In a May 15 letter to Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and
Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.), the members noted that the U.S.
“sends over $1 billion per day overseas for oil. Our voracious demand for
this single source of fuel ensures high oil prices in a global market,
draining our economy and enabling our enemies. … We cannot drill our way
out of the problem of energy security. Even if we flood the market with
every drop of oil in both our proven and strategic reserves, it will not
be enough to offset rising global demand,”
the letter explained.

“We have to find new sources of fuel,” the letter continued. “As long
as the United States is beholden to global energy prices, our country is
vulnerable.

The Air Force and Army are increasing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles
we use to fight, transport troops and provide support. The Navy is
investing in advanced biofuels programs that will enhance its
power-projection capability.

The Marines are operationalizing common assets like wind and solar power
to decrease energy vulnerability,” the letter noted.
“Some members of Congress, however, oppose these critical programs,”
the letter continued. “They choose to waste time by advocating policies
that have already proven to be failures and attack the military for
investing in prudent measures that will save lives. Taking control of our
energy future would mean preventing future conflicts around the world and
protecting Americans here at home. It is time to secure America with clean
energy. All of our civilian leaders must match the military’s commitment
and stop putting partisan politics ahead of good policy. We call on
Congress to support the Department of Defense as it invests in clean,
domestic, alternative sources of energy for the sake of the security of
the United States of America,” the letter concluded.

The letter was signed by nine retired military leaders.

As OPIS reported last week, the House Armed Services Committee approved
an amendment on May 9 by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) to the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 (H.R. 4310) that would prevent the
Department of Defense from using funds available during FY2013 from
producing or procuring any alternative fuel if the cost of producing or
procuring the fuel exceeds the cost of using traditional fossil fuels used
for the same purpose. However, the amendment would exempt the limited
quantities of alternative fuel used to complete fleet certification for
50/50 blends.

In March 2011, the president directed the secretaries of Agriculture,
Energy and the Navy to work with industry to advance a “drop in” biofuel
substitute for diesel and jet fuel. In August 2011, the agencies announced
plans to invest up to $510 million during the next three years to produce
drop-in aviation and marine biofuels, and in December, the Navy announced
“the single largest purchase of advanced drop-in biofuel in government
history by the Defense Logistics Agency,” for 450,000 gal of fuel by
Dynamic Fuels.

Recently, some lawmakers have questioned the Navy’s December 2011
purchase of advanced drop-in fuel, with previous estimates around $26/gal.
Additionally, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) introduced an amendment, also
on May 9, to the FY2013 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriation bill
that would prohibit funds from the bill to be used to enforce section 526
of the Energy Independence Security Act, which calls for the federal
government not to purchase synthetic or alternative fuels that have higher
lifecycle emissions than the equivalent petroleum fuel. His amendment
passed 250-173.

Meanwhile, Operation Free, a campaign of the Truman National Security
Project, has joined an effort launched by the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, the Advanced BioFuels Association, the Algal Biomass
Organization, Airlines for America and several other groups to fight those
two amendments, Truman National Security Project spokeswoman Stephanie
Dreyer explained to OPIS. “Over the next week, we will be meeting with as
many members of SASC [the Senate Armed Services Committee] as possible to
make sure that each senator understands the impact that these amendments
would have on the Department of Defense’s efforts to reduce our dependence
on oil through the use of clean, alternative fuels,” she explained.
“Investments in clean energy, including biofuels, make America more secure
by strengthening our military readiness and protecting us from
unpredictable oil shocks. Meanwhile, the only thing these anti-innovation
amendments protect is oil company profits,” she added.

Published: Thursday, April 26, 2012

With a key House committee set to begin today considering whether to extend a key wind energy tax break that expires at the end of the year, a veterans group is pointing to the role renewable energy plays keeping the lights on at remote bases in war zones and providing jobs to veterans when they return home.

A Ways and Means subcommittee meets this morning to consider proposed legislation that would extend a variety of temporary tax provisions scheduled to expire at the end of this year, including the production tax credit (PTC) for wind, which has been a key focus for renewable energy backers on and off Capitol Hill.

Veterans organized by the group Operation Free, which promotes clean energy development, shared stories of protecting fuel convoys shipping diesel to forward operating bases for power generators. Such operations are a dangerous requirement of operating in a war zone and can be minimized with increased military use of micro wind turbines and solar panels, and advances in such technologies are dependent on continued federal support for renewable energy in the United States, the advocates argued.

“It’s not about saving the polar bears; it’s not about being green. What it’s about is making sure that this great nation of ours has the capability to defend itself and that we ensure that those people that we ask to go out and put their lives on the line have everything they need to be successful,” said John Castellaw, a retired Marine lieutenant general, during a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday.

“So it is … a necessity that we come here today to press the legislature to extend this credit for wind power and that we move on to make sure that as a nation we maintain the need in alternative energy and renewable energy,” Castellaw added.

Jeff Duff, president of Airstreams Renewables, said his company has trained about 180 veterans in the last few years and placed about 85 percent of its program graduates into jobs within the wind industry. He said companies that hire his program’s graduates plan to cut their hiring demand by as much as 90 percent next year if the wind PTC is not extended.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and an Army veteran, also appeared at yesterday’s event urging the need for a PTC extension as a critical component of broader energy policy changes that are needed to expand renewable energy.

“Already, folks are laying people off, and we can’t have that in the economic environment we’re in,” he said.

The American Wind Energy Association commissioned a study last year that found an expiration of the PTC would cause 37,000 jobs in the industry to be lost next year.

