The Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act, authored by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), is a job-creating clean energy tax cut, which has delivered nearly $125 million to seven Ohio manufacturers to help create clean energy jobs, provides investment tax credits of 30 percent for facilities that manufacture energy equipment. Currently, 70 percent of clean energy components are manufactured outside of the United States.

“We can’t trade a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign-made sources of energy,” Brown said. “It’s unacceptable that 70 percent of clean energy components are made outside of the U.S. Extending the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit will help more American manufacturers create jobs through the production of cutting-edge energy technologies.”

The initial tax credit, which was included in the Recovery Act, supported seven Ohio projects and dozens more eligible projects applied for funding but were denied due to a lack of funds. The Department of Energy (DOE) states that the program was more than three times oversubscribed. Nationwide, DOE deemed 418 projects eligible, which amounts to $5.8 billion in unfunded eligible applications. These manufacturers are waiting in the pipeline, and would be ready to break ground soon after they receive funding.

To be eligible for the tax credit, manufacturers must produce solar, wind, and geothermal energy equipment; fuel cells, microturbines, and batteries; electric cars; electric grids; energy conservation technologies; and equipment that captures and sequesters carbon dioxide or reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The SEAM Act is also cosponsored by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Bob Casey (D-PA).

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the fourth place finisher, is also a strong supporter of ethanol and biodiesel while the bottom two vote getters, Representative Michele Bachmann and Governor Rick Perry, refused to support the renewable fuels standard.

Iowans Fueled with Pride is a coalition of Iowa renewable fuels producers committed to providing accurate and current information to the public, elected officials and candidates for office. Further, they work to foster an open and comprehensive debate about the future of U.S. energy policy. The coalition does not endorse candidates for office.

After the IRFA pointed out that Perry’s energy plan would end ethanol tax credits in less than two months, but allow oil tax subsidies to continue indefinitely, a Perry spokeswoman told Bloomberg News that Perry would “work with Congress to phase” out oil subsidies “over the next 20 years.”

“How in the world does Governor Perry justify 20 more years of tax subsidies for oil companies?” asked IRFA President Walt Wendland. “The renewable tax credits cease at the end of this year. But despite that some of the oil subsidies go back 100 years, now we’re told that Perry wants to give oil companies another 20 years of subsidies. Given this extreme position, Perry’s talk about not picking winners and losers and having a level playing field is simply hollow rhetoric.”

IRFA notes that, in addition to favoring tax benefits for oil, Gov. Perry opposes the federal renewable fuels standard (RFS) but his energy plan would leave intact the “federal petroleum mandate” – mandating that over 95 percent of vehicles on the road be filled with a fuel that is a minimum of 85 percent petroleum. Perry has proposed 18 specific policy recommendations in his energy plan to promote the production and use of oil and natural gas, “but not a single policy recommendation to promote the production and use of renewable fuels.”

“The Perry energy plan is not good for Iowa’s economy or America’s security,” says Wendland.

Governor Perry is in eastern Iowa tonight and then plans a major policy roll-out on government reform Tuesday morning.

“We are standing atop the next American economic boom – energy – and the quickest way to give our economy a shot in the arm is to deploy American ingenuity to tap American energy. But we can only do that if environmental bureaucrats are told to stand down,” said Perry.

“I believe in an “all of the above” energy plan that encourages the development of all our conventional and renewable sources,” he said, calling for the elimination of all “subsidies and mandates that punish consumers and skew the energy marketplace, leveling the playing field for all energy industries.”

The Perry plan would expand energy exploration offshore and on federal and private lands across the country by executive order and basically eliminate the EPA. However, while it touts an “all of the above” approach, some ethanol leaders believe it would promote oil above alternatives.

“The Perry plan would leave America dependent on that single fuel – petroleum – with OPEC in charge of its price,” said Iowa Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO of Golden Grain Energy Walt Wendland. “The Perry plan would leave intact the federal petroleum mandate. The Perry plan would leave in place the fuel distribution monopoly of oil companies.”

Wendland continued. “But the most indefensible part of the Perry plan is that it would lock in tax subsidies for petroleum while eliminating them for all other competing fuels. That might make sense in Texas, but it’s a stupid policy for America. Governor Perry has said he doesn’t want the government to pick winner and losers. But the Perry energy plan does just that – and foreign oil is the winner.”

The Perry plan would “phase out direct subsidies and tax credits that distort the energy marketplace” but “preserve tax incentives for research and development.” IRFA notes that the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel are set to expire at the end of the year while petroleum tax subsidies are in the tax code permanently with no scheduled expiration dates and some have existed since 1913.

“While the Draft EMP successfully lays out New Jersey’s energy needs, it excludes solar as an energy source and investment opportunity. Further it contains factual inaccuracies. The type of rigorous analysis encouraged by the EMP must be based on the best and most current information available and not on lingering stereotypes,” said Carrie Cullen Hitt, President of the Solar Alliance.

The SREC’s have been a big factor in the investment in and installment of dozens of solar projects in the state. The loss of the program could dramatically slow the growth of solar energy in the state. The Solar Alliance says they agree with EMP’s focus on rigorous “net economic benefit” analysis but claims that the plan does not apply the benefit equally. They continued by saying many of the costs cited are outdated or misconstrued while the benefits of solar have been overlooked or de-emphasized.

The national solar association cited a few specific examples: the BPU should quantify all value streams associated with solar when applying a ‘net economic benefit test’; the EMP should use updated, universally recognized cost estimates of solar technology; and the EMP should reassess its interpretation of the rate impact of the SREC Program, which is less than 1/2 percent.

