DeLauro Discusses How America Can Succeed in Renewable Energy During Speech at Yale University

DeLauro Discusses How America Can Succeed in Renewable Energy During Speech at Yale University

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3), the ranking member of the House Appropriation Agriculture Subcommittee, today delivered a speech on how America can succeed in renewable energy during a speech at Yale University. The event was sponsored by Yale's Institute for Social and Policy Studies. Following is the text of DeLauro's remarks, as prepared for delivery.

"Thank you, Ian Sussex for that very generous introduction and for this opportunity to speak with you all this afternoon. I want to thank the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies, in particular Ian, Nancy Kerk and Carol Pollard. Thank you all for your special commitment to this seminar series.

"And thank you for allowing me the privilege to speak before such a diverse crowd - from plant biologists and agriculture economists to scientists and bioethicists to concerned citizens and members of the student body. I think the range of expertise and knowledge represented here speaks to what a remarkable service the Institution is providing us with - enriching the dialogue between various stakeholders on complex public policy issues.

"Indeed, in 2003, I participated in one of this Institution's roundtables on retirement security in the 21st Century. And as much as it was an opportunity for me to share my views as a Member of Congress with academics, researchers and experts in the field, the forum also provided me with the kind of input I need to make good public policy choices - and good public policy. And so, I hope today will offer the same kind of reciprocal dialogue and honest exchange of ideas about what we can do to make that good public policy.

"And frankly, there are few institutions with the capacity to foster policy ideas as Yale, which has been such a resource for me during my time in Congress. One of the challenges I face is trying to bring experiences and insights from outside the institution I work in back into the Congress. Whether the issue is cancer research or agriculture policy or food safety, I always know when I reach out to Yale and particularly specialized working groups like this one I will get a better sense of how we can apply the best science and research to the issues facing the Congress, the people of Connecticut and the country.

"And for 5 years, your seminar series on topics like genetically modified plants and agricultural biotechnology has been a big part of that. The issues your seminars have tackled are often extremely complex, but the discussion you have engendered among government, NGOs and corporate leaders has helped move these issues out of the laboratories and classrooms and into the public square.

"I wanted to speak today about the issue of renewable energy - in particular, how that relates to my position as senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. I should begin by saying I was elevated to ranking member of the subcommittee last year. And while I had served on it for 9 years, this was a new role, new responsibility and new challenge - one I relish.

"That is because the issues and programs the subcommittee oversees and funds directly impact the everyday lives of every single American in one way or another. From public health and the FDA, to rural development and food safety, to environmental conservation and nutrition assistance, the mission of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has always been, at its core, about improving people's lives - about making opportunity real.

"The issues before the subcommittee impact people from across the globe to people here in my own Connecticut district. In addition to having the first agricultural experiment station in the country, we have nearly 400 farms in the Third District - from dairy farms to aquaculture to vegetable growers. Small family farms make up over 90 percent of all the farms here.

"And so, I have spent much of this last year meeting with groups and scientists, visiting farms and experts. I want to understand the challenges and what we in government can do to provide the same quality of life opportunities to every American citizen regardless of geographic or socioeconomic circumstance.

"As you can imagine, rural America plays a particularly large role in the subcommittee's work. The way I see it is simple - we all depend on rural America in one way or another. It was with the New Deal that FDR established that the Federal government had an appropriate role to play in ensuring a healthy rural economy - which he understood was a critical component to managing the national economy. And for all our society's advances in the last 7 decades, that has not changed.

"From my position on the subcommittee, I see investment in rural communities as not only creating jobs, perhaps most importantly, maintaining rural infrastructure - providing an anchor for young people to remain near their parents after they become adults, so they can become productive members of society and give back to and reinvigorate their communities. In that sense, I see the work we do at the subcommittee as more than funding programs. I see it as promoting good values - values of family and community.