Thompson is one of 93 co-sponsors of a bipartisan bill from Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) and Earl Blumenthal (D-Ore.) that would extend the PTC for wind and other renewable sources through 2016. He said he would speak in favor of the bill during today’s hearing but doubted that a tax extenders bill would be enacted before the lame-duck session after Election Day.

Another of the bill’s Republican supporters, Iowa Rep. Steve King, said he would speak on its behalf today. Speaking to reporters off the House floor yesterday evening, he said he would promote the national security benefits of renewable energy as a reason to extend the tax credit.

“When people say it’s subsidizing wind, I say then you have to charge … the carrier, the battle group, the bullet-proof vest, the M4s, all of that military that goes over to the Middle East to protect our interests — that’s also a cost of keeping energy in the United States,” King said. “So if you want to measure against wind or some of the other renewable energies that you have, you also have to measure the foreign power projection necessary to replace it.”

Today’s hearing will also feature opponents of tax credit extensions, such as Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), who has sponsored a bill that would eliminate the PTC and a bevy of other energy tax breaks, including some that apply to fossil fuels.

Read more: http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2012/04/26/archive/8?terms=nick+juliano

Operation Free released the following press release after an event in Washington, DC today that featured Congressman Mike Thompson, Airstreams Renewables CEO Jeff Huff, and Lieutenant General John Castellaw (USMC, retired) and other Operation Free veterans.

From left: Congressman Mike Thompson (CA-1), Lieutenant General John Castellaw (USMC-ret.), and Truman Project Vice President Mike Breen at an Operation Free event on Capitol Hill. Click for full-sized image.

WASHINGTON—Today, at a press event, Congressman Mike Thompson joined retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General John Castellaw; Mike Breen, Vice President of the Truman National Security Project; and Jeff Duff, President of veterans clean jobs training company Airstreams Renewables, to talk about how critical renewing the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is to America’s economic and national security. The Wind PTC is an important federal program without which 37,000 jobs and $10-20 billion of domestic investment will be lost next year and thereafter.

Congressman Thompson, a Vietnam Army veteran and member of the House Ways and Means Committee, made clear the urgency of passing an extension to the Wind PTC. “We must do everything we can to encourage the use of clean, renewable, and domestic sources of energy. That is why I have coauthored legislation that would extend the Production Tax Credit,” said Thompson. “Extending these tax incentives will give businesses certainty, help create and save more than 50,000 American jobs in the next four years, and allow us to strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Congress should act now.”

Congressman Thompson speaks at an April 25 Operation Free event. Click for full-sized image.

Wind power is a critical part of America’s energy independence. Wind is the second-fastest growing source of energy in America, producing enough power for ten million American homes. This growth in wind energy is possible because of the Wind PTC, which rewards companies for producing clean wind power. This federal tax incentive program provides 2.2 cents to companies for every kilowatt-hour produced for their first ten years of operation.

“We’re going to need sources of energy we can rely on in the twenty-first century,” said Breen. “Wind energy is already a clean source of power that provides energy for ten million American homes. We should be doing whatever we can to take advantage of this reliable source of domestic power. If Members of Congress take America’s energy security seriously, they will work quickly to renew the Wind Production Tax Credit.”

Operation Free applauds the Obama Administration’s All-of-the-Above Approach to American Energy that will strengthen energy security for America’s troops. The Department of Defense is making one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history by developing three gigawatts of renewable energy –solar, wind, biomass and geothermal – on Army, Navy and Air Force installations by 2025. That’s enough to power 750,000 homes.

The United States sends over $1 billion per day overseas for oil. Our voracious demand for this single source of fuel ensures high oil prices in a global market, draining our economy and enabling our enemies. Every time the price of a barrel of crude goes up five dollars, Iran makes an additional $7.9 annually.

Since the President took office, our reliance on oil from abroad has decreased – a trend that reduces our reliance on oil and makes us less vulnerable to unstable regimes overseas. Oil imports have been falling since 2005 and net imports as a share of total consumption declined from 57 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in 2011.

Operation Free is a nationwide coalition of veterans who believe clean energy is critical to America’s security. Learn more atwww.OperationFree.net. Operation Free is an advocacy campaign of the Truman National Security Project.

###

Check out the letter that the Wheatland County commissioners had published in the Billings Gazette Sunday:

“We, the commissioners of Wheatland County, support the Federal Production Tax Credit The wind farms in our county have created high-quality jobs that brought responsible people to our community. These people participate in the community and bring children to our schools. There were ten permanent jobs created with the potential for more. In addition, property taxes paid from wind farms have improved our county’s financial position, allowing our county to improve our infrastructure.

“With the help of the additional taxes from the Judith Gap Wind Farm, Wheatland County has benefited greatly. We have a new county shop and fire hall, a great tax base as well as a grant program that benefits nonprofit organizations in our county.

“The potential for more wind farms is in jeopardy if the U.S. Congress does not vote to extend federal tax incentives such as the Federal Production Tax Credit Support is needed from Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. John Tester and Rep. Dennis Rehberg as well as the Montana public to ensure progress continues and that Montana meets its full potential.

Tom Bennett, Chairman
David Miller
Richard Moe
Wheatland County Board of Commissioners
Harlowton”

The Wind Production Tax Credit, aside from the great benefits it brings local communities, is a necessary part of our energy security. Under it, the US has greatly expanded the use of wind power and thereby decreased our single source dependence on overseas oil – an oil source that makes America less safe. We stand behind the Wheatland County Commissioners and the Wind Production Tax Credit.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/tax-credit-key-to-wind-development/article_0d3b7663-140c-5cac-ab5a-713bf336b727.html

By a 51-to-47 vote this morning, the Senate defeated a measure that would have eliminated a handful of oil and gas tax incentives and instead extended a slew of clean energy-related tax breaks. The bill needed 60 votes for passage.