Hitt added, “We may debate the methodology for measuring benefits of solar, but their existence is undeniable and their omission from the Draft EMP extremely disappointing. This unfortunately leads to an incomplete picture of the role that solar can play in creating jobs, new investment and clean, reliable electricity for New Jersey.”

“As currently drafted, the EMP will restrict New Jersey solar businesses from creating jobs and deploying clean, reliable solar electricity,” he concluded.

Iowans Fueled with Pride is hosting a series of events during the week to provide the media with opportunities for first-hand interaction with leaders in Iowa’s agriculture and renewable fuels industries. As two of the most innovative sectors of the economy, renewable fuels and crop production have experienced great advances during the last four years. The “hands on” events will provide media with up-to-the-minute information on the efficiency, productivity and energy security benefits of renewable fuels.

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) are sponsoring the events, which will begin on Tuesday, August 9, with an Iowa farm family tour. On Wednesday, Dahl’s Foods in Des Moines will host a ride and drive event to allow the media to test drive the latest flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) and biodiesel vehicles. On Thursday, the Iowans Fueled with Pride Straw Poll site will be set up near the media parking lot at Hilton Coliseum in Ames, offering the chance to meet with Iowa’s ethanol and biodiesel industry leaders and a mobile education trailer.

The premier event of the week will be on Friday, starting with an ethanol plant and livestock farm tour, followed by a visit to Iowa State University’s BioCentury Research Farm, and culminating with a media availability by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad at the Iowans Fueled with Pride Straw Poll site. All day Saturday, visitors and media are invited to stop by the site to tour the mobile education trailer and learn the latest facts on the production and use of renewable fuels.

Find out more on the Iowans Fueled with Pride website.

The new advertising campaign quotes a recent study that found ethanol reduced gas prices by 89 cents in 2010 and if ethanol were to disappear, gas prices could rise by as much as 92%.

In the past month, the ad appeared on 100 buses, in 49 bus shelters, and on 91 signs in 31 Metro stations in Washington, DC with locations highly targeted for Capitol Hill, EPA, Department of Energy, and the White House. In addition, the print ads are also running in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Politico, Roll Call and The Hill.

The RFA’s television image ad focuses on the success of the ethanol industry and jobs created. It is running on political shows on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN in the DC media market only. This campaign continues through September 1st. During the Congressional August recess, however, the campaign will move to a strictly internet-based run focused on RealClearPolitcs.com which has proven quite effective for reaching policymakers and their staffs when they are scattered across the country in their home states and districts.

“America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East, Nigeria, and Venezuela makes us increasingly vulnerable to economic and national security risks,” said Merkley. “American entrepreneurs and workers have the ingenuity and grit necessary to break this addiction to foreign oil – the challenge is whether politicians in Washington are willing to choose American strength over vulnerability.”

With all of the proposed pieces of alternative energy legislation that have been introduced and voted on over the past few weeks, as an aside, I thought I would provide a bit of education on how a bill becomes a law. Remember, School House Rock?

Now that you know how the process works, let’s see what the industry is saying.

Michael McAdams, President of the Advanced Biofuels Association said, “This legislation authored by Senators Carper, Merkley and Bennet is precisely the way our nation must rethink, and how Washington must confront, our energy challenges. By resisting the past temptations of picking a winner, the bill instead offers a comprehensive approach that focuses on the future of all biofuels, including advanced drop-in, algae, and cellulosic fuels to deliver as many gallons to back out foreign oil as quickly as possible.”

He concluded, “Developing renewable energy alternatives is an inevitable part of our shared global future and America should help lead the way. This bill puts us on the road to doing just that by encouraging the development of a robust and thriving domestic advanced biofuels market.”

The Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act would reduce oil consumption in the U.S. by over 8 million barrels per day by 2030, enough to end the need for oil imports from beyond North America.

Last month, former Minnesota Governor Pawlenty called for the phase out of ethanol subsides. He made this announcement during his first official campaign stop, Des Moines, Iowa. Then earlier this week, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman announced he would bypass the Iowa caucuses due to his stance on biofuels and agricultural subsidies – he wants them to disappear.

Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, said this forum is a way for supporters of ethanol to learn more about candidates’ positions on ethanol. The forum will also serve as a means for the presidential candidates to learn more about ethanol.

“With ethanol already becoming a hot topic on the campaign trail, we want the candidates to recognize how ethanol will help make the U.S. more energy secure and that we’ve been proactively working in Congress to reform the ethanol tax incentive,” said Jennings. “We are willing to responsibly reform and reduce the cost of the ethanol tax incentive. However, ACE does not believe budget cuts should just discriminate against American ethanol, while the taxpayer is still footing the bill for hundreds of billions of subsidies for the oil industry.”

ACE’s energy policy forum will take place during their 24th annual ethanol conference taking place in Des Moines, Iowa starting on Tuesday, August 23rd.

I had a brief chance to speak with Executive Vice President Brian Jennings via Skype between meetings and he said the group’s priorities during the meetings are to show the proven benefits of ethanol, promote fuel choice through Flexible Fuel Vehicles and blender pumps, and to reform the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) while preventing moves for its repeal.

Listen to Brian’s Skype interview from D.C. here: Biofuels Beltway March Update From DC

Jennings stressed the importance of the timing of the fly-in and said that the ACE group will meet with nearly half of the freshman Members of Congress. More than half of this freshman group voted against E15 or blender pumps in the Continuing Resolution.

“We are not preaching to the choir. We’re putting boots on the ground to meet one-on-one with people who need to learn the facts about ethanol, and we plan to make a real impact in these two days,” Jennings added.

The group has been addressed by special guests USDA Under Secretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD), part of the GOP leadership and member of the Senator Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over ethanol tax issues.

