Points of Interest | Green Energy News

February 15, 2004 – Vol.8 No.47

POINTS OF INTEREST.

A weekly collection of websites worth visiting.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War President George H. W. Bush (Bush 1) signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct). EPAct was geared to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum and help clean the air.

One portion of EPAct was aimed at introducing alternative fuels for vehicles, building an alternative fuel industry and selling the vehicles that would run on them. EPAct would expand the use of alternative fuels by building fleets at the federal, state, local and private level that operate mainly in heavily populated areas. Fleets specified in EPAct are light duty vehicles such as cars, small trucks and vans, with some exclusions.

EPAct evolved through the 1990’s and into the new century. The final ruling on state and alternative fuel providers not finalized until 1996, and most recently the U.S. Department of Energy determined that local government and private fleet operators need not not comply with the mandate.

The original 1992 list of approved alternative fuels included ethanol, ethanol blends, methanol, natural gas, liquid fuel derived from natural gas, propane, coal derived liquid fuels, hydrogen and electricity.

However, EPAct allows for new alternative fuels to be added. Biodiesel became an accepted alternative fuel in 1998 but was not finalized until 2001. P-Series fuels (blends of renewable fuels and natural gas byproducts) were added in 1999 and currently Fischer-Tropsch Diesel fuels (natural gas converted to diesel fuel) are being considered.

But times and technology have changed. While certainly hydrogen fuel cells fit into EPAct, there is no place for hybrids. Hybrids, though known of in 1992, weren’t given much consideration. Today, however, hybrid technology is popular. But hybrids run on petroleum (though hybrids could run on any fuel) and the law says that fuels must be Substantially Non-petroleum.

Hybrids already meet the other two alternative fuel provisions: The fuel yields substantial energy security benefits (With greatly improved fuel economy, hybrids seem to apply.) And the fuel must offer substantial environmental benefits. (Hybrids are generally cleaner than most conventional vehicles.)

So this is the problem. How can hybrid technology, that clearly fits two EPAct fuel provisions, be made to fit the third without going back to Congress for a major change in the law?

One possible answer - and admittedly it would be hard to convince some people - is to determine that some kinds of hybrids aren’t hybrids at all. Couldn't it be argued that a Series hybrid is actually an electric vehicle that carries around its own distributed electric generation system?

(A Series hybrid typically has a combustion-engined generator that sends power to an electric drive motor and keeps a battery pack charged.)

It’s obvious to many that battery electric vehicles (allowed under EPAct) charged through the power grid are really fueled by whatever source of energy is powering that grid. A battery electric car recharged by a coal-fired power plant is really a coal-fired car. The car just stores the coal-produced electricity.

So what difference does it make that the power generator that charges the battery pack in an electric car is a few miles away or a few inches as in a Series hybrid?

Well, it’s a bit of a stretch.

Another possible answer is to determine exactly what the term Substantially Non-petroleum means. If a hybrid vehicle gets 30-40 percent better fuel economy because it driven in part by electricity isn’t that substantial enough?

It would be unfortunate if EPAct couldn’t be changed to accept hybrids. But this the problems with laws. They often get out of date and are as hard to change or get rid of as they were to enact in the first place.

Visit EPAct at http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/