The bill was not expected to pass, with partisan bickering over what impact the bill would have on moderating gasoline prices overshadowing its other provisions. Previous efforts to repeal oil and gas incentives have also failed.

No amendments were allowed to the overall bill. Maine’s two Republican senators — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — joined Democrats in voting for the bill, while four Democrats — Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.) — joined Republicans voting against the measure.

S. 2204, sponsored by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), would have repealed tax incentives for BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips and used most of those savings to extend clean energy-related tax incentives.

Specifically, the bill would have extended the 30% investment tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property by one year, through Dec. 31, 2012, the $1.01/gal cellulosic biofuel tax credit through Jan. 1, 2014 (the credit is set to expire at the end of this year), the $1/gal biodiesel and renewable diesel tax incentive through Dec. 31, 2012 (the incentive expired at the end of last year) and would have extended the cellulosic biofuel tax credit to include algae as a feedstock, among other provisions.

According to information from Menendez’s office, the cost of extending the energy tax incentives was estimated at $11.7 billion over 10 years, with estimates of revenue saved from repealing the oil and gas incentives totaling $24 billion over 10 years.

Obama: We Should Be Doubling-Down on Clean Energy Technologies

Ahead of the vote, President Obama held a press conference to reiterate his support for the bill. “Today, Members of Congress have a simple choice to make. They can stand with big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people,” he said in televised remarks in the Rose Garden. “You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?” he asked.

“Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising,” Obama continued. “Investments in wind power, solar power and biofuels; in fuel- efficient cars and trucks and homes and buildings. That’s the future. That’s the only way we’ll break this cycle of high gas prices that happens year after year after year,” he added.

However, speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) explained that this bill wouldn’t address high energy prices. “Gas prices have more than doubled under President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate. This is a problem that affects every American; that drives up the cost of everything from commuting to groceries. And yet the Democrat response is to propose legislation that even they admit doesn’t do a thing to lower the price of gas. … At a time when gas prices are at a national average of nearly $4 a gallon, this is what passes for a response to high gas prices for Washington Democrats — a bill that does nothing about it.”

Reaction: API Opposed Measure, Biofuel Groups Supportive

Earlier today, the American Petroleum Institute reiterated its opposition to the bill. “The proposal — which is expected to fail with bipartisan opposition — is a political distraction from high gasoline prices and our nation’s failed energy policies,” said API Chief Economist John Felmy. “Solving our energy and economic challenges requires a different approach. It requires doing something we know works: producing at home more of the oil and natural gas that our nation will need for decades to come,” he added.

Also ahead of the vote, Growth Energy issued its support for the measure. “We agree it’s time for all energy industries to compete on a level playing field,” said Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis, who was in attendance for Obama’s speech. “And we agree with the president that if taxpayers are going to invest in anything, it should be clean energy, like ethanol,” he added.

Truman Project Fellow and Operation Free Veteran Terron Sims, who was also in attendance for Obama’s remarks this morning, praised the president for “doing what it takes to make sure we have true energy independence by taking steps to reduce our oil use and increase clean, renewable sources of American energy. I hope Congress will work with the president on these goals for the sake of America’s security.”

After the vote, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) said it was disappointed with the outcome, but remained hopeful for passage of similar provisions in the near future. “We’re all painfully aware of what Congress can’t agree on, but we also know there are provisions that have strong bipartisan support, and the biodiesel tax incentive is one of them,” said NBB’s vice president of federal affairs Anne Steckel. “Between two amendments to the transportation bill last week [that also included extension of the biodiesel tax incentive], nearly 90 senators supported our tax incentive, so there is no reason to leave thousands of biodiesel employees caught up in this partisan gridlock. We are urging Congress to get to work on these provisions that lawmakers agree on and that will help create jobs, lower fuel prices and boost domestic energy production,” she added.

The Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) also took issue with the outcome. “Lying behind the politics and the spin that is driving these votes, we have a very real problem,” said AEC Executive Director Brooke Coleman. “If the U.S. tax code continues to provide permanent tax breaks and subsidies to fossil fuels and continues to allow similar incentives for renewables to expire year after year, then the United States will continue to be dependent on the whims of OPEC and continue to lose ground in the global competition to secure the $2.5 trillion opportunity that is clean energy development. We are getting pummeled by OPEC and losing ground to China and Brazil each and every day that we fail to correct the lack of parity in the U.S. tax code,” he added.

Lee Gunn — “Lee” is how he introduces himself, although most people call him Admiral Gunn, in deference to his 35 years as a U.S. Naval officer — does not look like a Prius driver, much less a tree-hugger. Which is why many people do a double take when the Pontiac-born Gunn tells them that global warming is the most serious national security issue confronting the U.S. — or, as he puts it, ” the existential threat to America and its influence in the world” as humanity’s appetite for energy mushrooms.You just don’t expect a self-described ship driver who spent his career on vessels that average “about 12 inches to the gallon” to be obsessed with fuel economy — or U.S. dependency on foreign oil, or public-private initiatives to develop renewable energy.