For those not able to attend but would like to get involved in ACE’s grassroots efforts, can check out their “Virtual Fly-In” campaign and send messages to Members of Congress coinciding with their face-to-face meetings. The messages urge Congress to vote against Senator Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). Messages may be sent this week through ACE’s Legislative Action Center.

You can also view photos from the meetings in their “Biofuels Beltway March” photo album.

Grassley said today during his weekly agricultural media conference call that there are two ways the vote can be avoided. “Either talking him out of it, or denying unanimous consent to bring it up, and I think we can do the latter,” he said. Grassley say he is trying to “reason with” Coburn and urge him to take up the issue within the context of energy legislation so to “have ethanol be viewed as part of an overall energy program” instead of having it be part of the spending bill debate.

According to Grassley, Coburn says he has 55 votes. “He probably needs 60 votes. I think we can probably keep him from getting 60 votes. But, quite frankly, I don’t want anybody on record, if we can avoid it, on the ethanol issue until we get down to discussing it as part of the energy debate.”

Listen to Grassley’s comments in answer to a question by Dan Looker of Successful Farming. Sen. Grassley

Meanwhile, as the future of the VEETC remains unsure in Congress, ethanol interests are reportedly in negotiations on a proposal for moving beyond the VEETC. According to DTN/The Progressive Farmer, representatives from the American Coalition for Ethanol, Growth Energy, National Corn Growers Association and Renewable Fuels Association have been working on a compromise proposal this week, getting input from lawmakers in Washington.

Grassley is concerned about the movement in DC to end ethanol subsidies and incentives as well as the amendments that passed the Congress that would keep the EPA from the ability to do its job bring American consumers E15 and block federal funds from being allocated to build out biofuel infrastructure. He is also concerned that people, nor his colleagues, are taking America’s energy security and the country’s dependence on foreign oil as serious enough threats.

He began his speech with a few statistics about the rising cost of gas and the diminishing cash in American’s wallets.

“According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices jumped 19 cents during a one week period at the end of February. This is the second largest one-week jump in more than 20 years. American’s are now paying an average of $3.38 a gallon for gasoline. This is 68 cents higher than this time last year. The average cost to fill up a tank of gas is likely around $50. For a family struggling to make ends meet, these are valuable dollars spent at that pump, going overseas.

Our country is at risk. Our economy is at risk. Our nation’s security is at risk.”

Grassley then went out to say that he believes for our country to thrive and grow, we need access to reliable affordable energy and this includes nuclear, clean coal, domestically drilled oil, and renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels. However, he focused his speech on ethanol. At one point he said:

U.S. ethanol production is larger than what we import from Saudi Arabia or from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Without domestic biofuels, we’d be on bended knee even more than we are today begging others for oil. Ethanol is the only reliable, legitimate alternative to crude oil. Domestic ethanol currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of our transportation fuel. There is no other renewable fuel that comes close to achieving the economic, environmental and national security benefits currently delivered by ethanol.

Ultimately, the purpose of Senator Grassley speech was to announce plans for an educational campaign amongst his colleagues. He concluded by saying, “The American public deserves an honest, fact-based discussion about the benefits of reducing our dependence on people like Hugo Chavez and Moammar Kadafi.”

Click here to read Senator Grassley’s entire speech.

In the book, Mandelbaum takes on the challenge of laying out why America’s expansive foreign policy is coming to an end and the consequences of such an action. Let’s face it, America needs to tighten it’s purse strings – the country has phenomenal deficits, is still trying to recover from a financial crash and its entitlement programs such as Social Security, are running out of money. So what should go by the wayside? America’s underwriting of global security that dates back to the 1940s.

Mandelbaum is not naive to what could happen when the U.S. stops fighting the wars of others, but he is also very aware of what will happen if the U.S. continues to fight all the wars of others. It will put our “Superpower” status in more jeopardy. Whereas realigning our foreign policy could actually strengthen our position.

The war in Iraq is over oil – a commodity that our country cannot live without.

Mandelbaum writes, “Because the United States accounts for so much of the world’s oil usage, a major reduction in American consumption could lower overall consumption enough to reduce the global price of the commodity. This would decrease the money accruing to the governments that depend heavily, in some cases almost exclusively, on the sale of oil to finance their operations. Iran is one such country. The sale of oil account for 80 percent of its annual revenue. Reducing the income of the Islamic Republic would give its rulers less money to spend on the policies that threaten the rest of the region and the world….Restricting the stream of Iranian oil revenue would have an even more powerful effect on the regime: It would undermine its internal stability.”

Mandelbaum continues by explaining another benefit of reduced oil on Middle Eastern policies – the less the world relies on oil, and therefore the less it relies on oil from that region, the less important to the rest of the world the region will be. Ultimately, he concludes that the reduction of oil qualifies as the single most important thing the U.S. can do to achieve its international goals.

So what should happen in this new age of scarcity? Mandelbaum lays out a strategy of containment that includes moving to renewable energies in addition to oil and lobbies for a substantial tax on gasoline. This tax would lessen oil use, spur growth in renewable energy so it can be economically competitive and demonstrate that America has the wherewithal to address a major problem.

He concludes, “It would demonstrate, finally, that the United States is capable of taking steps to deal with an issue that affects the entire world. It would offer, that is, a vivid example of American global leadership.”

This book offers the best case I have ever seen that oil is a major risk to American security and presents it in a way that a true politician, worried about foreign relations, cannot deny why our country needs to move to renewable energy.

In the letter, sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the groups encouraged the extension of two ethanol related tax polices: the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Credit. In addition, they asked that the definition of the cellulosic ethanol producer tax credit be expanded to include emerging feedstocks such as algae.

