
Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks
Detailed in an April 2010 EPA regulatory announcement, in one of the most complex and
cohesive collaborations between separate federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency
Baker 12

(EPA) and Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) made history. For this policy, the EPA finalized "the first-ever national greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions standards under the Clean Air Act" in conjunction with NHTSA's new
"Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act" (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 1). EPA's GHG emission standards are the first of it's kind under
the CAA as a result of the EPA's 'endangerment finding' established after the Massachusetts vs.
EPA supreme court case, which also gave the NHTSA a new responsibility to create vehicle
GHG efficiency standards under the EPA's 'cause or contribute' finding (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p.
1).The explanations of these rulings can be found in this report's previous "Massachusetts vs.
EPA" summary. These final standards and rules were spurred into development " in response to
President Obamas call for a strong and coordinated federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy
program" (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 1). A summary of Obama's request can be found in this report's
previous summary.
In this announcement, the EPA stresses the "Need to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
and Improve Fuel Economy from Passenger Cars and Light Trucks" by explaining how climate
change is and will create "more frequent and intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded
air quality, heavier and more frequent downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea
level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, continued ocean acidification, harm to
agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems" (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 1).

Over 2012-2016 with the joint EPA and NHTSA standards, this national program is expected to
reduce "GHG emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by approximately 21 percent by 2030 over
the level that would occur in the absence of the national program". Figure 9 provides specific
emission compliance levels. When considering all of the GHG emissions in the US, 31% of them
come from mobile sources, and out of these mobile sources light cars and truck "are responsible
for nearly 60 percent" of the GHG emissions (EPA, NHTSA, 2010, p. 2-3). If the policy does
meet its goals, and if the EPA's emissions data is correct, by 2030 the policy would result in a
reduction of 18.6% in total U.S. GHG emissions. The EPA projects that the cost of upgrading the
emission technology of 2012-2016 vehicles as planned in the national program will cost under
$52 billion, while the benefits "are expected to be approximately $240 billion" (EPA, NHTSA,
2010, p. 2-3).

Figure 9

Baker 13

CONCLUSION
Earth's increasing rate of industry and population growth is quickening the rate at which
petroleum fuels are burned around the world. In the past century, the US has been a leader in
energy use policy, creating mandatory regulations to decrease smog emissions, increase the
efficiency of transportation fuel, and increase future vehicle's fuel efficiency in an effort to slow
oil imports, increase national security, and grow domestic industry. Recently, environmental
consequences from such widespread GHG and toxic gas emissions are emerging which threaten
the long term sustainability of such growth. Unfortunately the idea of climate change regulation
isn't popular with those in industry because solutions often involve costly technologies and new
regulations to abide by. Though the price to reduce emissions may be costly initially, this
internalization will end up being less expensive and more effective than scrambling to respond to
rising sea levels, the destruction of wildlife diversity and thus total biomass of the earth, ocean
acidification, increasingly violent weather, and increasing rates of disease.

RECOMENDATION
Another important consideration in enacting GHG and renewable fuel regulations is the reserve
of Earth's petroleum fuels; according to a study done by Shahriar Shafiee and Erkan Topal at the
University of Queensland, at the current rate of energy consumption, "coal reserves are available
up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042" (Shafiee & Topal, 2008). This
means that at the calculated rate of consumption, after 2042, the reserves of both oil and natural
gas will be depleted.
However, recent advances in the political recognition of global climate change, and new U.S.
policies such as the revised renewable fuel standards and historical 'New National Program to
Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks', shows the world a
small step in the right direction.

Baker 14

References
110th Congress, Public Law 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf
Clean Air Act 1990-2020 full report from
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf
Demirbas, Ayhan. (2006). Progress and recent trends in biofuels. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 33 (2007) 118
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128506000256
Energy policy act of 2005, from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf
Historic EPA regulatory announcement, cooperation between EPA and DOT
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f09047a.pdf
Massachusetts v. EPA, (2006), CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MASSACHUSETTS ET AL.v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. Retrieved from
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Patzek & Pimentel (2005). Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower: Natural Resources Research, Vol.
14, No. 1, March 2005
http://www.c4aqe.org/Economics_of_Ethanol/ethanol.2005.pdf
Report to Congress, DOE. (2008). Review of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Programs and the
Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Mandate.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/pdfs/704_report_final.pdf
Shafiee, S., Topal, E. (2008). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? School of
Engineering and CRC Mining, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia Qld.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004126
The White House, Office of the press secretary. (2009, May 19). President Obama Announces
National Fuel Efficiency Policy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/president-obama-announces-national-fuel-efficiency-policy
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Phase II Reformulated Gasoline: The
next step toward cleaner air.[Pamphlet].
http://www.epa.gov/oms/eparfg.pdf
Baker 15

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2007). Federal Fleet Requirements. Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/43500.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2005). Clean Cities: Low-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends
[Fact Sheet]. Office of Weatherization
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37135.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2009) Federal Register, Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act;
Final Rule, http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_RegisterEPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). (2010). EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program
to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks (EPA420-F-10-014). Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, New
Regulation proposal for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and
Beyond. (2009). http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09023.pdf

Baker 16

List of figures cited

Figure 0. Fuel Nozzle Image. Retrieved 5/30/2012
http://www.zombiehunters.org/wiki/images/Fuel_Nozzle.jpg
Figure 1. Alternative fuels phasing projections. Retrieved 5/14/2012
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128506000256
Figure 2. Resources of main liquid biofuels for automotives. Retrieved 5/14/2012
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128506000256
Figure 3. Phase II impact of Reformulated Gasoline Program. Retrieved 5/22/2012
http://www.epa.gov/oms/eparfg.pdf
Figure 4. Federal Energy Management Program fact sheet, retrieved 5/22/2012
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/43500.pdf
Figure 5. Clean Air Act 1990-2020 cost and benefit review, retrieved 5/25/2012
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf
Figure 6. Clean Air Act 1990-2020 cost and benefit review, retrieved 5/25/2012
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf
Figure 7. Proposal for Updated National Renewable Fuel Standards, retrieved 5/26/2012
http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09023.pdf
Figure 8. Proposal for Updated National Renewable Fuel Standards, retrieved 5/26/2012
http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09023.pdf
Figure 9. EPA and NHTSA Reduce GHGs and Improve Fuel Economy, retrieved 5/30/2012
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf

Baker 17