But the 70-year-old Gunn is deeply concerned about all these things — which is why he is touring the country with another retired admiral from Britain’s Royal Navy, telling governors, state legislators and editorial boards that they’d better get busy about developing new sources of energy or resign themselves to the end of America’s economic and military supremacy. Gunn is the president of the Institute for Public Research at CNA, a 70-year-old Virginia-based research organization that also includes the Center for Naval Analyses. CNA began staking out a prominent role in the renewable energy debate five years ago, when its Military Advisory Board (“mostly retired three- and four-stars or flag officers”) issued a widely circulated report called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.”

The report, which described climate change as a threat multiplier in some of the world’s most politically volatile regions, startled official Washington with its assertion that global warming had important military ramifications as well as environmental ones. Since then, Gunn and his colleagues have published additional research reports asserting that reducing consumption of fossil fuels is critical to U.S. military security, and that the Department of Defense (which accounts for 2% of the nation’s energy consumption) should be a leader in developing a clean-energy economy.

Now they’re telling state policy-makers they cannot wait for the federal government to articulate a national energy policy before launching their own renewable energy initiatives. “There needs to be urgency about finding new ways to satisfy our energy needs,” Gunn said. “If they’re paralyzed in Washington, then states like Michigan and California need to lead the way.” Gunn and his retired naval colleagues have spent much of this week talking to Republicans in the state Legislature and the Snyder administration, whom they describe as genuinely interested in pushing beyond the partisan gridlock between drill-baby-drill Republicans and tree-hugging Democrats.

Many have expressed particular interest in hyper-local initiatives that use anticipated savings to finance capital-intensive conservation projects in municipalities, central business districts, or even a single manufacturing plant. Jeremy Kalin, a “recovering state legislator” from Minnesota who accompanied Gunn on his mission to Lansing, said the pair has eschewed diversionary arguments about the causes of climate change or which energy technologies are the most promising to emphasize that Michigan should be aggressively making use of all energy sources, with an eye to reducing environmental and national security risk and averting “bad consequences” in the future.

When I asked them their posture toward a nascent public initiative to mandate that Michigan derive 25% of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2025, they declined to endorse the initiative but commended its organizers for pushing the energy discussion to the front burner. Above all, Gunn and his fellow retired officers want to convince Americans who have not been energized by environmentalists or rising energy costs that they, too, have an urgent stake in the clean-energy revolution — a revolution they are convinced will either catapult Michigan and other manufacturing states to new economic heights, or trample them underfoot.

Despite a last minute plea by President Obama, the Senate today rejected a plan to end oil company subsidies.

“Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits –- profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station,” said Obama in a Rose Garden speech this morning. “But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year — billions a year in taxpayer subsidies -– a subsidy that they’ve enjoyed year after year for the last century.”

The president stressed the need for increased domestic oil and gas production, but also for alternative energy. “It also means that we’re going to keep developing more advanced homegrown biofuels, the kinds that are already powering truck fleets across America,” he said. “We’re going to keep investing in clean energy like the wind power and solar power that’s already lighting thousands of homes and creating thousands of jobs.”

Truman Project Fellow and Operation Free Veteran Terron Sims was present at the Rose Garden address (top center in photo) and said he was proud to stand with the President and offer support for the administration’s energy initiatives to reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil. “I’m glad that my Commander in Chief is doing what it takes to make sure we have true energy independence by taking steps to reduce our oil use and increase clean, renewable sources of American energy,” Sims said. “I hope Congress will work with the President on these goals for the sake of America’s security.”

Sims is a former US Army Captain and Iraq War veteran. Operation Free, a campaign of the Truman National Security Project, is a national coalition of US military veterans working to send the message that America’s security relies on ending our addiction to oil and establishing clean, renewable sources of energy.

The attempt to curtail oil company tax breaks was defeated in a Senate filibuster this morning to prevent the legislation from advancing. Republicans against the measure were joined in opposition by Democrats from oil-rich states.

For more: http://domesticfuel.com/2012/03/29/senate-rejects-obama-push-to-end-oil-subsidies/

“Clean energy is more than a bright spot in Arizona’s economy; it’s also increasingly central to our national security.

While keeping an eye on the fuel gauge of my jet while flying missions over Iraq, I had plenty of time to think about America’s fuel gauge, too. As the final assignment of my military career, I had the honor of serving as commander of the 12th Air Force at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

Every day, we send $1 billion overseas for oil. Our military and security leaders, myself included, recognize that America’s oil addiction funds terrorists and chains us to nations that do not share our interests. Not only will secure, clean and domestic energy create jobs for Arizonans – including our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan – it will also strengthen America’s security.”

To read more check out: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/military-s-use-of-solar-power-is-one-step-toward/article_17fef823-62be-5bc0-9834-077fe8432e59.html#ixzz1pa60jH2y

The President is announcing a new $1 billion National Community Deployment Challenge to catalyze 10 to 15 model communities to invest in the necessary infrastructure, remove the regulatory barriers, and create the local incentives to support deployment of advanced vehicles at critical mass.

This proposal embraces a strategy similar to that outlined by Senators Merkley and Alexander in their Promoting Electric Vehicles legislation.  This proposal, however, would be ‘fuel neutral’, allowing communities to determine if electrification, natural gas, or other alternative fuels would be the best fit.  Deployment Communities would serve as real-world laboratories, leveraging limited federal resources to develop different models to deploy advanced vehicles at scale.  The program would also support the development of up to 5 regional Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) corridors where alternative fuel trucks can transport goods without using a drop of oil.

Making advanced vehicles more affordable: The President proposes to improve the current tax credit for electric vehicles by

o   Expanding eligibility for the credit to a broader range of advanced vehicle technologies;

o   Increasing the amount from $7,500, making it scalable up to $10,000;

o   Reforming the credit to make it available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes; and

o   Removing the cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer eligible for the credit and, instead, ramping down and eventually eliminating the credit at the end of the decade.