“The ethanol industry has been an essential component of our nation’s effort to achieve energy security and improve our environment,” the groups wrote in the letter. “The volumes of ethanol produced domestically have been uniquely successful in reducing our dependence on foreign, imported oil, and have helped to reduce our nation’s emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. In addition, the ethanol industry has helped to revitalize our nation’s rural and farm economies by providing a value added market for agriculture, and supported the creation of hundreds of thousands of non-exportable, high-paying green jobs.”

On VEETC:
“Without VEETC, ethanol blending will become less economically attractive to refiners, resulting in a substantial decline in discretionary blending, and upward pressure on consumer gasoline prices. As a consequence of reduced demand, ethanol plants will close. One analysis concluded that as many as 118,000 jobs could be lost if Congress fails to extend this important incentive.”

On the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Credit:
“Today, there are approximately 160,000 retail fuel outlets around the nation; however, only 2,300 are fitted with equipment able to dispense E85, and just a few hundred that can offer mid-level blends. It is essential that there continue to be incentives to develop the infrastructure needed to make the ethanol blended fuels available to consumers.”

On Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Advanced Biofuels:
“We believe that as we look to extend incentives for ethanol and incentives to support infrastructure, we must continue to support efforts that help the next generation of ethanol overcome commercialization hurdles. To this end, we call on Congress to pass legislation expanding the cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit which includes a broader range of eligible advanced biofuels including algae, and the ability to allow developers to elect a refundable 30 percent investment tax credit.”

The groups concluded, “Not only are these incentives necessary to provide certainty in the marketplace as we work collaboratively to reform the Federal tax structure for renewable energy, but they are also essential if we, as a nation, are intent on continuing our goals of achieving energy security, creating green jobs, and revitalizing rural communities across the country.”

“Washington will be a more Republican town in January,” Dinneen said. “Will that have a meaningful impact on the U.S. ethanol industry? I believe the answer to that is no.”

Dinneen stresses that ethanol is a bi-partisan issue and while a few strong ethanol supporters, including Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin of South Dakota, were defeated yesterday, there were many more that won. “And more importantly, for the most part, those that were defeated were replaced with equally strong advocates for value-added agriculture and ethanol,” he said.

The biggest issue facing the ethanol industry right now remains the expiration of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) at the end of the year. “Anyone would be foolish to predict what will happen with the incentive, it remains an uphill battle, but last night’s overwhelming message is that voters want Congress to do something about the economy and about jobs. Allowing the tax incentive to expire would risk jobs in a very important domestic energy center and across rural America,” said Dinneen.

Listen to Dinneen’s opening statement here. RFA's Bob Dinneen Comments on Election Results

Much is being made about this year’s election, with many calling it one of the most significant in our lifetime. Fact is, every election year is significant. Voting is the single most important act we can perform as citizens of a free country.

Take advantage of it and VOTE – NOW!

I thought you might be interested to hear what she has to say in light of the fact that we’re getting close to some very important mid term elections that could have a major impact on future farm and energy policy. You can listen to Sara’s remarks here: Sara Wyant Remarks

Export Exchange 2010 Photo Album

The U.S. government is the largest user of fuel in the country and has publicly committed to adopting the use of renewable fuels. Just this year, several test flights have already taken place using “bio” jet fuel. In addition, the military has acknowledged the vulnerability of its troops due to their dependence on fossil fuels, and last month, Biodiesel Industries announced the next phase in development of its system to create biodiesel right on military bases. This system could be built in military camps around the globe lessening the danger of U.S. troops who would no longer have to transport huge amounts of fossil fuels to and from its camps on a daily basis.

“Transporting fuel for operational use is one of the most dangerous assignments for our men and women serving in Afghanistan,” said Giffords, a member of the Armed Services Committee. “We must take immediate steps to find ways of reducing fuel use as a way of safeguarding our troops.”

“Our enemies know of our reliance on oil and they are using it to their advantage, and as a result, thousands of service members are dedicated to securing vulnerable supply lines instead of fighting the terrorists who threaten our way of life,” continued Giffords who has introduced legislation to address the issue.

Giffords’ bill, the Department of Defense Energy Security Act, would help reduce the Pentagon’s $20 billion annual fuel bill through a number of specific steps. Among them is accelerating the production of biofuels for aviation and promoting large-scale renewable energy projects at defense facilities. These steps would help make it safer for our troops.

Late last week, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, and Ranking Member Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican, sent a letter to Gates asking him to “seriously consider prudent ways to reduce the need for fuel on the battlefield.”

“We believe there are ample opportunities and technological solutions to reduce our energy footprint in theater which will reduce the logistical and security burdens on our troops,” the two congressmen wrote.

However, biodiesel is not the only option the military has to reduce its energy use. The Times also reported today that a Marine company that recently arrived in Afghanistan was the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone. The Marines brought portable solar panels that fold up into boxes, energy-conserving lights, solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity, solar chargers for computers and communications equipment.

Giffords said her bill will address energy supply and use at the Defense Department both in theater and at home. She said it decreases consumption by integrating hybrid and high efficiency technology into both the tactical and non-tactical vehicle fleet and would replace the vast fleet of sedans, buses and trucks with hybrid and electric alternatives that are currently available.

The bill has four broad goals: reduce the reliance on oil in the battlefield; task the Department to plan holistically for their energy use; decrease electricity consumption at facilities around the world; and increase the self-reliance of bases by increasing the development of on-site renewable electricity.

“My legislation would provide a comprehensive blueprint that would guide the military’s research, development and use of sustainable energy sources. We cannot continue to put the lives of our troops at risk by exposing them to danger in slow-moving, highly visible fuel convoys,” concluded Giffords.

An increase in the debate regarding a federal RES has come from two sources. Last Monday the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition sent a letter to Senate Democratic and Republican leaders saying, “A strong RES is the most economically-efficient way to advance clean domestic energy and immediately create jobs in renewable energy manufacturing, construction of new projects and associated transmission, and ongoing operation and maintenance of these facilities.”

