“I asked Vice President George Bush to launch a thorough investigation of alternative energy and see what he could find -- not pie-in-the-sky demonstration projects but real-world possibilities and realistic options that would help keep our air clean and our nation less dependent on foreign oil.”
- President Ronald Reagan, at the signing of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988
Chapter 2. Alternative Fuels Policy
The 1970s was a time of transition for our country. Domestic production was at peak capacity and the country was increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil to make up for deficiencies in supply. The early days of oil policy sought controls to regulate internal production and stabilize internal prices. From perhaps WWII on, policies were aimed at internal production to stabilize world oil prices. After the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, however, policies became focused on reducing internal consumption due to the exigencies of external forces. The country went from independence from world oil, to partnership, to dependence in a few short decades.
It is the legacy of the 1970s that is still affecting us today as we are ever more dependent on foreign oil. New policies for reducing consumption are passed every year, one of the more recent being the extension of daylight savings time for another month for the purposes of saving energy. But other means of reducing consumption are used as well. One that is catching a lot of attention is the use of alternative fuels for transportation. Currently, about 43 percent of the oil in the US is used by consumer cars and light trucks. Commercial transport uses another 25 percent for trucks, ships, and airplanes. That’s 68 percent of oil usage being burned up by transportation with transportation being about 99 percent dependent on oil. At present consumption of 20 million barrels per day , it’s a lot of oil, making the advancement of alternative fuels for this sector vital given the probable rise in costs associated with declining reserves.
But another legacy of the 1970s is the environmental movement which spawned the EPA under Nixon and the Department of Energy during Carter’s administration. Both of these agencies could benefit from the growth in usage in alternative fuels and have been promoting policy on that subject. Add the two with the Department of Transportation and there is a trinity of forces at work that have been promoting alternative fuels and that could benefit from alternative fuel programs. This chapter will explore the some of the major policies that these three agencies have created since the 1970s that either directly involve alternative fuels or lend alternative fuels a helping hand.
EPA, the Environment, and Alternative Fuels
Under President Nixon’s Reorganization Plan No. 3, the Environmental Protection Agency was created for the purpose of condensing environmental functions that were spread over multiple departments to ensure more efficient application of government policies under section 901(a) of US Code Title 5. The agency had a mandate to:
• Establish and enforce environmental protection measures as deemed necessary by the nation,
• Conduct research on the affects of pollution, ways to control it, gathering a database of information, and using it to affect current policy,
• Assist others in abatement of pollution, and
• Assist the President by developing and recommending new policy for the protection of the environment.
One of the first events in the infancy of the agency, and perhaps one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation ever, was the passing of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA). This section will focus on this legislation and its amendments because the EPA’s focus regarding the use of alternative fuels is as a means of reducing air pollution.
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, and while there was little talk of alternative fuels at the time there were provisions that lead to a greater desirability for alternative fuels in the future. Of course, the main point of the act is to reduce emissions of harmful substances into the air including greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other harmful gases that impair the health of the populace.
Automobiles are a major source of these types of pollutants, emitting hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as a byproduct of the imperfect combustion of gasoline. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is another harmful emission and while it isn’t necessarily detrimental to health (it’s considered a product of “perfect” combustion), it is a greenhouse gas which causes other problems such as global warming. In fact, roughly 60 percent of all greenhouse gases are emitted by automobiles, around 50 percent of VOCs, NOx, and other hazardous emission, and nearly 90 percent of CO in urban areas.
Alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and electricity are almost across the board cleaner than petroleum fuels or have no tailpipe emissions at all. Thus, it would seem that if the EPA wanted to reduce the amount of these compounds in the air, pursuing alternative fuel programs and policy would be an excellent way to accomplish the task. The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 (CAAA) has done just this by recognizing, “that changes in fuels as well as in vehicle technology must play a role in reducing air pollution from motor vehicles.” Although the act did not mandate the use of alternative fuels, it set the stage for increasing awareness of conventional fuel deficiencies and established programs that had in mind the promotion of alternative fuel usage.
