In the News
Jun 25, 2020
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) led a bipartisan letter with Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject petitions for Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for past compliance years. In the letter, the senators warn that granting these petitions would worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and demand that the EPA apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.
“We urge you to reject these petitions outright and respond in writing to our questions about recent use of SREs under the RFS. These petitions should not even be entertained because they are inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit decision, Congressional intent, the EPA’s own guidance, and – most importantly – the interests of farmers and rural communities who rely on the biofuel industry,” the senators wrote.
“The approval of SREs for past compliance years at this moment would only worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports. EPA must deny these petitions and apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.”
Klobuchar, Ernst, Duckworth and Grassley were joined by Senators Tina Smith (D-MN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), John Thune (R-SD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Deb Fischer (R-NE).
In January 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA that EPA had exceeded its authority in granting SREs under the Renewable Fuel Standard to three refineries in 2016 and 2017, and that moving forward, EPA may only issue SREs to refineries that have continuously received exemptions for every compliance year since 2011. Recently, the EPA confirmed that they have received 52 new petitions for retroactive SREs that, if granted, would bring oil refiners into compliance with the Court ruling by allowing them to establish a continuous string of exemptions.
For years, Klobuchar has been a leader in the fight to strengthen the RFS to support American jobs and decrease dependence on foreign oil. Klobuchar has led several letters urging the Administration to cease issuing small refinery waivers and reject changes to the RFS that would upend stability and predictability for small businesses and rural communities.
In December 2019, Klobuchar led a public comment letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler expressing concern over the proposed supplemental rule establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) 2020 Renewable Volume Obligations and 2021 Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes. The senators argued that the proposed rule—which determines how much biofuel is required to be blended into our transportation fuel supply on an annual basis—fails to adequately account for the waivers, including those given to big oil companies. In October 2019, Klobuchar sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue asking the agency to document the impact of small refinery waivers on farm income, commodity prices, and renewable fuel usage.
The full text of today’s letter to Andrew Wheeler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, can be found HERE and below:
Dear Administrator Wheeler:
We write with frustration and significant concern about recent reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering granting over 50 petitions for Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for past compliance years. We urge you to reject these petitions outright and respond in writing to our questions about recent use of SREs under the RFS. Granting these petitions would worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports while violating EPA’s own policy on this issue.
On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made a ruling in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA that struck down three small refinery exemptions granted by your agency. In ruling that EPA exceeded its statutory authority, the court determined that the waivers for those refineries had lapsed and that there was no waiver available to extend.
It is for this reason that we are especially alarmed to hear that EPA is considering over 50 petitions for retroactive SREs that are intended to circumvent the Tenth Circuit decision by allowing refineries with lapsed SREs to establish a continuous chain of exemptions. These are refineries who either did not submit petitions or were not granted waivers in past years, meaning they were not experiencing “true economic hardship” to comply at the time. These petitions should not even be entertained because they are inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit decision, Congressional intent, the EPA’s own guidance, and – most importantly – the interests of farmers and rural communities who rely on the biofuel industry.
As you know, Congress passed SREs under the RFS program with the intention of mitigating and eliminating economic harm to small refinery operations. On the EPA’s website, in a document titled “Small Entity Compliance Guide for Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” an eligible small refinery shall have “no more than 1,500 employees corporate-wide” defined as “for all subsidiary companies, all parent companies.”[1] This guidance also states that companies should apply for small refinery status by July 1, 2010 to be eligible for SREs. That means that under EPA’s own guidance, the majority of SREs EPA has granted would be ineligible for the program.
You previously testified in January 2019 to the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) that the decision to grant Chevron and Exxon small refinery exemptions under the RFS was made at the refinery level and not at the corporate level. In light of EPA’s guidance and your contradictory statements we hope you will provide complete answers in writing to the following questions:
- Were you aware that your own Agency had determined that Chevron and Exxon were ineligible for SREs when you appeared before EPW in January 2019?
- Do you commit to applying the 10th Circuit decision nationwide now that it has unanimously rejected a petition for a rehearing and abandoning the agency’s misuse of the RFS waiver program once and for all?