The letter was addressed by Govs. Chet Culver (D-Iowa) and Don Carcieri (R-RI), who lead the Governors’ Wind Coalition and early this year released a report detailing wind opportunities throughout the country.

The letter continued, “We wish to work with you and with the Administration to help shape federal energy legislation this year. The economic stakes are high for our states, and we see a narrow window of opportunity for Congress to enact a long overdue reworking of federal laws governing renewable energy.”

The letter was followed up by a press conference yesterday held by several bi-partisan senators who introduced a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) bill. One of the most vocal proponents is Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) who has been pushing for this standard to generate jobs while asking for no cap-and-trade elements to be added to the bill. The fear according to Brownback is that cap-and-trade strategies would be to expensive for businesses to take on during an economic recession, especially considering they do little to stave off global warming.

Brownback is joined by bill sponsor Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are also supporting the bill.

In a statement Brownback made this past July he said, “As we begin consideration of comprehensive energy legislation, it’s essential we include ideas that will help drive our national energy production in the direction of more clean, renewable energy. The RES title passed out of the Energy Committee requires by 2020 that 15% of our country’s energy be produced using agreed upon forms of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass. Under this proposal, utilities are allowed to meet up to 4% of the requirement through energy efficiency.”

So while the pressure is on in D.C to pass the RES, the pressure is on in California and Connecticut to dump their RPS’s. Dozens of organizations that have a stake in traditional forms of energy have joined together to back Prop 23 in California that would halt the development of clean technologies (including wind, solar and biomass) until unemployment is in control. They argue that the cost is so high, they will have to cut jobs to meet financial demands. By doing this, both the states RPS and Low Carbon Standard policies would be in jeopardy. Supporters of the RPS argue that jobs will actually be created due to increased research, development and manufacturing of the new technologies.

In Connecticut, where the current policy requires 27 percent of energy must come from renewables by 2020, the state is being crippled by high energy prices. As more wind and solar are added to the grid, at a higher cost per kilowatt than coal, nuclear or natural gas, the state fears energy costs will rise even higher.

So what does this movement mean? Are the states’ efforts merely a short-term fix to a long-term economic problem designed to give cash strapped consumers a break? Or are these efforts more symptomatic of a bigger problem, one that will reverse the trend away from renewables and back to fossil fuels?

OPEC was formed on September 14, 1960 and today, America’s dependence on oil from OPEC countries has put our country’s security at risk. One answer to this is ethanol; yet ethanol’s future in uncertain with several policies in jeopardy including the E15 waiver, ethanol tax credit and ethanol tariff.

The industry is currently being held hostage by a fickle federal policy and today, Washington is pretty much in a stalemate. “It’s not because there aren’t great ideas, or not great needs to move forward, but it’s a very politically competitive town,” explained Buis. “And both political parties want to win this next election. It’s like Iowa State playing Iowa in football. Neither side wants to see the other team score any points. The opportunity for bipartisan working relationships is not the most conducive at this time. Hopefully that changes after the elections.”

There is still some hope for this year, as Senator Reid (D-NV) has called for a lame duck sessions to help on November 15, 2010.

Buis has stressed that the ethanol industry doesn’t have a production problem, but a market access problem and passing these varied policies, especially the E15 waiver, will help to open up new markets. The simple act of doing this, says Buis, is that ethanol will help reduce an additional 7 billion gallons of ethanol per year. “It’s like saying to Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan oil, we’re not buying your oil any more.”

Iowa Ag Secretary Bill Northey, noted that just this week, an ethanol plant sold a gallon of ethanol for $1.62. “We actually have ethanol plants right now that are producing ethanol, selling ethanol, for less than the cost of gasoline and that’s without the tax credit.”

He continued, “Certainly we need some of those incentives to continue. We need some predictability, we need more than three months predictability with those incentives going off this December. We need a longer-term vision of what can happen out there.”

A longer term vision is definitely needed if America truly wants to meet is goal of achieving energy independence, and a major step to achieving this is passing more comprehensive policies including the ethanol tax credit, E15 waiver and flex-fuel vehicle policy.

Farm Progress Photo Album

You can listen to the Growth Energy press conference here. Growth Energy Press Conference During Farm Progress Show

This program came to the public’s attention last year when it was used to fund the $2 billion Cash for Clunkers Program – a program that ran out of funds within days of being launched.

According to an article in Solar Industry News, SEIA is furious over the proposed cuts even though the program is already significantly over budget. The association estimates that to date, there are 81 renewable energy project applications that total an estimated $31 billion, yet there is only $25 billion left in funding, not calculating any additional program cuts.

Al Gore has entered the fray publishing a quote on his website about his outrage. “These rescissions put into jeopardy the green jobs that the administration has touted as part of our clean-energy future and put us further behind the rest of the world.”

The alternative energy industry has been struggling for the past several years due to both dwindling private investment funds, lack of cohesive policy that would ensure long-term markets, and the lack of loans from the financial sector. The loan guarantee program is one of the last sources of monies for companies to tap in to as they struggle to develop and bring to market new technologies.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi dated August 6th and endorsed by the American Wind Power Association, Biomass Power Association, Geothermal Energy Association, and the National Hydropower Association, the groups wrote that the cuts significantly undermine the DOE Loan Guarantee Program.

“Failure to act on the Treasury Grant Program and other tax incentives or to restore funding to the DOE Loan Guarantee Program will jeopardize the renewable energy industries’ efforts to develop clean electric generation and create tens of thousands of jobs. We urge you to work with the Administration and the Senate to reverse these cuts and restore funding for the renewable energy loan guarantee program,” the letter concluded.