The EPA has created programs based on a piece of legislation included in the CAAA; the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It is the EPA’s duty to set standards for six “criteria” pollutants for the protection of the public health and the public welfare (crops, buildings, animals, etc.). The emissions covered under the NAAQS are: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, two levels of particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides. For each emission, there is an average time that a municipality or region must be in compliance with the standard set. For instance, CO has a nine parts per million (ppm) standard that is averaged over eight hours, not to be exceeded more than once a year and for nitrogen dioxide, there is a .053 ppm standard averaged annually.
One program based on the NAAQS is the Clean Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program which mandates a specific percentage of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) to be purchased each year and applies to individually owned fleets of 10 or more vehicles that have a central fueling point. The target was for 22 cities in ozone and carbon monoxide level, non-attainment areas to commence the program in 1998 , with additions for NOx in 2001. The new vehicles needed to meet new CAAA tailpipe standards of 0.075 grams per mile (gpm) for hydrocarbons, 3.4gpm for carbon monoxide, and 0.2 gram per mile for nitrogen oxides. While some of the technologies promoted involve alternative fuels as this paper defines the term, most vehicles sold meet standards for “EPA unleaded” gasoline and “CARB (California Air Resources Board) phase II gasoline” which are cleaner-burning, petroleum-derived fuels.
Another program to come out of the CAAA (not directly, however) that promotes alternative fuel usage is Clean School Bus USA. Clean School Bus USA is a program to decrease the health risks associated with diesel exhaust that US children are exposed to every day on the way to and from school. School buses travel 4 billion miles every year and 24 million children spend an average of an hour-and-a-half on the bus every day. If those buses are anything like bus 59 of the Hannibal School District in New York State around the mid-1980s, the amount of diesel fumes and exhaust the children are exposed to it substantially high.
What the program does is offer grant money for projects to either reduce idle times, upgrade existing buses with better emissions control or in order to use alternative fuels, and/or replacing old buses with modern, more efficient buses. In 2004, the EPA funded 20 projects with $5 million affecting a projected 5,000 buses. Some of the projects include:
• an upgrade of 67 buses in Littleton School District, Colorado, to use a blend of 20 percent biodiesel – 80 percent petroleum diesel (B20),
• replacing seven 15 year old buses in Southern California with new buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG),
• providing a 73 bus fleet with “Ultra Low B20” (biodiesel and ultra low sulfur diesel) in Warwick, Rhode Island, and
• three other programs that also introduced a blend of biodiesel.
An interesting note about this program is that in the 2003 project year, any fuel upgrades were made with ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD), a petroleum product - except Utah which replaced 10 old buses with CNG buses - with some projects making the fuel available in the region for the first time. The year 2004, however, saw the introduction of biodiesel (for an analysis of biodiesel see Chapter 6), which was used in 5 of the 10 programs with low sulfur diesel used in 5 or 6 others. If the program could do the same for biodiesel in subsequent years as it did for the ULSD in 2003, it could promote the fuel as an excellent, renewable alternative around the nation.
A section of the CAAA that doesn’t have a direct affect on alternative fuels, but could indirectly increase their usage is the new sulfur emissions standards for diesel fuel. This is the requirement for ultra low sulfur diesel, seen in use in the Clean School Bus USA program, that will be in effect starting June 1, 2006. The regulation states that all diesel fuel produced will be required to have a maximum sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) and its use is required in all 2007 and later model year heavy-duty vehicles. This requirement is a reduction from the previous level of 500 ppm. According to the Energy Information Agency, the purpose of this measure is to “reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that use diesel fuel.” NOx contributes to ground level ozone and is considered a carcinogen at high levels and PM contributes to asthma and the degradation of buildings and public works.
Low sulfur content decreases the cetane rating of diesel fuel. Cetane is a chemical compound in diesel similar to octane in gasoline that makes the fuel more combustible. The low sulfur rating required for diesel production in 2006 means producers have to find a way to increase the cetane rating. Most have developed new additives to do this but a simple solution, which solves multiple problems, could be using a biodiesel blend. Biodiesel has a high cetane rating and no sulfur content, making it an excellent supplement for diesel fuel; blending it with diesel in any proportion will increase cetane and reduce sulfur emissions and petroleum consumption.
