Advantages Seen in Biodiesel Blended Motor Fuel
22 May 1998
Natural Gas Industry Concedes Advantages of Biodiesel Blended Motor Fuel WASHINGTON, May 21 -- A leading natural gas industry
spokesman today conceded the huge price advantages of biodiesel blends over
compressed natural gas and stated that the nation's bus and trucking fleets
likely would use biodiesel blends if available under the federal alternative
fuel program.
In testimony before Congress today, Gilbert Sperling of the Natural Gas
Vehicle Coalition acknowledged that America's current fleet of diesel powered
buses and trucks could convert to environmentally preferable biodiesel blends
at little or no cost. At the same time, he estimated that cities would have
to spend up to $50,000 more per vehicle for natural gas buses compared to
buses which run on biodiesel blends.
Sperling was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee in opposition to legislation that would make biodiesel more readily
available to the nation's truck and bus fleets.
The bill (S1141) would designate B20, a blend of biodiesel and
conventional diesel, as an "alternative fuel" under the Energy Policy Act,
which would allow managers of private and government bus and truck fleets more
options for meeting federal clean air mandates without huge capital
investments. S1141 would require no additional government spending, federal
mandates or subsidies, unlike other alternative fuels, and would not excuse
B20 from tax levies that invest in highway upkeep and improvements.
Biodiesel is a nontoxic, biodegradable fuel made from renewable sources
like soybean oil which helps diesel engines burn significantly cleaner. 100%
biodiesel already is designated as an alternative fuel, and tests show that
biodiesel blends like B20 provide many of the same benefits. B20 is a blend
of 20% biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel.
In his testimony, Sperling said that under the legislation bus and truck
fleets "would need to make no changes to their diesel fleets in order to
comply with" present law "because nearly every diesel vehicle in America is
capable of operating on B20 with no modifications." Noting that the nation's
transit agencies are strapped for funds, Sperling said, "Given the choice
between a B20 capable bus, which is virtually any conventional diesel bus, and
a natural gas bus that costs up to $50,000 more than a conventional diesel
bus, we believe that transit agencies will opt for a B20 capable bus."
Sperling continued, "Unlike B20, for which vehicles already are on the
roads (every diesel vehicle on the road today is capable of operating on B20)
and a fueling infrastructure already exists, the alternative fuels identified
in EPAct (Energy Policy Act) have neither vehicles nor fueling readily
available... Hundreds of millions of dollars of investment have been needed
and still are needed to design and manufacture natural gas, propane, methanol
and electric vehicles. Even more investment is needed for the fueling
infrastructure that is needed for these alternative fuel vehicles to have the
opportunity to gain consumer acceptance... These problems largely do not exist
for B20."
Proponents of B20 echoed Sperling's comments on the benefits of B20 for
fleet managers and the difficulties facing natural gas vehicles.
Mark Berg, a soybean grower and president of the American Soybean
Association, pointed out that vehicles using B20 are comparable to existing
EPAct qualified vehicles which use a combination natural gas/petroleum fuel
system since both vehicles have about the same capacity for non-petroleum
fuel. Berg also said that B20 offers the most "bang for the buck"
environmentally by significantly reducing emissions of particulate matter,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide compared to conventional
diesel.
Berg emphasized the key difference between B20 and other alternative
fuels. "We are not asking for additional mandates or earmarks," Berg
remarked. "We are not asking for subsidies for fuel producers or vehicle
manufacturers. We are asking for the opportunity to compete fairly within the
EPAct market."
Berg criticized the Department of Energy, which he said has delayed
proposing a rule on B20 for over three years. "It seems to us that DOE does
not ever want to allow the use of B20. About two years ago, DOE program staff
admitted they were concerned with allowing B20 because 'it might threaten
natural gas vehicle market share.' But biodiesel is not a threat to any
alternative fuel's market share because fleets already are failing to meet
their vehicle purchase requirements at the same time those requirements are
continuing to increase. The pie simply continues to get bigger and more
uneaten."
Testifying for the U.S. Department of Energy, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Transportation Technologies Thomas Gross could not assure panel members
when to expect a proposed DOE rulemaking on including biodiesel blends in the
alternative fuel program. He suggested that DOE would propose several
possible regulatory options in an effort to address the issues raised by the
biodiesel industry.
Russell Teall of the Biodiesel Development Corporation noted that "the
only major argument mounted against S1141 has been by other alternative fuels
which are trying to protect their slice of the pie... many of these other
alternative fuels already enjoy tax incentives and supports which are not
available to biodiesel. By adopting S1141 market forces will determine which
alternative fuel is best suited for each fleet."
The Senate panel plans to mark up S1141 in June, when the House of
Representatives is expected to take up similar legislation.
Statement by Jeffery Horvath, CEO, National Biodiesel Board
on May 21 Senate Hearing on S1141
We appreciate the positive words about B20 from the Natural Gas Vehicle
Coalition during the hearing on S1141. We have been pointing out many of the
same advantages of B20 for years. However, NGVC's claim that S1141 would
instantly designate every diesel vehicle as an alternative fueled vehicle is
incorrect. S1141 does allow existing diesel vehicles to use B20 to instantly
help improve air quality, improve the economy and reduce our reliance on
imported oil.
Based on their testimony, it seems the only reason NGVC opposes B20 as an
alternative fuel is because it would be too easy for our nation's bus and
trucking fleets to use B20 in meeting clean air goals. We agree -- it would
be easy. Fleet managers should not have to spend huge amounts of money and
time converting their fleets and distribution systems just to benefit the
natural gas industry. We are asking Congress to level the playing field for
alternative fuels and give cities across America an immediate, powerful new
tool in efforts to clean the air. S1141 would accomplish this with no new
federal subsidies, mandates or government spending.