Accelerating deployment of alternative-fuel trucks: The President is proposing a new tax incentive for commercial trucks that provides a credit for 50% of the incremental cost of a dedicated alternative-fuel truck, including trucks powered by natural gas or electricity, for a five-year period.  This incentive – paired with support through programs like the Energy Department’s National Clean Fleets Partnership, which provides technical assistance to large company fleets interested in moving toward vehicles that rely on little or no oil – will not only drive down domestic demand for oil, but also drive up demand for the sorts of vehicles built at Freightliner’s Mt. Holly Plant and, in turn, spur job creation in the American manufacturing sector.

Launching ‘EV Everywhere’, a clean energy grand challenge to make electric-powered vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles for the average American family within a decade:

This national effort is the second in a series of Clean Energy Grand Challenges designed by the Department of Energy to bring together America’s best and brightest scientists, engineers, and businesses to work together to solve the most pressing energy technology challenges of our time.  EV Everywhere will enable companies in the U.S. to produce electric vehicles at lower cost, with an improved vehicle range and an increased fast-charging ability, so average American families will be able to own and drive an electric vehicle as affordable and convenient as today’s gasoline-powered vehicles.  The savings from using lower-cost electricity instead of gasoline, roughly $100 per month for the average driver, combined with the reduction of upfront vehicle cost, will lower energy costs for American consumers and businesses.

The President’s FY13 Budget includes $650 million to advance vehicle and battery technologies at the Energy Department, including investments that support this new grand challenge.  EV Everywhere will invest in breakthrough R&D for advanced batteries, electric drivetrain technologies, lightweight vehicle structures, and fast charging technology.

Including:

“…an increase in funding for tax credits for alternative-fuel vehicles, funding for communities to build alternative-fuel infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations, money for research and development of alternative vehicles, and incentives for natural-gas-powered trucks. Later in the day, he’ll give a speech on the economic impact of clean energy at the Mount Holly truck manufacturing plant in the battleground state of North Carolina.”

America needs more electric and other alternative-fuel cars on its roads because they reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil, a fact that the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the National Intelligence Council have all attested to. Often money we spend to buy oil makes its way through the sluices to terrorists groups and hostile nations like Iran.

Electric and alternate fueled vehicles reduce our dangerous oil dependency and make America safer.

More details can be found here throughout the day.

Yesterday, President Obama delivered a speech at the University of Miami in Florida, addressing concerns about rising oil prices and America’s energy future. The President argued that the “Drill, Baby, Drill!” method of energy policy is less a strategy than a bumper sticker, explaining that the oil we produce in the U.S. minimally impacts global energy prices and will not help America.

President Obama argued that the the U.S. has to become the leader on green energy, the future of both U.S. and world energy needs.  Through green investment, we can create a base of manufacturing jobs in the United States which  have the potential to transform into the next boom-industry, driving our future. All of those solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuel research laboratories need to be built somewhere, and that ought to be right here.

It isn’t a luxury or feel-good idea for us to get behind green energy on a national level, but a necessity. No matter what your politics are, it’s important to recognize that The United States faces a major challenge when it comes to energy policy, one that isn’t solved by recycling the same talking points and ideas of the past several decades. The continuation of poor energy policy will set the United States back for decades to come.

At the end of his speech- President Obama inspired and challenged our youth to be the generation that rises to the occasion and makes the decisions that will keep America strong. The energy problem, he says, won’t be solved a year, a term, or even a decade from now. It is an issue which requires a full scale commitment from all of us, especially the next generation of American leaders. We will not be able to lower oil prices tomorrow. But we will be able to set the stage for another century of American prosperity.

Vets Who Served Overseas Seek Higher Fuel Standards

By Keith Griffin on Thu, 01/19/2012 – 17:05
Auto News
Some of the people who have made the greatest sacrifices for our country are pushing for higher CAFE standards so our fighting forces are no longer compelled to fight for our dependence on fossil fuel.

That’s the message that came out of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) hearings in Philadelphia today and earlier this week in Detroit. An additional hearing is set for next week in San Francisco. Members of Operation Free, a nationwide coalition of veterans, spoke in support of strong fuel economy standards for US cars and trucks.

John Gensler, former Captain, US Army, testified, “My experiences in war have made me understand and care deeply about our national security, as countless friends are still fighting overseas, and not all of them have made it home safely. The longer the U.S. remains dependent on fossil fuel, the more the U.S. will have to engage in tough wars just to protect our energy supplies, putting American lives at risk.”

He added, “This isn’t just an academic or economic threat to veterans like me; it is a deeply and profoundly personal threat. In December of 2007, I helped lay to rest West Point classmate Captain Ben Tiffner, who was killed in Iraq by an advanced roadside bomb. That bomb was designed, built, and financed by the Iranian government propped up by global oil revenues. “Not two months later, nearly four years ago to the day, I was burying another friend and football teammate, Captain Torre Mallard, at West Point. He was killed in a similar incident, by a similar weapon, again funded by black-stained petrodollars. How many more of our bravest young Americans will we lose while we continue to debate and prolong action?”

Gensler served as an officer in the United States Army as a tank and infantry mortar platoon leader, and previously worked for the Dept of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). He now works as a Project Developer for Borrego Solar Systems, helping develop solar energy projects for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Gensler is a graduate of United States Military Academy at West Point, MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and Harvard’s JFK School of Government.