This is a bit pie-in-the-sky, admittedly. There is little known about the long term effects of biodiesel on engines and many manufacturers aren’t willing warrantee engines beyond a 20 percent blend. There are other concerns with the ability of producers to supply the fuel. If there were a national program of mandatory blended diesel, there would most likely not be enough production to supply the needs of industry. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” as the saying goes. Recently passed legislation, however, mandates the use of increased amounts of biodiesel for purposes of national security. Blending biodiesel with regular diesel to improve cetane ratings, which works even at low percentages, is an excellent way to increase its use.
Emissions Trading
Another possible way to create incentive for the use of alternative fuels is through the agency’s market based allowance trading system, sometimes referred to as “emissions trading.” The EPA uses a “cap and trade” system, the basics of which follow. A cap or limit is placed on total emissions less than what is historically known to occur. This causes reductions immediately. The emissions are then broken into allowances; say one allowance for every ton of permitted pollutant, which are then allotted to polluters in specific amounts. It is then up to the polluter to choose the best way to reduce emissions for their business.
If Business A produces fewer emissions than the allowed limit, they can sell their excess allowances on the open market, thus providing cash incentive to pollute less. Conversely, if Business B calculates the cost of reducing emissions to be higher than the purchase price of allowances on the market, they can surpass the emission limit and buy allowances to compensate. Through all this, accurate recording of produced emissions is essential. At the end of the year, all businesses must have equal allowances and emissions. The result is that as the economy grows the emissions limit remains the same and businesses have to make their processes cleaner as the allowances are reduced over time.
A similar system was used in the mid-1980s to reduce lead levels in gasoline. The EPA set new standards for lead of .01 grams per leaded gallon and figured the reduction would save $36 billion nationwide and cost industry $2 billion. Instead of using a command-and-control method of reduction, where the agency sets a standard and a method and industry must comply, the EPA chose a flexible lead trading program to phase in reductions over a 5 year period, 1982-1987.
The program was a success, finishing as scheduled at the end of 1987 and without the usual costly lawsuits by industry. The EPA estimates that the refinery industry saved $65 million by trading and the banking program reduced costs another $200 million. The program also provided a rapid decrease in lead levels (its intended goal) and similar declines have been seen by other programs that focus on reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
This type of program can be used to promote alternative fuels on the basis of reducing undesirable emissions. One suggestion is to offer a trading program for fleet operators who use cleaner cars than what is required by law. Another program could incorporate trading allowances for producers of alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol which would have the duel benefit of reducing the cost of these fuels to the consumer and increasing production. The program could apply to producers of regular diesel and gasoline who blend their products with these alternates as well, which would expand the program greatly. A final possibility is credit trading for manufacturers who produce more dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, in which hybrid vehicles could be included.
But the promise of low emissions from alternative fuels may not be all that it is touted to be. Two aspects that may prove alternative fuels unnecessary in terms of air quality are life-cycle analyses of the fuels and improvements in fuel and engine technologies that could meet tougher EPA standards in a few years. Life cycle analysis of the different fuels will be discussed in Chapter 4, so it won’t be discussed in length here save to say that well-to-wheel comparisons of alternative fuels to gasoline or diesel don’t always prove them cleaner for all pollutants. Next, if improvements in technology can meet the standards set in the Clean Air Act of 1990, current programs promoting the use of alternative fuels will remain a fringe activity unless the cost savings are substantial. This does not counter the need for continued exploration of new and better alternative fuels, however, because the goal of decreasing US dependence on foreign sources of oil still exists.
Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) is a major player in the alternative fuels world. Born out of the oil shocks of the 1970s, the DOE was established on October 1, 1977, to consolidate the major energy related functions of the federal government such as, “long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing, energy conservation, the nuclear weapons program, energy regulatory programs, and a central energy data collection and analysis program.” Through the ensuing years emphasis of the Department has changed to focus on nuclear weapons technology in the 1980s, clean up from the 1980s weapons programs in the 1990s (due to the end of the cold war), and energy conservation and security in the 2000s.
This section will focus on energy conservation and security based on the DOE’s mission and strategic goal for energy; “To protect our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy.”
