Texas Governor Rick Perry had requested that the EPA revise its Renewable Fuels Standard requirement to lessen the amount of ethanol for use in automobiles. Between September 1 of this year till August 31 of 2009, the EPA has mandated that 9 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gasoline, a number which Perry wanted to see cut in half. In the United States, the vast majority of the available ethanol is produced from corn, a process which has drawn more than its fair share of criticism from many parties due to its inefficiencies and its possible impact on food prices. The EPA, though, denied Perry's request.

Perry responded to the decision this way, "I am greatly disappointed with the EPA's inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households. For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American's grocery bill." We don't imagine this is the last we'll hear from ethanol opponents regarding the issue. Thanks for the tip, Razpez!

[Source: AP via Google News]

TMI. What does that mean? Well, it usually means 'Too Much Information,' but in the case of fuel mileage, there is truly no such thing. Everybody and their brother wants to know what kind of mileage they are likely to get out of their next new car purchase, so we'll take any information we can get. With that in mind, Cars.com has gone to the trouble of calculating the mileage statistics of all the major brands sold in the United States and has sorted them by average miles per gallon. While the list doesn't actually break down each manufacturer further by model, it is still helpful in some way.

As you may be aware, CAFE mileage statistics aren't actually representative of what a given manufacturer is likely to achieve, as they are adjusted for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, Cars.com chose to go by the EPA's mileage ratings to calculate its figures. For the same reason, the impending fuel mileage requirements being proposed by the Feds aren't quite as harsh as they might seem. For instance, CAFE's 2007 rating for Honda's domestic passenger-car fleet comes in at 33.5 mpg, while Cars.com estimates a much more realistic 24.9 mpg. So, the EPA's estimations are still useful for comparing individual car models, and Cars.com's TMI rating is useful for comparing the manufacturers themselves. Remember, though... your mileage may vary.

[Source: Cars.com]

When the time comes for government departments like the Environmental Protection Agency to produce new regulations, they have to do a cost-benefit analysis as part of the overall process. If the cost of implementing a new regulation exceeds potential benefits, the agency generally won't move forward. Over the last several years the EPA has twice lowered the value it places on a human life in its analysis. As recently as 2003, it used a figure of $7.8 million, but it now uses $6.9 million. While it's comforting to know that the EPA thinks I'm a Six Million Dollar Man (and then some), the lowered value effectively means that more lives would potentially have to be saved by new rules in order to justify their implementation.

The EPA's monetary value for life is still higher than what most other agencies place on it, and the calculations are based on estimaties of the amount of money people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks. There's no evidence yet that EPA has specifically adjusted the numbers in order to duck new regulations such as carbon dioxide emissions limits. That said, the Bush administration has never been particularly fond of new environmental rules. Unfortunately, statistical analysis like this is anything but an exact science and is, in fact, very much a judgment call. As such, it's easy for biases to creep in, intentionally or otherwise.

[Source: MSNBC]

Way back in April of last year, or own Sam Abuelsamid suggested that the Bush Administration would surely leave any EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions to the next President, whomever that may be. It seems that he was right in that assessment, as the EPA is expected to announce later today that it will hold off on creating any specific emissions regulations for the time being. The EPA was told by the Supreme Court in 2007 that it had to either justify its inaction regarding greenhouse gas emissions or come up with new regs. Before this ruling, the government had chosen to remain silent on the issue, instead focusing solely on fuel economy regulations.

The decision to wait on regulating emissions will likely give automakers a bit of time to ready themselves for the rules when they do, in fact, go into effect. We would imagine that the eighteen states, along with other entities such as the City of New York and the Mayor of Baltimore, that are suing the EPA in an attempt to force regulations will be less than pleased with this continued inaction.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

Remember EPA head Stephen Johnson? His tale has been keeping us busy for a while, particularly because he's been battling with California over the state's desire to regulate tailpipe emissions, something Johnson says they can't do. Johnson has found other ways to slow down emissions regulations and skip out on meeting with Democratic Senators. And let's not forget this story about Johnson. Whew.