Brendan Flynn, US Coast Guard Academy graduate and Operation Free organizer, testified, “It is very clear to me that America’s oil dependence makes us vulnerable. A number of my good friends from the Coast Guard have served in-theater guarding oil platforms just off the coast of Iraq from waterborne suicide boat attacks. U.S. forces recently turned over oil platform security duties to the Iraqis, but oil infrastructure continues to be a target for attack both overseas and here at home.

“This is why I believe that we must adopt the 54.5 mpg standard. Nearly half of the oil we use goes towards fueling our cars and trucks, meaning building cars that use less gas will help break our addiction to oil. This standard is good for our economy, as it will spur new investments in energy-efficient engines. It is good for our national security – as the less reliant we are on one source of energy, the less vulnerable we are to a major disruption of supply. Frankly, the only people that this standard is bad for are the insurgents and terrorists fighting against our troops and plotting to attack our nation.”

The members of Operation Free are facing strong opposition from organized groups like the National Automobile Dealers Association, which wants nothing to do with the new standards. The NADA’s government relations chairman, Don Chalmers, a New Mexico-based Ford Motor Co. dealer, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, “I want to sell very efficient cars. But if the customer can’t get the financing for that car, than it makes no difference. Finance sources do not look at how much you are going to save in fuel economy.” He added that the NADA plans to release a study next month that will estimate that technology costs would add up to $5,000 to the price of a vehicle.

Luke Tonachel a senior analyst in the Energy and Transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, backed the Operation Free arguments in testimony in Detroit. In his testimony Tonachel portrayed the stakes as being very high. The higher CAFE standards would save the American economy “a half trillion dollars over the next 20 years,” according to an article posted by TorqueNews correspondent David Herron.

To Read More: http://www.torquenews.com/108/vets-who-served-overseas-seek-higher-fuel-standards

First hearing on 54.5 mpg proposal reveals widespread support

They came from as close as the General Motors headquarters across the street and as far away as Santa Fe, New Mexico.

They represented groups as diverse as automakers and the military, steel manufacturers and religious organizations.

And nearly all of the 90 or so people who testified on a proposal to raise the nation’s fuel economy standard to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 offered support for the plan before a joint government panel in downtown Detroit.

Noting that the Obama administration’s proposal had won the diverse support of auto industry insiders, labor unions, consumer watchdogs and environmental groups, Congressman John Dingell said, “this is an event that ranks with the loaves and fishes.”

Tuesday’s hearing, held by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was the first of three that will give members of the public opportunity to comment on the joint-proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules. Further hearings are set for Thursday in Philadelphia and Tuesday, January 24, in San Francisco.

But it was in downtown Detroit, the heart of the nation’s auto industry, that government leaders were offered widespread support for the 54.5 mpg standard Tuesday. Proponents said the U.S. would benefit in the form of increased automotive jobs, consumer savings and enhanced national security.

“The auto industry is coming back strong, and one of the reasons we are so confident about the industry’s future is green technology,” said UAW president Bob King. “The drive to bring fuel efficient cars to the market is transforming existing jobs and creating new ones. … These are the automotive jobs of the future.”

The EPA estimates the 54.5 mpg standard will save more than 4 billion barrels of oil between 2017 and 2025 and cut carbon emissions by more than 2 billion metric tons. Based on an average fuel price of $3.53 per gallon, it estimates consumers will save a net of $4,400, even with a higher upfront sticker price for new models.

While stating that they supported the proposal, that was the top source of reluctance among automakers and dealers.

More than worrying about meeting what they saw as aggressive deadlines, executives representing U.S. domestic automakers were more concerned with whether enough mainstream customers had the desire and financial means to purchase new cars.

Even as carmakers unveiled more than a dozen new electric vehicles and hybrids at the North American International Auto Show taking place down the street at the Cobo Center, they feared trying to peer at consumer purchasing trends more than a decade into the future left too much leeway for error.

“We must not lose sight of the most important question, and that is, ‘Are they buying the product,’” said Jay Wilton, Chrysler’s vice president of engineering and regulatory compliance. “Measuring even next year is challenging. Speculating 13 years into the future brings risk.”

Because of that, the U.S. automakers said their support for the 54.5-mpg proposal was contingent upon the EPA and NHTSA agreeing to a midterm review that would assess whether early estimates on government figures were accurate, whether they could develop fuel-saving technology in time and, primarily, whether customers were buying fuel-efficient cars.

A November survey conducted by Consumer Reports revealed 80 percent of consumers said they supported the 54.5-mpg target and that 83 percent said they would be willing to pay more for a car that offered better fuel economy.

That may not necessarily mean they can afford a more fuel-efficient car. While several car dealers testified Tuesday they supported the CAFE proposal outright, other dealers were concerned about the costs fuel technologies would add to new vehicles.

Don Chalmers, speaking on behalf of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said the new standards would limit financing options for some customers, potentially decreasing new car sales and shifting borderline customers into used cars instead.

Although the EPA estimated that fuel savings of $6,600 over a decade would pay for the $2,200 increase in upfront vehicle cost, he said that financing departments would not factor the long-term savings into a customer’s loan application.

“I can’t quite get around the affordability from a finance standpoint and whether you can get qualified for a loan in the first place,” said Chalmers, who said he would have lost several sales this fall had the proposal been in place.

“The bankers don’t get a chart and compare fuel savings. They’re looking at payments versus disposable income, and that’s the reality of vehicle financing today.”