The mood is set at the beginning of the book where Horner lays out what America will be like in 2015, when Obama’s policies begin to take affect. He lays out a country with energy shortages, food shortages and job shortages. He describes a world in which the rise of renewable energy and cap-and-trade sent our jobs oversees, and while America’s wealth is declining, the cost of living is rising.

Horner purports that any it would be one thing if the proposed green measures actually curbed global warming, but, he says, they don’t. He writes, “As I explained in Red, Hot, Lies, no proposal ever tabled would, according to anyone, detectably impact global temperature…” He goes on to say, “The real issue Americans should be concerned with is the outcome of these “green”schemes: the transfer of your liberties and wealth to the state, and the transfer of jobs to other countries.”

While I disagreed with the majority of Horner’s thesis, there were a few things I did agree with. Our country is in fact losing “green” jobs oversees. The majority of solar and wind manufacturing is taking place in Europe and Asia. I also agreed with his assessment of environmentalists. “The truth is the greens have fought “renewable” plants as aggressively as they have conventional sources that work.” He then supports this statement with a list of energy projects they have blocked from renewables, to coal, to nuclear and natural gas.

Horner is quite harsh in his portrayal of many key climate policy leaders including Cathy Zoi, Carol Browner and Van Jones. He is also unforgiving in his picture of climate and energy policies (he supports the status quo and disagrees that we’ve seen, or will soon be faced with peak oil). Rather than debate the policies and decisions, he attacked them, which I don’t believe is a constructive way to keep the dialogue open.

So if you are general supporter of green initiatives and don’t have much time to read, then keep this book off your reading list. However, if you are as passionate about Horner that Obama spells our country’s demise and don’t mind a one-sided argument, then this book may be for you.

The supporters of Prop 23, led by Texas refining giants Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro, Inc., are claiming that this piece of legislation will cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars in higher energy costs over the next decade. Environmental organizations are fighting back arguing that this is an attempt to kill California’s green energy policy.

Yet those who oppose the bill are claiming that the passage of this proposition would jeopardize a half million clean tech jobs, 12,000 companies and billions of dollars of private investment in California. They also contend that the state’s global leadership in clean tech would succumb to nations such as Asia and Europe. To date, more than 250 businesses and organizations have vocally opposed Prop 23.

In a new report, “Going Backward,” released by the Clean Economy Network (CEN), Prop 23 would suspend efforts to increase electricity produced from renewable sources as well as stifle energy efficiency standards for homes and office buildings. The report says that this effort, if passed, would increase healthcare costs due to pollution as well as raise electricity bills by up to a third over the next 12 years.

“Prop 23 should be viewed for what it is: a mechanism for regulatory and investment uncertainty that only benefits its backers – big out-of-state oil companies Valero and Tesoro – while putting the economic health of the rest of California at risk,” said Jeff Anderson, Executive Director of CEN. “Sending jobs and investment overseas is a no-win proposition for all Americans and must be defeated.”

In an environment that has lost most private investors, those who oppose Prop 23 fear that what little money is left will dry up. There is also concern that if California backs off of its current climate change and alternative energy legislation, that it will signal other states to follow suit. The result, they say, would be detrimental to our country’s efforts at creating comprehensive energy and climate policy in the U.S.

Reid has been attempting to get some sort of jobs bill passed for months. Earlier this year, he presented an Unemployment Jobs Extension Bill that included a one-year extension of the biodiesel tax credit. Reid stripped the biodiesel tax credit from the bill and ultimately, the bill did not pass.

The apparent tie-in of the oil spill and energy bill is that many gulf oil workers are out of work. Reid believes that an energy bill will help put people around the country back to work. The Department of Energy estimates that if a 20 percent renewable electricity standard were put into place, 3,000-4,000 new jobs would be created in most states. Yet supporters of clean jobs are arguing that these clean jobs are not being created fast enough and an energy bill with an RES could be the ticket, although it doesn’t appear Reid’s bill be the ticket needed for admission.

But on the flip side, the oil and gas industry is fighting this bill tooth and nail saying that green jobs will not make up for the large number of displaced oil and gas workers. Offshore drilling needs to continue.

Today, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), comprised of oil and natural gas producers and their partners, is “sounding the alarm” and claiming that Reid’s bill is putting important tax preferences that are “critical to the survival of America’s oil and natural gas producers” at risk. They also cite that the result of decreased drilling will result in higher oil and natural gas prices for the American consumer. They also claim that this bill will increase America’s dependence on foreign energy sources.

“If the Senate needs funding for the proposed green-job initiatives, we encourage them to look for other funding sources other than the tax preferences that are vital to the survival of our nation’s domestic, on-shore, Independent oil and natural gas producers, who drill almost all of the new wells in the United States,” said Mike Cantrell, President of DEPA. “This funding option is not in the best interest of our nation, its people, or its energy producers.”

In the past several months alone, renewable energy opponents have thrown so many red herrings and lawsuits into the mix that any forward movement of the renewable energy industry is sluggish at best. This leads me to believe that more than likely, the only group that needs to continue worrying about job security remains the renewable energy industry.

Many of the recommendations of this report come as no surprise to the agricultural and biofuels industry, as over the past two weeks, members of Friends of the Earth surreptitiously called agricultural organizations across the country, questioning them about their methods of production.

According to an industry insider whose company received multiple calls from various people in the employ of Friends of the Earth, the organization was asking questions about ground water quality (ag production, mainly corn and soybeans have been linked to the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone) and hypoxia; two issues that have made national headlines in recent weeks. It is also no secret that Friends of the Earth has engaged in an active anti-agribusiness and biofuels campaign over the past few years, and the environmental organization has been tied to Big Oil through contribution monies.