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed for the specific purpose of decreasing the United States’ dependence on foreign sources of oil and to promote conservation of those limited resources. Titles III and V of the code specifically mandate the exploration and use of alternative fuels. One of the programs to come out of this legislation is the fleet vehicle requirement to use alternative fuels, similar to the EPA’s program. The DOE’s program is administered by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and has four main areas: federal fleet requirements, state and alternative fuel provider rule, private and local government fleet rule, and the alternative fuel designation authority.
The EPAct’s federal fleet requirements necessitate 75 percent of all new light-duty vehicle (LDV, less than 8,500 lb. gross vehicle weight) purchases as of fiscal year 2000, to be alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). The program was phased in through the mid-1990s, starting with 25 percent of vehicles in 1996, requiring more each subsequent year, and only applies to “covered” fleets. A covered fleet is one that has 20 vehicles or more, is or can be centrally fueled, belongs to a federal entity, and operates in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or Consolidated MSA (CMSA) with a population over 250,000 in the 1980 Census (updated later to include the 1990 Census).
In April, 2000, Executive Order 13149 was added to this stating that by 2005, agencies must reduce overall consumption of petroleum fuels by 20 percent compared to 1999 levels. Many options for obtaining this were offered, including using more alternative fuels, driving fewer miles, or substituting cars for light trucks, but it was made clear that the President expected the majority of this offset to be made by increasing use of alternative fuels and improving average fuel economy of vehicles.
Each year, as part of the policy, agencies are required to report their compliance with these rules. For fiscal year 2004, the latest report available, the federal government did an excellent job of complying with the vehicle acquisition rules, surpassing the 75 percent goal by over 900 vehicles, or about 80 percent acquisition. The majority of these vehicles, 94 percent, were flexible fuel vehicles (FFV) that run on both gasoline and E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and gasoline. The rest were dedicated AFVs that used CNG, propane, or electricity.
As this report is not for FY 2005, the year agencies must comply with the 20 percent reduction in use of petroleum gasoline, one can’t say that they have failed. However, regarding the data on petroleum consumption for the four previous years, it appears that the goal won’t be met. Only 2 of 19 agencies met the side goal of using over 50 percent alternative fuels in their AFVs. Alternative fuel use is up across the board, however (except electricity with an 82 percent drop and methanol, a 100 percent drop), with an increase over FY 2003 of 44 percent. This increase translated into a 2.9 percent decrease in petroleum use over the same period with total alternative fuel usage around 4.4 million gasoline gallon equivalents (gge) and petroleum with 277.9 million gges. Sounds good on paper but total consumption of petroleum in FY 1999 was 279.6 million gges, making FY 2004’s consumption just 0.6 percent lower than FY1999. It’s highly unlikely that the 2005 goal, a reduction of another 54 million gges, is going to be met under these conditions. Most agencies sight difficulties of infrastructure as the reason for noncompliance, which is a common problem that is discussed in Chapter 4.
The State and Alternative Fuel Provider Rule applies the same regulation to states and providers of alternative fuels. The rules are a little looser for these two entities, however, applying only to those fleets that have 50 or more LDVs and operate 20 of them in a covered MSA/CMSA. Thus, if a state aggregates its vehicles and has more than 50 in use at any time but doesn’t operate 20 or more in a designated MSA/CMSA, it need not comply with the alternative fleet regulation. Such states might include North and South Dakota and Wyoming. The same applies for alternative fuel providers, which consist of businesses involved in any phase of alternative fuel production, import, sale, or delivery, wholesalers and retailers of electricity, and producers and/or importers petroleum who derive 30 percent or more of their revenues from alternative fuels (sounds like lobbyists got on that one). The DOE offers a credit trading program for compliance with this rule.
The DOE was also vested with the power to apply this regulation to private and local government fleets if it deemed, “that the fleet mandate is "necessary" to achieve the replacement fuel goals contained in Section 502(b)(2) of EPAct (42 U.S.C. 13252).” In 2004, the agency ruled that implementing such a plan wouldn’t advance the goals of reducing petroleum consumption and therefore hasn’t enacted this policy. Section 301(2) of EPAct outlines the types of fuel that qualify as alternative and invests the DOE with the power to add or eliminate fuel from the list as it sees fit. To be added to the list a fuel must meet three criteria: 1) it must be substantially non-petroleum, 2) it must yield substantial security benefits, and 3) it must offer substantial environmental benefits.