Chalmers was the most tepid of supporters in Detroit. Overall, the increased regulation enjoyed wide support. In the afternoon, a group of women broke out in song while supporting the new rule. Nurses hoped the new standard would decrease asthma and NCAAP officials said it would create jobs for black workers.

And if the CAFE proposal brought together groups more disparate than auto industry insiders and environmentalists, it was pacifists and Marines nodding in agreement.

The Rev. Peggy Garrigues, a pastor from Clawson United Methodist Church in suburban Detroit, agreed.

“War is incompatible with Christian teaching,” she said. “The less we depend on foreign oil, the less incentive we have to go to war. These proposed standards will help people of faith live out their values and create a better world for God’s children.”

For more: http://green.autoblog.com/2012/01/18/first-hearing-on-54-5-mpg-proposal-reveals-widespread-support/

THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2012
Want better mileage? You can have your say today

Would you like your car to get better gas mileage?

Federal officials will be in Philadelphia today to take testimony on proposed fuel efficiency standards that would require cars to get 54.5 miles a gallon — a “fleet” average — by 2025.

Today’s average? About 27 mpg. By one estimate, the new standards could save consumers $4,000 in fuel costs over the life of an average vehicle.

At a similar hearing Tuesday in Detroit, home of the American automobile, about 90 people testified — mostly in favor.

“Writing new regulations that will require cars and trucks to have significantly higher fuel economy by 2025 prompted years of fighting among automakers, environmentalists, regulators and consumer groups. But now that the standards have been proposed, nearly everyone involved in the process is on board with the results,” write Nick Bunkley in the New York Times.

“There appears to be no significant opposition amongst responsible persons,” said U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who had fought earlier attempts to boost fuel economy.

“These standards will cut our oil use by more than we get from Persian Gulf, Venezuela and Russia combined,” said Larry Schweiger of the National Wildlife Federation.

Six veterans testified as well, pointing out that our need for imported oil threatens national security — and American lives.

Today’s hearing begins at 10 a.m. at the Crowne Plaza Philadelphia Downtown, 1800 Market Street. It is being held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

If you can’t get there but would like to listen in, you can do so by by calling 866-299-3188 and then using conference code 734 214 4423#.

Also, the Sierra Club is tweeting from the hearing. Search for @SierraClubLive. I’ll retweet when I can.

Among those expected to testify today: the Clean Air Council, various medical groups, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Pew Clean Energy Program, Greater Philadelphia Taxi Association, the director of Philadelphia’s Air Management Program, the Union of Concerned Scientists, several veterans, and officials from Hyundai, Ford and Toyota.

A fact sheet about the proposed standard is available on EPA’s Website http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11038.pdf.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/greenliving/Want-better-mileage-You-can-have-your-say-today.html

New Gas Economy Rules Generate Wide Support
By NICK BUNKLEY
Published: January 17, 2012

DETROIT — Writing new regulations that will require cars and trucks to have significantly higher fuel economy by 2025 prompted years of fighting among automakers, environmentalists, regulators and consumer groups.

But now that the standards have been proposed, nearly everyone involved in the process is on board with the results, as a public hearing held Tuesday in Detroit showed.

More than 90 people who spoke throughout the day asserted that the stricter fuel economy requirements would create jobs, reduce oil consumption, create cleaner air and save drivers money, all while helping automakers increase their profits.

“We’re celebrating something that has taken a long time to reach,” said Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who helped quash previous efforts to impose higher mileage standards. “There appears to be no significant opposition amongst responsible persons.”

The National Automobile Dealers Association, however, did speak out against the idea of setting requirements for vehicles made more than a decade from now until more is known about the strength of consumer demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Don Chalmers, a Ford dealer in New Mexico and the group’s government relations chairman, said he worried that vehicles would become too expensive for some consumers to afford. “Before rushing headlong into a set of new mandates aimed at doubling today’s fleet fuel economy, we need to understand better the potential ramifications,” Mr. Chalmers said. “If our customers do not purchase these products, we all lose.”

The proposed new standards call for automakers to increase the average, unadjusted fuel-economy rating of their vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, up from about 27 miles per gallon today. Because of the way testing is done, the 2025 requirement correlates to a window-sticker rating of about 36 miles per gallon, according to the automotive information Web site Edmunds.com, or roughly what Toyota’s tiny new Scion iQ car achieves today.

Additional hearings on the standards will take place Thursday in Philadelphia and Jan. 24 in San Francisco. The Obama administration this month extended the public comment period for the proposal by two weeks, to Feb. 13, and expects to finalize the regulations this summer.

The administration says the higher standards will cause vehicle prices to increase about $2,000 but that owners will save an average of $6,600 over the life of the vehicle by using less fuel. The rules also will create 484,000 jobs and cut oil consumption in the United States by 1.5 million barrels a day by 2030, according to the Go60mpg coalition, an association of environmental advocacy groups that support the proposal.

Mr. Chalmers said the government’s analysis greatly underestimates how much the rules will cause vehicle prices to rise. He said the actual increase could be up to $5,000, causing an average buyer’s monthly payments to go up by $60 or $70 and potentially locking out shoppers who would not be able to obtain financing for the higher price, regardless of their fuel savings later on.

Some individual dealers disagreed, though, and said they welcomed the new requirements.

“Our customers strongly desire more fuel-efficient vehicles,” said Doug Fox, who has five dealerships in Ann Arbor, Mich., selling Nissan, Hyundai and other brands. “Everyone seems to win on this deal.”

Michael Robinson, vice president for sustainability and regulatory affairs at General Motors, said the company probably would submit recommendations for some technical changes and clarifications to the rules, noting that the proposal is 1,000 pages long. But G.M. is “over all, very satisfied” with the standards, he told reporters.

