Panel considers future of Ore. clean fuels program

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Executives from clean-energy companies asked Oregon lawmakers Monday to continue the state's clean fuels program beyond its expiration in 2015, saying they need the Legislature's blessing to help their budding industry take root.
They faced off with oil companies and large-volume fuel users who implored lawmakers to hold off, saying the state is moving too fast and risks raising fuel costs significantly with an unworkable policy.
Oregon was one of the first states to require fuel producers to reduce the amount of carbon emissions associated with their fuels. But state officials say lawmakers must remove the program's 2015 expiration, or sunset, date before the program can be fully implemented.
Supporters dangled the prospect of new green-energy jobs in a hearing before the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which heard testimony but took no action.
"We would love to expand our operations, we'd love to build more stations in Oregon, but we can't make further investments until the sunset date is lifted," said Spencer Richley, policy and clean energy associate at Clean Energy Fuels, a Seal Beach, Calif.-based company that has two natural gas fueling stations in Oregon.
Opponents said the legislation is unneeded, in part because the federal government has increased incentives for clean fuels and required substantial improvements in fuel economy for cars and trucks.
"We have a program that is infeasible, costly, and is duplicative of the federal government," said Brian Doherty, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association, a coalition of oil companies.
A similar law is on hold in California amid a legal challenge. A federal judge ruled last year that it illegally discriminates against out-of-state fuel producers, and the case is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Critics want Oregon to wait until the courts sort out California's program, but supporters say Oregon's law is different. They insist the California version probably could survive with changes, even if the appellate judges uphold the lower court's ruling.
Oregon's program is being implemented in two phases. The Environmental Quality Commission in December voted to force fuel importers to report a carbon-intensity score. The metric aims to quantify the pollution associated with a particular fuel over its entire life cycle, including the electricity used to produce it and the fuel used to transport it to Oregon.
State officials say they'll begin requiring fuel providers to reduce the carbon content of fuels only if the Legislature decides to continue the program. Producers would have to reduce the carbon content of their fuel by 10 percent from 2010 levels.
Fuel companies could comply by blending in more renewable fuels or by substituting alternative fuels with lower carbon intensity. Companies producing low-carbon fuels would be able to sell pollution credits to higher-polluting fuel producers.
Proponents hope the requirements will spur new clean-fuel innovations and speed the adoption of alternative-fuel technologies.
"We're making additional investments to make even lower-carbon fuels in California. We're putting money and jobs in California. We're like to do that here," said Tom Koehler of Pacific Ethanol, which has an ethanol plant in Boardman.
Critics say it would be impossible to meet the 10 percent reduction targets based on the fuels and technologies currently available. Under Oregon law, 10 percent of retail gasoline already must be ethanol, and 5 percent of diesel must be biodiesel, and the pollution-reductions associated with that requirement won't count toward the clean-fuels standards.
"We will sell whatever it takes to move vehicles up and down the road or in and out of fields," said Ralph Poole, who runs a fuel-distribution company based in Ontario. "We do not need the Legislature to tell the manufacturers of fuel, the manufacturers of vehicles how that needs to happen."
___
The bill to repeal the sunset on provisions related to the clean fuels program is SB 488.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
"""""""Supporters dangled the prospect of new green-energy jobs in a hearing before the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which heard testimony but took no action."""""
I'm sure it wasn't the study done is Spain that noted for every green job created there were 2.2 jobs lost in conventional energy.Â
"""""""A similar law is on hold in California amid a legal challenge""""""
Oregon liberals  copying the loons in CA.... no kidding
""""""We're making additional investments to make even lower-carbon fuels in California. We're putting money and jobs in California. We're like to do that here," said Tom Koehler of Pacific Ethanol, which has an ethanol plant in Boardman.""""""
Between Ethanol requiring massive govt subsides to remain viable and the fact that  MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF A GALLON OF FOSIL FUELS  ARE USED IN THE PRODUCTION of EACH GALLON OF ETHANOL  proves what a tremendous joke of a fuel it really is.Â
Ethanol is the perfect example of  how powerful lobbyist keep the federal green flowing  even though it is a complete joke of an alternative fuel.Â
"""""""Fuel companies could comply by blending in more renewable fuels or by substituting alternative fuels with lower carbon intensity. Companies producing low-carbon fuels would be able to sell pollution credits to higher-polluting fuel producers""""""""
So this new legislation is a back door process to the cap and trade tax?
Technology is available right now for clean,no emissions,vehicles..
It will never make it here due to greed and corruption in our country.