"But I think in recent years, Americans have become all-too-aware of the cultural and social divide growing between rural America and other parts of the country. Rural America has 90 percent of the country's poorest counties and a poverty rate that is a shocking 14.2 percent. The number of farms in the United States has declined by two-thirds over the past 7 decades, from a historic high of 6.8 million in 1935 to 2.2 million in 2002. And today, with crop prices already low, subsidies for everything from rice to sugar to dairy products are eroding due to increased global trade pressure. And with a digital divide that is in some ways actually deepening, the prospects for opportunity in rural America are slim.

"And so, the reason I wanted to come here tonight and discuss the issue of renewable energy is twofold - for one, I believe it has incredible potential to revive America's farm economy and agricultural base. For another, I believe virtually all of us here today are positioned to impact the renewable energy issue in a meaningful way - an issue that sometimes may seem too abstract.

"And of course, our energy problems are hardly impacting rural Americans alone. Wherever you live, whether you are a parent taking your children to school, driving yourself to work in the morning, or a farmer harvesting and shipping crops, $2.50 to $3 or more for a gallon of gas poses a big problem for all of us.

"The same is true of home heating costs, which have skyrocketed this winter, with natural gas prices increasing by 48 percent, electricity costs 18 percent, and home heating oil in the Northeast and Midwest rising by a third - all this, on top of home energy costs that have more than doubled since 2001.

"While rising energy costs impact our families' pocketbooks, they also pose a threat to American competitiveness. This is especially true for our beleaguered manufacturing sector, many of whom receive a double-blow because in addition to the cost of running machines and getting people to work, many companies use petroleum-based products to make plastics and chemicals, rendering their cost of doing business almost incalculably high. Indeed, chemical industries and fertilizer plants have already been shutting down facilities and outsourcing their production because of rising oil and natural gas costs. At same time, world-wide use of oil is forecast to rise more than 50 percent in the next 20 years, driven mostly by our biggest competitors, China and India. That tells us that in a few years, $60 for a barrel of oil may seem cheap.

"That is to say nothing of the deepening challenges the energy crisis poses to the environment, starting with global warming - the science of which, as far as I am concerned, is conclusive and well-documented. As Yale's own Gus Speth found in Red Sky at Morning, global warming's connection to droughts, extreme weather, and rising sea levels is clear - it endangers our safety, our economy, our national security, and our reputation as a global leader.

"Of course, it is becoming increasingly obvious we cannot drill our way to energy independence - with only 3 percent of the world's remaining oil reserves, the U.S. uses about a quarter of world production. Yet domestic oil production has been declining for 35 years - where we imported only 34 percent of our oil in 1970, today that figure is closer to 58 percent. The most recent government projection—and a conservative one at that—predicts a 70 percent dependence on imported oil by 2025.

"And most of that oil will come from some of the most volatile regions of the world right now. You only need to look at the countries we import our oil from—from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the Middle East to Venezuela and Nigeria—to understand the degree to which our dependence on foreign oil has become a matter of national security - deepening our trade deficits by more than $200 billion annually.

"This convergence of economic, environmental and national security problems relating to energy has left the American people feeling insecure but also ready to embrace a new direction - for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe that the time has come to seize this moment and develop a bold energy security policy that invests in new technology and prepares us for the challenges of the 21st Century. The time for America to declare its independence is now - and it starts with renewable energy sources that are constantly replenished and will never run out.

"We already have so many of these sources in use. Hydro is already a major source of power for the US and the Pacific Northwest in particular, with exciting new opportunities for "In-flow" technologies that allow us to tap hydro power across the country without having to build new dams. There is solar-concentrating solar technology, which can provide competitively priced electricity in the West and solar-thermal, which is already extremely commonplace in Japan and other island nations. Geothermal is poised for major expansion, with significant resources in the western third of the country. And wind, which has tripled in use since 1998 alone. In the future, we could power the entire country from wind farms - Senator Dorgan of North Dakota refers to his state as "the Saudi Arabia of Wind."

"And then there is fuel cell technology, which is not a "renewable energy source" per se, but it does enable us to use existing energy in new ways. Connecticut is one of the leading developers in fuel cell technology and I am hopeful that we will see more and more renewably produced hydrogen.