A final program born out of the EPAct involving a partnership between the DOE and the GSA is the AFV USER program. The purpose of AFV USER is to broaden the infrastructure of alternative fuel refueling sites for both public and government use and markedly increase the use of alternative fuels across the state. To accomplish this, the agencies will concentrate AFVs in the fleets of six cities: Albuquerque, NM; Denver, CO; Space Center, FL; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and San Francisco, CA.
At the end of July, 2005, the US Congress passed a new Energy Policy Act of 2005 that furthers the involvement of the DOE in alternative fuels. EPAct 2005 extends many of the programs above to the year 2010 and adds provisions for further exploration of electric hybrid gasoline vehicles and diesel vehicles that can operate on ethanol or biodiesel. It also institutes the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which mandates increased production of alternative fuels by 100 percent, rising incrementally over the next six years. By 2012, production of these alternative fuels is to reach 7.5 billion gallons per year.
Tax credit incentives are given to manufacturers of ethanol and biodiesel of $0.10 per gallon for the first 15 million gallons for plants that produce less than 60 million gallons of fuel offers other incentives to increase production to 1 billion gallons by 2015. Volumetric excise tax credits for biofuels were extended through the year 2008 and a (up to) $30,000 infrastructure income tax credit was created for the installation of E85 and B20 fueling property that is applicable to trades, businesses, and individuals.
The act increases the research and exploration of biodiesel and other biomass products, it creates a renewable fuel credit trading system, and it advances hydrogen technology through research projects on inexpensive renewable hydrogen and infrastructure, and the establishment of an ethanol from sugarcane project to be carried out in the sugarcane producing states. It remains to be seen what new and interesting programs and results develop out of this legislation.
Clean Cites Program
Also under the aegis of the Department of Energy and formed out of the legislation of the EPAct is the Cleans Cities Program (CCP). Started in 1993, the CCP exists to promote programs and partnerships on a local level to decrease petroleum usage and thus, promote the national security of the US. In order to accomplish its mission the CCP,
provides a framework for coalitions to focus and coordinate the activities of alternative fuel and alternative fuel vehicle (AFV), idle reduction technology, blended fuel, hybrid vehicles fuel economy and other petroleum reduction proponents. It also provides a forum to develop partnerships, investigate opportunities for joint projects, leverage resources, and collaborate on public policy.
Clean Cities is a voluntary, community based program that includes 88 municipalities and coalitions around the country. The program is responsible for reducing consumption of petroleum by 180 million gallons (4.29 million barrels) per year and reduces emission by 31,800 metric tons annually, all from promoting the use of alternative fuels (idle reduction, fuel blends, and hybrids and fuel economy programs were added in 2004).
Some of the types of programs that are currently being offered through the Clean Cities Program in the State of Texas are:
• In partnership with the Texas Railroad Commission, Central Texas Clean Cities is offering grants for conversion of commercial lawn equipment to propane,
• Houston-Galveston Clean Cities is administering Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grants to government and private business for 75 percent of incremental costs for clean fuel purchases or conversions,
• Dallas-Fort Worth Clean Cities, in partnership with the North Central Texas Council of Governments is administering a Clean Vehicle Loaner program that leases AFVs and loans them to regional public fleets for a test period of a few weeks. This program offers fleet operators a chance to learn about AFVs and decide how to implement their use without having to commit to the expense of purchasing them,
• A renewable energy project at the El Paso airport that uses alternative fuels, solar energy, and fuel cells to power transportation units, and
• Southeast Texas Clean Cities, through partnerships with multiple municipalities and private companies, has accommodated the purchase of around 50 dedicated propane vehicles and established multiple private CNG fueling stations with plans to open more for public access.
While there are many possibilities of what a Clean Cities program do to promote their mission, it’s notable that they not only work with Department of Energy programs, but also with State, local, and private entities to accomplish a broader federally defined policy goal. It’s also interesting to see the programs take advantage of another federal agency’s legislation, the Department of Transportation’s SAFETEA-LU.