After all this, former Congressman Walter Fauntroy has drawn up a series of reasons why Johnson Must Go. The petition calls on Johnson to resign and specifically points out the following charge relating to vehicle issues:

In August 2003, the Bush Administration denied a petition to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO2 was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that "If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles." Johnson's EPA set ozone pollution limits at unhealthy levels after rejecting the recommendations of the EPA's own scientists -- and then weakened those limits further after a late-night intervention by President Bush on the eve of announcing the new standards.

ABG reader Marty O. said the call was a "Cool New Web Site For [The EPA] Boss." Whaddya think?

[Source: Johnson Must Go, Thanks to Marty .O for the tip!]

Photo by qthrul. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

Since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 went into effect, there has been a nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) in the U.S. The amount of biofuels required by the bill were increased by the Energy Independence and Security Act in December of last year. As we all know, the economic realities of corn ethanol have been quite the topic of discussion since then, and the state of Texas is looking to take advantage of a provision of the the 2005 Energy Policy Act that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the RFS "if implementation of the RFS would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel." An economic hit is exactly what Texas governor Rick Perry is worried about, and wrote a letter to the EPA on April 25 asking the Agency to halve the nationwide renewable fuels standard mandate (2008, the RFS is nine billion gallons). The EPA is accepting comments for 30 days here and will decide within 90 days of the April 25 receipt. Read the EPA's call for comments after the break.

Photo by Joe Shlabotnik. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

Each week, the EPA asks a question on its blog, Greenversations, to see how people around the country feel about a particular question and opens up the comments section to generate answers. Pretty standard Web 2.0 stuff, but this time the government tells you they're watching.

Although the EPA's short press release announcing this week's question (after the jump) doesn't mention the League of American Bicyclists' Bike-to-Work Week that is going on now, the agency's latest Blog Question of the Week fits perfectly with the event. The question is: Why Are You or Aren't You Biking to Work? Specifically:

Biking is healthy, it prevents air pollution, and it can even save you money (filled your tank recently?). So why aren't you biking to work? Need more bike paths? Different policies from your employer? Government sponsorship or policies? Or are you just a couch potato? If you ARE biking, tell us about your route and experiences!

As a guy who rides a bike for a lot of regular errands (post office, groceries, etc.), I make due without new and better bike paths. More would certainly be nice, but I find that cruising the residential streets is a good way around the issue. You?

People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3). Sounds like a nice collection of "P" words, no? It's also an annual call from the Environmental Protection Agency (known simply as the Agency by some) to finds innovative solutions to a dirty world. The EPA has announced the winners of this year's P3 competition - which is open to college students and teams - and two biodiesel projects are among them. Both Loyola University of Chicago and Drexel University will get their $75,000 prizes for biodiesel projects. Loyola's winning entry will allow the student to build a lab that will turn cafeteria vegetable oil waste into the biofuel. Over at Drexel, the students have developed a biodiesel reactor that uses bubbling alcohol vapors and acid catalysts to prevent soap formation and is therefore able to make biodiesel more efficiently. Other schools won for their work on treating wastewater and disinfecting drinking water, among other things. Read more about the P3 winners after the jump and on the EPA website.

Goodyear has announced that it has joined the EPA's Smartway Transport partnership. Smartway is a program aimed at reducing pollution from road freight transport and offers low-cost loans to make it easy for those in the truck industry to install fuel efficiency devices such as low-rolling resistance tires or to certify new vehicles as fuel-efficient. Goodyear also stated that its Fuel Max Line line of tires can reduce fuel consumption by four percent. By using these tires and other Smartway-certified components, Goodyear and EPA announced that a 18-wheeler can save up to 4,000 gallons of fuel per year.

Through SmartWay, the EPA aims to reduce between 3.3 and 6.6 billion gallons of diesel consumption and eliminate between 33 and 66 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and up to 200,000 tons of nitrous oxide emissions per year by 2012.

[Source: Goodyear, EPA]

Seventeen states are backing Massachusetts in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that would force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Filed one year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA needed to decide on regulating vehicle emissions - a year in which the EPA failed to take any action - the petition asks that the court demand the EPA release a decision in the next 60 days. When Massachusetts took the EPA to court in 2006 to decide the issue, the senior attorney for the Sierra Club, David Bookbinder, told Newsweek that the Supreme Court would have to issue a clear ruling. "There's really no wiggle room. Either EPA has this authority or not. It's a very plain language case," he said at the time. A year and a half later, here we are.