"All of this is to say that I believe there will be no silver bullet - no one technology to move us away from oil, gas and coal. Rather, it will be an array of technologies that makes us energy independent - and I believe that could be to our advantage.

"So, allow me to talk to you for a moment about some of the more promising technologies, in particular those that will be produced out on our farms. While some of them show more promise than others, with none ready to replace oil and solve all our energy problems today, I believe prudent use and deployment of these so-called biofuels, biopower and bioproducts could help spur the market on a scale that could rival what we saw in the 1990's with the rise of the Internet. And like the Internet, I believe government has a big role to play in making that happen.

"So what are these technologies? Let's start with biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel, around which there has been so much discussion, with venture capitalists like Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla and celebrities like Willie Nelson championing them. Biofuels made from grains and vegetable oils now supply around 2 percent of the nation's light-duty vehicle fuel.

"As far back as 1925, Henry Ford touted ethanol—that is, sugars and starches derived from various crops—as the fuels of the future. We are not there yet - the United States consumed an estimated 4 billion gallons of ethanol last year compared to 140 billion gallons of gasoline. Most of that corn ethanol is used as an additive in a lot of the gasoline sold in America to make it burn more efficiently - the result of federal requirements in the 1990's for cleaner burning fuel. Biodiesel on the other hand, is a cleaner version of diesel fuel - a mixture of regular diesel and various forms of refined vegetable oil or animal fats.

"Both technologies have their limits. To start with, most biodiesel fuels are still about 80 percent diesel, which contributes significantly to smog. And ethanol poses several challenges. For one, it requires a lot of energy to produce. For another, it is expected that we will max out our capacity to grow ethanol crops by 2015 - already, ethanol uses 14 percent of the country's corn production. And with increasing numbers of states switching from MTBE to ethanol to use as an additive, there will only be so much to go around.

"There is also the issue of getting these new fuel technologies to consumers. For instance, there are 6 million so-called "flex fuel" vehicles on the road that can either run on traditional gas or E85, a mixture of 85 percent grain ethanol and 15 percent conventional gasoline. But most people have no idea their car can even use flex-fuel. And of the 170,000 filling stations in the United States, only 587 are equipped to sell E85. Plus, as people found out recently as gas prices ticked down some, E85 is in some places more expensive than gasoline and carries cars fewer miles.

"Still, ethanol has come a long way since Jimmy Carter pushed the industry toward "gasohol" in the 1970's. What we need to understand is that despite their drawbacks, biofuels are a critical first step - not so much a solution as a transition into a more sustainable process. And an increase in their use is inevitable, particularly if we can give consumers a choice of fuels, as other countries have.

"Brazil is a good example - according to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, only 3 years ago, flex-fuel cars made up about 6 percent of the Brazilian-made car market. As of last December, almost three-quarters of cars sold in Brazil came with flex-fuel engines - and of the 1.3 million flex-fuel cars on the road there, many are built by US automakers in their facilities abroad.

"Brazil also has plentiful amounts of sugar cane - among the most energy-rich ethanol feedstocks known to science. By and large, America produces corn ethanol. And if America wants to catch up to Brazil, we will have to produce biofuels from a range of other feedstocks.

"That is where cellulosic biofuels and integrated biofuel refineries come in - technologies that provide additional economic values to existing commodities we already grow. And that is where I believe the future of 21st Century energy lies. Today over 90 percent of ethanol is made from corn kernels. But by using enzymes to break down cornstalks, tree bark, elephant grass and the once-obscure switchgrass mentioned in President Bush's recent State of the Union address advanced biofuels made from cellulose—which is found in all plant matter—could change all that.

"One of the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is that different agricultural regions can supply the most appropriate and environmentally sound energy crops. Tapping cellulose allows us to use agriculture waste and residues which can actually create problems if not utilized. For instance, we will soon be able to use the cellulose from grain like corn stovers that come from the Midwest, wheat straw from the Northwest and rice husks from the South. But purely cellulose commodities like switchgrass—a native prairie grass—and woody crops like hybrid poplars and willows offer much larger and less expensive feedstocks than grains - in addition to requiring less fertilizer and causing less soil erosion, they can be grown on marginal lands.