Everything that goes on concerning fuel driven motors is all about the MONEY..
http://www.dvice.com/2013-1-24/prototype-hybrid-cars-running-compressed-air-expected-2016
@Whitehawk Yes, it is all about the money.  I, for one, see no reason we should be required to spend 8-10x for the  chance of 50% fuel efficiency increase.  Not to mention the tax burden associated with subsidies to the entire green industry.  If auto makers can devise a vehicle that gets the job done and operates for the same cost over it's life span, then we consumers would / will jump at the chance.  Until that vehicle is in production, we're throwing money in a hole that has nothing more than the potential to pay back sometime in the future.Â
@Umhal@Whitehawk
It is not just the companies that are greedy! Our government is just as greedy! With both companies and government dinging us for more money it is a loosing proposition.
Our government is also after us for more control of our mobility.
Unadulterated gasoline is the most efficient fuel at this present time, without ethanol added. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, which would not stand on it's own merits without government support, force us to use molested fuels that are less efficient and more expensive just to boost the ethanol industry.
The auto industry in Europe uses fuel delivery systems on automobiles that are much more efficient but that are outlawed in the United States by government controls.
Until we can get our government back from the big business lobbyist, and special interest groups and get them working for the people again, I'm afraid that it is a lost cause.
Big business has to much money to influence our corrupt politicians. It seems that Americans are just to lazy or distracted to do anything about it!
This system is a joke. Ethanol fuel is a waste of consumers money and the real goal here is to get 15% into your tank and waste your dollars in lost milage. 10% fuel is already hard on other motors such as mowers, outboards, and has caused airplane engine failure, Just go ask any marine mechanic. It destroys older style fuel lines and absorbs water. Yet non-ethanol fuel is hard to find. One dealer in western Washington County is selling it for $49 for a 5 gallon can. That is a rip-off. If you want it, you need a 30-50 gallon container which becomes a safety hazard to store. This stuff will impact the struggling lower income folks, as the older cars, the only ones they can afford, will be first to fail.
And the other unintended consequences, due to overproduction of corn there is a decrease of wildlife habitat. Land that provided protection is now tilled up and produces corn, which is hard on the soil. More fertilizer, another polutant is added to maintain production. The midwest is now focused on fuel production, not food production and our grains will drop in availability and increase in price.  Nobody is looking very far forward when they implement changes. The fix ends up being just as harmful.Â
AAHHHÂ YESSS, but somebody is make money off of it.
Natural Gas........abundant, inexpensive, cleaner burning, less corrosive
Energy independence !!!
@Rob C 503Â and NG doesn't have the energy standard fuels do, so to get the same work done one must consume much much more of it.
Like it or not, our society is predicated on gasoline. Â anything we do to shift away from reliance on gasoline will come with a hefty price tag and be inordinately painful to implement. Â Not impossible, not unwarranted, just very painful and costly.
@Umhal @Rob C 503 while you are correct that NG  doesn't have the energy gasoline does....... it does have something gasoline doesn't, higher octane.  so engines designed to run on only CNG  will have an output that is closer to a gas car.  Meaning  most  gasoline  engines have a compression ratio of 9:1 to around 11:1  where as a an engine optimized for CNG could easily run a compression ratio approaching 13:1  or run much higher boost levels  with a turbo'd or supercharged  engine.Â
converting to CNG  would be alot easier than  gearing up for electric cars.Â
CNG engines would also save a lot of oil as it is so clean burning, Â oil changes could be greatly extended.Â
@kramr Quite true - a whole lot easier than gearing up for electric cars! Â
Not to mention the hugely intricate  processing and delivery added to the "carbon footprint" (i hate that term!) costs.  in the end, each energy conversion looses efficiency so the fewer conversions we perform, the better the world is for it.  (convert coal / nuclear / hydro / whatever to electricity, electricity to chemical storage - battery - then reconvert the chemical energy to electricity, then convert that electricity once more into a motive-force applied to the wheels.  In that overly simple example we have 4 conversions that each waste a huge amount of energy, and the car only just started moving. Â
Gasoline currently offers the simplest processing, distribution and work-per-unit figures of any other fuel by a huge margin.
Until we can get our electric grid built up to handle 10x what it does today, AND we can get the cost of electricity down to something like .1 cent per kilowatt-hour, gasoline will continue to be the better choice both economically and pragmatically speaking.
@Umhal @Rob C 503
I think you are referring to energy density. Nothing currently can beat gasoline on that. Diesel can compete because of engine efficiency. Gaseous fuels cannot.Another industry that can't pay it's own way? Can we afford it?
So very true. At best you get 18-20% of the energy back even with the best fuel cells in the labs. Hydrogen is just an excuse for not doing a better job with existing fuels.
we have the ability to make hydrogen / oxygen based fuels why do we rely on others doing iTunes
 for us?
@lee986321Â Hydrogen fuels aren't an energy source, they are just a method of energy storage, like a battery. It takes a real energy source (fossil, nuclear, solar, etc.) to produce the hydrogen, which can then be used in a fuel cell.Â
@moej @lee986321 More sarcasm? Hydrogen is what fuels the sun. It is the most abundant element in the universe.