It should be known that, Friends of the Earth, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Air Task Force are currently engaged in a campaign to end the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) as well as the ethanol tariff. They have specifically attacked Growth Energy’s corn-ethanol advertising campaign in the Beltway.

They write on their website, “Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money has already been wasted under the credit [VEETC]. And these funds do little more than to further line the coffers of the oil industry. This coalition is working to prevent an additional 30 billion plus dollars from being lavished on the industry to fulfill a legally mandated requirement to blend an environmentally harmful fuel into another environmentally harmful one.”

In a press release today, Friends of the Earth Energy Tax Analyst Ben Schreiber said, “For far too long, the federal government has incentivized practices that destroy our environment. This is particularly true with energy. In the fight to combat global warming, we cannot continue to subsidize the harmful practices that have forced us into this dire predicament.”

However, as Friends of The Earth, along with their ‘friends,’ attack Big Oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies alike, citing the economic and environmental damage of both industries, they fail to offer a solution in the report to convert away from our current fossil-fuel based transportation system, but they do in fact have the solution: plug-in electric vehicles.

The fallacy with their rationale, is that nearly 80 percent of our country’s electricity is generated from coal and natural gas  – two other areas that were attacked in the report. Yet before I lead you astray, the organization’s future energy choice is solar, in the form of solar charging stations. The irony however, is that solar, along with wind, also receive subsidies but nary is there a mention of this in Green Scissors 2010.

Are we to believe then, that solar subsidies, and wind and geothermal by omission, are good subsides for the country and the environment?

Look I’m all for a review of energy subsidies and I am a vocal supporter of renewable energy. But the bottom line is you can’t pick and choose which industries receive subsidies and which ones don’t.

It’s all or nothing people. ALL or NOTHING.

In the meantime, while people continue to fight over the veracity of several biofuels subsidies that are up for renewal this year (yet fail to bring in oil and gas subsidies in the debate) the Green Scissors campaign, that was launched 15 years ago, continues on. This campaign causes me to ask if Friends of the Earth actually has any friends.

Saying that it is too late in the congressional session to switch horses, the American Coalition for Ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Association have pulled rank on the younger Growth Energy group and lined up with powerhouse ag groups American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and National Sorghum Producers to storm Capitol Hill in favor of renewing the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) for another five years.

Hundreds of news stories, blog posts, and tweets have been written since yesterday focusing on the division in the industry and some lawmakers are starting to take sides on the issue. Corn belt loyalists like Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) are committed to fighting for a long term extension, but House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson told corn growers in Washington this week that they will be lucky to get a year-long extension. The House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly looking at cutting the tax credit from 45 cents to 36 cents.

Members of the National Corn Growers Association meeting for their annual Corn Congress in the nation’s capitol made the VEETC extension a priority when they talked to their senators and representatives. NCGA President Darrin Ihnen says corn growers believe extension of the VEETC is vital to the industry. “As our board and voting delegates visited with members of Congress this week it was apparent that time is short and extension is in the best interests of the corn industry,” said Ihnen.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) pictured receiving the NCGA President’s Award from Ihnen during the Corn Congress events, had no specific public comments about support or lack thereof for the VEETC extension. “I look forward to continuing to work together on the Renewable Fuel Standard, supporting the move to E15, and other initiatives important to corn producers,” Thune said in a prepared press release.

There’s no question that Growth Energy’s proposal and the backlash by the rest of the industry has caused confusion on Capitol Hill, something that RFA president and CEO Bob Dinneen says is not good at this point in time. “Now is not the time to add uncertainty and complexity to the energy tax debate,” said Dinneen. “Because the EPA has failed to act to allow higher level ethanol blends, margins in the industry are razor thin. Losing the tax incentive now will shutter plants and cost tens of thousands of jobs. This is a serious discussion with real world implications.”

The groups fighting for the tax incentive extension note that they wholeheartedly support the goals of expanding infrastructure, increasing the number of blender pumps and flex fuel vehicles on the road. However, RFA says they are concerned that agreeing to phase out the VEETC would amount to unilateral disarmament in the fight for decreasing our dependence on fossil fuel, which has its own subsidies and tax incentives that no one is talking about eliminating.

One organization not filing suit is the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA). To date, sugarcane ethanol has received the lowest carbon life-cycle rating of all forms of ethanol and seems to have become the ethanol darling among politicians. Recently, President Obama, who is afraid to utter the word “corn” in conjunction with ethanol, touted the benefits of sugarcane ethanol.

UNICA has repeatedly called for these organizations to drop their lawsuits against ARB. In this light, I spoke with Joel Velsco, the Chief Representative of North America for UNICA, and asked him to weigh in on what is happening in California. In terms of the LCFS, he said that they were hoping for a different decision from Judge O’Neil but it wasn’t a surprise – meaning after a review, the lawsuits have not been thrown out.

“California’s LCFS can help break our dependence on fossil fuels, protect us from market price volatility and provide consumers with cleaner and more abundant fuel choices,” said Velsco. “As UNICA outlined in our May Amicus brief, the LCFS is valid and consistent with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and is not preempted under the Supremacy Clause since it is entirely consistent with Congress’s own program mandating the use of renewable fuels. We will be closely observing this issue as it moves through the courts, and remain hopeful that the Judge will ultimately agree with the arguments we brought forth in our Amicus.”

As the suits make their way through California courts, I asked Velsco if he felt a new Governor at the helm could have any bearing on the future of the LCFS.

He responded, “I’ll leave the political analysis and predictions to the experts. What I can tell you is that after exhaustive study, California state officials have identified sugarcane ethanol as an important part of the solution to achieving the state’s low-carbon goals. The state has a right to lower the carbon footprint of transportation fuels used by Californians, and the biofuels industry is prepared to help the state meet this challenge.”