"That is why I think such a key part of this debate will be integrated biofuel refineries - that is, refineries which produce products like bioplastics or value-added types of chemicals in addition to biofuel. Of the integrated biorefineries in existence, many use biomass materials - organic waste and other potential pollutants. Biomass is a perfect example of the challenge we face in selling these ideas to skeptics and policymakers alike. Many people have a hard time imagining that manure or landfill materials could also be a valued, energy-rich resource.

"But biomass can be used for liquid fuel, power generation and help produce bioproducts that can help replace our dependence on petrochemicals. For instance, biomass can power an ethanol biorefinery situated next to, say, a cattle feedlot in Texas - that is what one former natural gas company is doing right now. Right now, most biorefineries that produce ethanol also create co-products - byproducts like animal feeds. These are essential to making biorefineries profitable and could in turn, could reduce the cost of ethanol by 13 to 20 cents per gallon, making the fuel more competitive against gasoline.

"And when you realize that this year alone one of nation's largest chicken producers will fertilize its fields with 65,000 tons of chicken litter largely because it has no other use for it, you realize the extent of the energy sources already before us. It is simply a matter of harnessing them and turning what is, in many cases, a waste into not only a resource, but also a revenue stream.

"So, the barriers are clear. Starting with the technology, there is the cost of these fuels. Right now, many of these fuels rely on heavy subsidies to be affordable - though less than what has been going to fossil fuels for decades, despite the fact that these are established, profitable and polluting industries. And while many farmers are investing in biofuel facilities, they cannot simply switch crops without knowing that there is a viable market for their products. Faced with growing a grain crop or, say, switchgrass when America has yet to have built its first cellulosic biorefinery, most farmers will still choose the grain because it is a more secure investment.

"And then there are the political barriers - insufficient allocation of resources, the sheer number of technologies and opposition from the various industries - from Big Oil and car manufacturers' unwillingness to move forward to the historic preference for corn-based ethanol over more energy rich biofuels. But even there, there is a growing consensus among corn-growing state leaders that we will need other feedstocks - that the level of production required exceeds what we can grow in corn alone.

"But the real culprit on this issue is the lack of leadership. While governors looking for new ways to help their states' economies and clean up their environment have banded together to embrace dual-purpose technologies like biomass, those at the highest levels of the Federal government have been much more lukewarm. I appreciated the president's call during the State of the Union, but he promptly introduced a budget that failed to make the investments necessary. And we missed a real opportunity to address these issues in the energy bill that passed Congress last summer. In an $85 billion energy bill that became law last year, less than a quarter of it went to renewable fuels - the rest went to the oil, gas and coal industries. And quite frankly, I voted against it.

"And so what is lacking in this debate is not innovation - it is not simply resources either. What is lacking is leadership, focus and a concerted effort to educate the various stakeholders in the debate - from policymakers and universities to farmers and environmental groups to health organizations. Americans have shown they are ready for new thinking when it comes to solving the energy crisis. But government has been tentative - and it needs to be bold.

"As you know, the president has been traveling the country in recent weeks speaking about energy. But it sometimes appears his Administration is rigging the system in all the wrong directions - from opposing tightened CAFE fuel efficiency and utility standards to encouraging subsidies for oil and gas to withdrawing from Kyoto. None of these pieces lower carbon emissions and in every area, the Administration makes it harder—not easier—to reduce our dependence on oil. And as we found out this week, his budget even cut several full-time research positions from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory this past year. What message does that send?

"Still, I will be honest with you - where a lot of my colleagues see disappointment and frustration, I see opportunity. Opportunities like the 2002 Farm Bill which for the first time included a section on energy. Many of its programs are funded by my subcommittee - such as one for federal procurement of bio-based products and a biodiesel fuel education program to increase the awareness and use of biodiesel. It also authorized a Biomass Research and Development Program.

"And even last year's energy bill did some promising things as well. For sure, the vast majority of pages and allocations in the energy bill support the status quo. But it also provided much greater specificity with respect to how we approach this challenge - how we grow our crops, the conversion process, co-products, and funds for study. It included demonstration projects for integrated biorefineries, as well as a credit for gas stations to install alternative fueling stations. And it contained production incentives and a renewable fuel standard.

