Sandia’s Dawn Manley, who testified in front of the State of California’s Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, urges policymakers to consider practical issues when enacting aggressive transportation energy policies. (Photo courtesy of The California Channel). |
A
transportation fuels expert from Sandia National Laboratories says
policy makers should consider such practical issues as the number of gas
stations selling ethanol and how long it takes to get new
transportation technologies to market as they introduce aggressive
federal and state energy policies.
“Policymakers
need to have ways to think about the evolution from the current state
of transportation energy to the desired future state,” Dawn Manley said.
“It is one thing to set aggressive targets on emission reductions, but
you need to examine options for reaching desired future states in order
to get there,” she told California’s Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee on Oct. 24.
State
lawmakers are examining the long-term viability of available fuels to
meet the state’s transportation demands, particularly those related to
AB 32, a much-publicized California law that aims to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels.
According
to the state Air Resources Board (ARB), which is implementing AB32,
transportation accounts for 38 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in
the state, hence the committee’s focus on transportation fuels.
As
an example of the difficulties that can arise when trying to execute
new energy goals, Manley pointed to the Renewable Fuels Standard, a
federal requirement that sets targets for biofuel production and volume.
Specifically, a potential mismatch between the amount of ethanol
biofuel that would be produced and the infrastructure to both absorb and
distribute it could produce delays.
Currently,
only 3 to 5% of the U.S. transportation fleet is composed of flex-fuel
vehicles, which can operate on gasoline blends containing up to 85%
ethanol (E85). About 2,400 gas stations in the U.S.—only a fraction of
the 160,000 gas stations in the country—can dispense E85.
Two
possible solutions are to have either higher blend requirements for all
vehicles or more flex-fuel vehicles that can accept up to 85% ethanol,
she said.
Even
the seemingly modest policy change of going from 10 to 15% ethanol
(approved last year) required waivers from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Manley said. Also necessary was testing to demonstrate that
higher blends are safe and free from higher emissions, and education of
consumers who need to know when and how to use E15 ethanol.
The
proposed changes in ethanol policies, she said, are just one example of
how a shift to advanced transportation technologies such as electric
vehicles, fuel cells and other biofuels pose enormous challenges.
Many
in the transportation policy community want electric vehicles to become
a standard in the U.S. transportation fleet. But, even if the assertion
proves true that a vast majority of vehicles in the year 2050 will use
some form of electrification, Manley echoed a recent op-ed article in
the Washington Post
(authored by Bob Carling, director of Sandia’s Transportation Energy
Center) and reminded the committee that most of those vehicles likely
will still be using a combination of electric and combustion engines
since an all-battery-powered vehicle fleet is unlikely by then.
“We
need to realize that there is still much to be gained with the
combustion engine,” Manley said. “Even with all the exciting new
technologies out there, a good chunk of electric vehicles are still
going to be making use of the combustion engine.”
She
also emphasized that speed and scale are key in terms of advanced
technology development, since it takes 15 to 20 years to change over the
transportation fleet.
“We
all tend to think that hybrids are a mature transportation technology,
but the fact is that they still only make up about 5% of all vehicle
sales today,” she said. “We still have a long way to go.”
Manley
also reflected on a recent visit to China and suggested that decision
makers in the U.S. can learn some lessons from their counterparts in
Asia.
“When
making decisions about transportation energy investments and technology
development, the Chinese have described their strategy in terms of
points, lines and areas,” she explained.
“’Points’
refers to dense urban areas, and they consider the kinds of vehicles
that will make the most sense there. ‘Lines’ are what connect those
urban areas, so the Chinese think about the transportation strategies
that are most effective in doing that. Finally, ‘areas’ are the broader,
rural and agricultural regions of the country, so again, they look at
the unique transportation needs in these areas and build their
strategies around them.”
No one technology or policy will fit every transportation need, Manley said.