He continued, “Of course this would be easier to achieve if the LCFS wasn’t challenged in the courts, and the U.S. Congress lets the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol expire at the end of this year. Regardless of who Californians elect as their next governor, they should seriously consider these issues and their overall energy security when casting their ballots in November.”

The ethanol tariff is currently under fire and set to expire at the end of the year. The corn ethanol industry is fighting to keep the tariff in place claiming that if the tariff is removed, America will be subsidizing foreign ethanol. However, UNICA maintains that removing the tariff will encourage competition and benefit consumers.

“At first, change and competition can be daunting,” explained Velsco. “It can be easier sometimes to accept the status-quo. But the status-quo is costing taxpayers $6 billion each year and hurting consumers at the pump with volatile gas prices. It’s time for Congress to remove a 30 year-old band-aid on a healthy and thriving industry.”

“Expanding the market for clean, renewable fuels in a way that benefits consumers is the smart and responsible thing to do. Earlier this year, Brazil took an important step by eliminating its own tariff on imported ethanol through the end of 2011. UNICA is urging the Brazilian government to make the tariff elimination permanent if Congress will do the same and drop the U.S. tax on imported ethanol,” concluded Velsco.

While the fate of the LCFS and the ethanol are uncertain, it is assured that the debate on what is in the best interest of the ethanol industry, the country and consumers will continue.

According to the White House, the federal government, which includes all of our armed forces, is the largest energy user in the U.S. The 28% reduction would decrease annual electricity use by 1.5% saving between $8 – $11 billion in energy costs through 2020. Just in 2008, the federal government racked up a $24.5 billion energy bill.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said Obama as quoted in an article in Recharge. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

This goal will require the government to shift to clean energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, which will support job growth and technology development in the clean tech sector – another major goal of the administration. This move also signals Obama’s commitment to passing a comprehensive climate change package, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

In the meantime, departments will be required to develop sustainability plans that will include current GHG emission estimates and to ensure follow-through, achievement reports will be published online for the public to view and submit reponses.

There were several major focuses of his speech including the support of small businesses, building a stronger financial institution and the creation of new jobs, especially in the clean tech sector. “We need to put more Americans to work building clean energy systems,” said Obama. He also wants to give incentives to consumers who add energy efficiency technologies to their homes, the purchase of these will help to support clean energy industry, he explained.

Obama continued that the House has already passed a bill that will do some of these things, and expressed hope that the Senate would as well. “I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.”

In anticipation for Obama’s support of clean tech jobs, Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) President, Bob Dinneen sent out a statement saying, “America’s ethanol producers stand with the President, ready to provide good paying jobs and economic opportunity in a cleaner and more sustainable manner. “In just the past 10 years, ethanol production has helped create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for engineers, construction workers, chemists, accountants, maintenance supervisors, and countless others. With new technologies on the precipice of commercialization, this industry is once again poised to bring unparalleled economic opportunity to small, rural communities all across the nation.”

Obama continued, “No area is more ripe for investments than energy…but to create more of these clean energy jobs, we meed more production, more efficiencies and more incentives. He then laid of some of the elements that are needed to create the clean energy industry including continued investments in advanced biofuels. Finally he said, “And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy profitable energy.”

While Obama didn’t get specific about the steps to “profitable energy” RFA lists several steps that the administration should take.

1) Finalize the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)in a manner that uses the best available science and provides for the kind of market security next generation biofuel technologies need to thrive.
2) Extend the tax incentives for the use of ethanol from all feedstocks and extend the offsetting secondary tariff on ethanol imports.
3) Approve E15 (15% ethanol/85% gasoline) and other higher level blends for use in all gasoline vehicles, regardless of model year.
4) Partner with industry to expand ethanol blending and dispensing infrastructure, including the installation of blender pumps.
5) Mandate an increasing percentage of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) capable of using ethanol blends up to 85% (E85).

First we must take a step back to take two steps forward. There are several policies in place that mandate the production of biofuels with the Energy Independence & Security Act having one of the greatest impacts. This act requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 with 15 billion coming from corn-ethanol. Bento noted that the country is well on its way to meeting this goal yet surprisingly, “While a lot of public press has blamed the increasing food prices due to these mandates, we find very little effect. Indeed, we find the bulk of the increase in food prices comes from the fluctuation in crude oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil, and less on the land we are devoting for the production of biofuels.”

Speaking of land, Bento also notes that biofuels are disproportionately being blamed for indirect land use effects. This has to do with the fact his framework, unlike a lot of the other models out there, is really accounting for the dynamics. “In other words, we really account for the fact that overtime yields will improve, we account for the fact there’s multiple land use that could adjust and we account for the fact there will be technology progress in the industry,” said Bento.

His model also accounts for the fact that most areas around the world have not seen maximum yield potential and farmers around the world will look for opportunities to increase the productivity of existing land first.

Since Bento laid out that his research demonstrates that biofuels are being unfairly blamed for higher food prices and indirect land use effects, I asked him what effective policy and effective pricing would be. He noted that we know that the cost to produce a gallon of ethanol using second generation feedstock is typically twice as much as corn-based ethanol. So you have to ask, he said, will this sector ever emerge?

“At current prices no. Then you have to ask can the U.S. make a serious commitment towards renewable energy? Of course it can but before you can do that, you need to start accounting for all the external costs that are associated with our dependence on foreign oil and also the environmental costs associated with our consumption of fuel,” said Bento. “Once you start doing that, there are reasons and decisions to design a very comprehensive package of public policies that move us and transition us towards renewable energy.”

Listen to my full interview with Antonio here.

AG CONNECT Expo Photo Album