"The biggest piece of the Energy Bill from this perspective was its increase for Biomass R&D at USDA - the funds for which were initially boosted in the 2002 Farm Bill to $63 million per year and again in the Energy Bill. The bill authorized us to spend $200 million per year for 10 years, but as of now, Congress is still only investing a fraction of that - $12 million last year, which is what the president requested in his budget a few weeks ago.

"As an appropriator, I can tell you that the first thing we need to do is fully fund these programs. The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program, which helps farmers and rural small businesses purchase renewable energy systems and make energy improvements, is receiving less than half of what it was authorized at. The same is true of the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants, which could be used to help build more integrated biorefineries. And the Bioenergy Program, which makes available reduced price feedstocks for expansion of ethanol and biodiesel facilities, receives no funding at all from the president's budget. This program alone could help our farmers take those critical first steps toward renewable energies.

"There are other steps - and we know what they are. We need more research on feedstocks and co-products, cellulosic technologies and sustainable production and harvesting. In that respect, our Land Grant Universities will be a critical partner. Land Grant Universities can help us better understand the appropriate feedstocks for different regions of the country while serving as a clearinghouse for state and regional biomass inventories including wastes. They can provide assistance on sustainable and rural development, while helping us consider things like climate, soil, native species and farmer/community equity. We need to approach this in a holistic way - as good stewards and producers of a sustainable resource base to meet our food, fiber, energy, and bioproduct needs.

"But we also need to get these technologies out of the labs and onto our roads and into our homes and businesses. That starts with providing incentives for production, for consumption and infrastructure. We can avoid "picking winners" among the various technologies by considering a vast array of incentives such as insurance to cover gaps in feedstock supplies and technology performance, limited loan guarantees, and tax-exempt financing.

"We need to start thinking big - and we need to use the power of the Federal government in creative ways. For instance, the government is one of the world's biggest purchasers of vehicles and the country's largest energy consumer. We need to draw on that purchasing power and consider ideas like mandating all government vehicles be equipped to run on E85 or biodiesel. The Navy is already using B20 biodiesel in all its domestic non-tactical vehicles.

"The Democratic leadership in the House, of which I am a member, has introduced an Innovation Agenda which sets a goal of reaching energy independence in the next decade in large part through expanding production and distribution of synthetic and biofuels and by deploying new engine technologies for fuel-flexible, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and biodiesel vehicles. And, of course, the more efficient our vehicles are, the more hybrids and plug-in hybrids there are, the larger the role biofuels will play.

"But energy security is an issue that cuts across partisan lines like few others. I think we have an opportunity with the reauthorization of the Farm Bill in the next year to increase substantially the funding and focus on these issues and address everything from low crop prices and energy security issues to WTO pressures and climate change.

"I believe renewable energy is poised to revive our farm economy - and farm employment, which today constitutes only 7 percent of all rural employment. I believe these technologies have the potential to more evenly distribute our nation's wealth - to the Midwest, the South, Pacific Northwest, and Northeast, expanding state and local productivity, investment and opportunity. And this marriage of our agricultural resources with our manufacturing base and the strength of our Land Grant/Research universities is good for all of America and, I believe, it will lead us toward a renewal of our manufacturing base in the 21st Century.

"Spurring that kind of change and helping create opportunity is why I came to the Congress - and I believe it is at the core of our mission at the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. But just as important in this fight is the expertise, knowledge and commitment of those here in this room who will play such an important role in this effort - whether we are scientists, economists or simply concerned citizens. We know the challenges - but we also know the potential. Harnessing that potential will include collaborations and partnerships. But it starts with making our case to colleagues—to lawmakers and stakeholders—that these technologies are not fantasy but very real and very much in our sights. Getting us there as a country is what I want - it is what we all want. And I think we are going to do it together.

"So, thank you again for this opportunity. I would love to take some questions."

http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2006/February/yale_speech_2_22_06.html