DOT
The Department of Transportation’s main policy vehicle is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which became Public Law 109-59 in August of this year. It is a continuation and upgrade of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, formerly ISTEA) which authorized the Federal transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit. Under this legislation exists the main policy for the promotion of alternative fuels in the DOT, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
The CMAQ program was created in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) as a means of helping attain the new air quality and emissions standards created under the Clean Air Act of 1990. Reauthorized in 1998, and once again in 2005, the act has distributed over $15 billion in the grants for projects in National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) non-attainment areas. While initially focusing on other means of emissions reduction like diesel engine retrofits, alternative fuels have been growing in importance in the program as the years have passed. There is one provision in SAFETEA-LU that allows seven Midwest states to use CMAQ funds for the direct purchase of alternative fuels.
The program works by distributing CMAQ funding to all states that have non-attainment areas according to a formula developed by the DOT which weights population and level of non-attainment. Those states without non-attainment areas still receive some funding. The money goes to the state and cannot be spent on projects that are mandated and funded by other legislation. The state then disburses it according to their State Implementation Plan (SIP), the strategic plan for improving air quality, usually delegating authority of spending to Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Alternative fuels didn’t utilize the CMAQ funds often until the introduction of TEA-21 in 1998. Prior to that year, for alternative fuels to be funded, they needed to be part of the SIP and many states didn’t include alternative fuels in their provisions. After the new legislation, alternative fuels were allowed to be funded regardless of whether the state saw them as a strategic part of their air quality plans. Add to this the majority of TEA-21 changes addressing alternative fuels, a clear sign of growing importance, and an increase in funding for the program, and the CMAQ legislation became the major source of funds for alternative fuel projects by public-private partnerships in the country.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) started a database in 2001 of all the CMAQ funded programs, with a specific desire to discover how many projects were related to alternative fuels. The Institute found it a very difficult task because information wasn’t being kept in a standard form, with different amounts of funding being reported by different agencies, and other parts of information lacking altogether. They managed to compile a list of projects which provided information about alternative fuel projects, although they believe there was about 20 percent underreporting.
The EESI found that through the years 1992 to 2002, only about $200 million had been spent on alternative fuel projects, compared to spending of about $1 billion per year. This is in part due to difficulties of obtaining funding under the old rules, which show up as in the data with an average of 19 alternative fuel projects started for the years 1992 to 1997, compared to an average of 48 projects started for the years 1998 to 2002. The data showed that the money was spread over 327 projects, 71 percent of which were for vehicle purchases, generally buses. 220 projects involved the use of CNG with the majority of the rest split between propane, electricity, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the great majority of projects were in the public sector (buses, government fleets, etc.).
While this may seem like an insignificant accomplishment, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), a unit of the National Academies, produced a report that was strongly in favor of renewing the CMAQ program for SAFETEA-LU. The main reasons cited were qualitative, although there were aspects of the CMAQ projects that were found to be quantitatively superior to other options, generally involving emissions reductions instead of behavior modification. But what the TRB saw as strengths in the program was the flexibility it offered to localities to come up with innovative strategies for addressing strict air quality standards catered to their needs and a continued source of funding for these projects which isn’t available from traditional sources.
As time passes there will most likely be more alternative fuel based projects implemented under the CMAQ program. Only recently have the Clean Cities coalitions produced a guidebook for local stakeholders that outlines the steps for creating a CMAQ viable project and getting it funded. As the Clean Cities programs mature, they are major coordinators in the public-private projects that generally get funded by the CMAQ program; they will become able to tailor the projects that are needed in their area to fit DOE criteria for grants. Hopefully, an increasing percentage of these grants will go to alternative fuels. As the TRB paper states, there is evidence that emissions reduction projects are more effective at improving air quality, and part of reducing emissions involves the use of alternative fuels.
In light of all the projects, grants, programs, and energy that are going into promoting alternative fuels, how can one be certain that they are worth all the trouble? The next chapter will address alternative fuels in general, assessing their advantages and disadvantages as a whole, and will also explore issues related to need and economic value.