The states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. Thirteen other entities, including the City of New York and the Mayor and City Council for Baltimore, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club, signed onto the suit.

The Massachusetts Attorney General called the 18-state petition an "extraordinary measure to fight the dangers of climate change." We'll see if this is enough to get the EPA to act this time.

[Source: Massachusetts AG via DieselNet]

Back in March, the EPA announced a grant of $5 million for midwest clean diesel projects. One of you called that a "token effort." Fair enough. What do you say to almost $50 million?

That's the amount that the EPA announced it will spend on clean diesel research, especially on "school or transit buses, medium and heavy-duty trucks, marine engines, locomotives and nonroad engines." The EPA suggests that groups wanting a chunk of the $50m could apply for EPA-verified retrofit or idle-reduction technologies or cleaner fuel projects. The EPA doesn't specify that the $5m midwest clean diesel announcement is part of the $50m, but reading the text makes that seem likely. Still, a tenfold increase is a tenfold increase.

[Source: EPA]

The Blue Oval has once again gotten a little bit of love from the green/blue flower. The EPA thought that Ford's energy conservation efforts - an overall improvement of 4.5 percent in the U.S. in 2007 - and so awarded FoMoCo a 2008 ENERGY STAR Sustained Excellence Award. Ford also won this award in 2007 and 2006. If nothing else, the EPA certainly likes to hand out awards. To cite just three examples: green plants from Subaru, Toyota, and Nissan.

The efficiency gains came through improved lighting systems (better flourescents, motion sensors), better paint application and using geothermal cooling and reclaiming gas from landfills. Ford's not just saving resources here; the company also saved about $18m by being a little smarter. Details after the break.

As TalkingPointsMemo put it, "no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah." Why would TPM say something like this? Well, do you remember the Supreme Court's decision that the EPA would, indeed, need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? It happened exactly one year ago today. Since that time, the EPA has found ways to slow down the process and Johnson has now come up with an unhelpful scheme to delay any action. Seriously delay.

WardsAuto reports that by opening up the decision to public comments, Johnson "could delay regulation until as late as 2009." Two years to take action on cleaner air? That's a Bush Administration official for ya. U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who's no fan of regulating automakers, said, "I recognize that the current Clean Air Act may not be the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases. But it is puzzling and disappointing that the Bush Admin. hasn't offered an alternative or joined the effort to design and enact comprehensive climate-change legislation." When the Dingellsaurus is on your case for not taking action on climate change, you're a rare breed.

[Source: WardsAuto, TalkingPointsMemo]

The EPA's Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative has got some money for you. Well, if you're involved in finding ways to reduce emissions produced by diesel engines, it does. Since diesel engines are found in so many applications, it's nice to see that the EPA will consider ways to clean up not only buses and trucks, but also "marine engines, locomotives and non-road engines or vehicles."

The EPA is accepting applications for diesel-emission reduction projects in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin until June 12. A total of $5m will be awarded in this round. More details can be found in the official announcement after the break or at the MCDI's website.

We have a new chapter to add to the EPA vs. state regulations soap opera. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has finally given a reason why the EPA is anti-state rules. Basically, Johnson says the EPS does not see enough proof of increased climate change in California compared to the rest of the nation to justify separate rules. Still, he admits that EPA's authorization of separate pollution rules in the '60s and '70s were justified because air quality was considerably worse in California than in the rest of the U.S. You can read more of Johnson's statement after the jump

Reactions have been, to say the least, intense. For instance, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown dismissed Johnson's arguments as "obfuscating, sabotaging . . . specious, ill-founded. . . . We're going to fight him until he's sent packing by the next president." Environmentalists said that 18 states have either adopted the California rules or announced their intentions to do so, and the resulting curbs on greenhouse gas emissions would have beneficial effects across the nation (and the world). S. William Becker, executive director of the National Assn. of Clean Air Agencies said the EPA position was "a shameful attack on states' rights."

Related:

• CAFE what? California law could require 40-plus miles per gallon by 2020
• Automakers' Rep. John Dingell renews attempt to block state CO₂ regs
• Florida joins California in lawsuit against the EPA over new emissions rules
• EPA says no to California greenhouse gas rules waiver