“We are on a good path toward meeting the early requirements that this proposal will create,” Mr. Robinson said during the hearing. “But we will need further breakthroughs in technology and good customer acceptance of the additional vehicle changes, technologies and costs that will be associated with providing the vehicles needed in future years to allow us continued success in meeting the aggressive requirements down the road.”

G.M., the Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, and other automakers agreed last summer to support the framework of the higher standards.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group, said all of its members supported the standards through 2016, when they would be required to achieve 36 miles per gallon. The German carmakers Volkswagen and Daimler have not endorsed the requirements past that point.

The president of the United Automobile Workers union, Bob King, said he supported increasing the fuel economy of vehicles because it would create jobs and better protect the jobs of current workers by helping the industry thrive.

“The proposed rules are sensible, achievable and needed,” Mr. King said. “They are good for the auto industry and its workers, good for the broader economy, good for the environment and good for our national security.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/business/energy-environment/new-fuel-economy-rules-win-broad-support.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytenvironment&seid=auto

Guest commentary: Detroit automakers have the technology, creativity for 54.5 mpg
On Tuesday, Washington will come to Detroit to talk about how many miles per gallon American drivers will soon be getting.

Officials from the National Highway Transportation Administration and the EPA will hold a hearing on a proposal — announced last year by President Obama, flanked by leaders of the major car companies in a show of support — to require a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
Since that announcement, voices of doubt have grown louder, even from those who might benefit from it like the National Auto Dealers Association. Some are fearful that the new mileage goals will hurt Detroit’s signature industry. And especially in tough times like these, that’s the last thing anybody wants.

But as I will testify at Tuesday’s hearing, the truth is that higher fuel economy standards will boost the bottom line for American automakers. In fact, I believe the Detroit Three need exactly this sort of ambitious but doable national mileage goal to help keep them from repeating mistakes that have proved so costly in the past.

Research shows that when automakers boost fuel efficiency, their profits actually rise. They sell more cars and trucks. And they create more jobs across the board — from manufacturing and marketing, to developing new and cleaner technologies that make their vehicles more competitive on the world stage. Add it all up, and economic models predict that the 54.5-mpg mileage standard now being considered would boost auto industry profits by billions of dollars per year.

On the other hand, we in Michigan know only too well what can happen when automakers ignore driver demand for more fuel-efficient cars. A few years back, Detroit stayed focused on SUVs and gas-guzzlers even as oil prices rose. By 2009, two of the Detroit three had declared bankruptcy. Government bailouts cost taxpayers billions. Here in Michigan, our friends, families and our neighbors lost their livelihoods. From 2000-2010, we were the only state in the country to lose population.

Now gasoline prices are rising again. In 2011, the price of gasoline (all grades and formulations) averaged $3.58 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is 74 cents per gallon higher than in 2010, and 28 cents per gallon higher than in the crisis year of 2008.

Against this backdrop, vehicle manufacturers are deciding on the mix of vehicles they will be offering for sale; some highly fuel-efficient, some very inefficient. A strong national mileage standard will help ensure vehicle manufacturers make better choices this time around, while giving American drivers what they want: cars, SUVs and light trucks that go farther on a gallon of gasoline.
Consumers have confirmed their preference for more efficient vehicles in poll after poll. A recent Opinion Research poll commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America shows that 75% of Americans believe it is important to increase fuel-economy standards. And in a recent Mellman Group poll of likely voters here in Michigan, 76 percent said a national 60-mpg standard would encourage American carmakers to innovate, boosting sales and protecting US jobs.

Sixty miles per gallon is not on the table, but 54.5 mpg by 2025 is. Michigan’s automakers can do it. They have the technology and the creativity. They can give American drivers what they want. Along the way, they can make more money, sell more cars, and rebuild one of America’s great industries.
Economist Walter McManus is research professor of decision and information sciences at Oakland University. He is the former director of automotive analysis at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute, and spent nine years working in the automotive industry, focusing on forecasting, marketing analysis and new product development.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/comments/article/20120116/OPINION05/120116049/Guest-commentary-Detroit-automakers-have-the-technology-creativity-for-54-5-mpg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 16, 2011

CONTACT
Benjamin Lowe, (202) 656-9723,
ben@trumanproject.org

Vets Group: Strong Car Mileage Rules Make U.S. Safer

Washington, DC – In response to today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration to strengthen fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, Operation Free spokesperson Benjamin Lowe released the following statement:

“The new fuel efficiency and emissions standards announced today are a critical win for America’s security and prosperity.

“The US spend nearly a billion dollars a day importing oil. Our dangerous dependence on oil forces us to cut deals with countries that don’t share our values or have our best interests in mind. Our oil use weakens our international leverage, entangles America with hostile regimes, and, by indirectly funding our enemies, puts our troops at risk.

“Most of the oil we use goes toward providing gas for our cars and trucks. The more efficient our vehicles are, the less dependent on oil we’ll be, and the more money stays in our economy. A fuel economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 is a big step toward reducing our dependence on oil from unfriendly nations, and insulating the American economy from the volatile swings of the oil market.”

Operation Free is an advocacy campaign of the Truman National Security Project. Learn more at www.OperationFree.net.

###

Operation Free also sent an educational mailer on the connection between the 54.5 mpg standard and our national security to over 10,000 households in the San Diego area.

To learn more about the importance of the 54.5 standard view our clean cars page at www.operationfree.net/cleancars

We have received great feedback so far and we thank everyone who signed up online!