- A number of organizations associated with the oil industry have asked you to change the 2020 RFS volumes or waive them for the rest of the year, using the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) as the pretext for doing so despite the fact that the drop in gasoline demand has devastated the biofuels industry. Are you aware that the structure of the RFS already ensures that RVOs are effectively automatically adjusted proportionally based on actual sales of gasoline?
Even before COVID-19, the misuse of small refinery waivers under the RFS had led many biofuel plants to shut down partially or altogether. The further loss of biofuel demand and sales during COVID-19 has resulted in further harm to the industry, with over 100 biofuel processing plants now idled or closed. This has resulted in reductions to the rural workforce, decreases in commodity purchases and prices, and shortages of co-products critical to the agricultural supply chain. Meanwhile, the Administration has taken steps to help the oil industry through purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The approval of SREs for past compliance years at this moment would only worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports. EPA must deny these petitions and apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
Read the original press release here.
Jun 24, 2020
Testimony offered during a June 24 hearing held by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to consider the recently introduced Growing Climate Solutions Act explains how the bill could benefit the biofuel and bioproducts industries.
The Growing Climate Solutions Act was introduced on June 4 by Sens. Mike Braun, R-Ind.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
The legislation aims to break down barriers for farmers and foresters interested in participating in carbon markets so they can be rewarded for climate-smart practices. To do this, it would create a certification program at USDA to help solve technical entry barriers that prevent farmer and forest landowner participation in carbon credit markets. That program, the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program, would enable the USDA to provide transparency, legitimacy and information endorsement of third-party verifiers and technical service providers that help private landowners generate carbon credits through a variety of agriculture- and forestry-related practices. The USDA certification program would aim to ensure that these assistance providers have agriculture and forestry experience. The agency would also administer a new website that would serve as a one-stop-shop of information and resources for producers and foresters who are interested in participating in carbon markets.
During the hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said the Growing Climate Solutions Act has the potential to improve sustainability throughout the agricultural supply chain by bringing greater value to renewable fuels. She asked Jason Weller, vice president of Truterra LLC, the sustainability business at Land O-Lakes Inc., to explain how providing access to carbon markets for farmers could help drive emissions reductions across the supply chain, including the positive effects on biofuels and biobased products.
Weller said the system of practices anticipated in the legislation to help farmers generate greenhouse gas (GHG) credits would also be the same system and suite of practices ultimately needed by producers of biobased products and biobased energy, including biofuels, who want to participate in state-level low carbon fuel standards. Weller explained that the energy supply chain, including farmers, need to have necessary data to demonstrate GHG savings in order to generate credits under those programs and participate in the low carbon fuels marketplaces. Weller also noted that the credits would help farmers adopt the suite of technologies, conservation practices and new machinery needed to create the GHG reductions that the marketplace is looking for.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., asked witnesses at the hearing to speak to the importance of having accurate up-to-date GHG modeling from the U.S. EPA, especially how it might further support green farming or create trade opportunities.
Brent Bible, a corn and soybean farmer and advisor to the Environmental Defense Fund, said it is vitally important to have that data, whether it comes from the USDA or EPA. He also discussed the damaging impact of the EPA’s misuse of small refinery exemptions (SREs).
Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it is vitally important to have models that the industry can trust and depend on. He also noted the importance of having accurate data that demonstrates the benefits of programs being utilized on farms.
Thune also addressed the EPA’s inaction on corn fiber-to-ethanol registrations under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, called the EPA the primary barrier to a lot of additional success that could be achieved regarding the reduction of GHG in ethanol technology, particularly on the cellulosic side.
Growth Energy and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization on June 24 issued statements in support of the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
“The importance of today’s discussion cannot be understated,” BIO said in its statement. “Climate change is a threat to agriculture and society. However, innovative, biology-based tools will enable agriculture to adapt and be part of the solution. BIO is a strong supporter of the Growing Climate Solutions Act for the significant positive impact the legislation will have for American farmers, sustainable fuel producers, and biobased manufacturers.
“Through the power of biotechnology, greater amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil and converted into value-added products providing additional revenue streams for farmers while addressing climate change and encouraging sustainable practices,” BIO continued. “It is time for the United States to work towards a more resilient 21st-century bioeconomy, and this bill is an important step towards that future.
Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, submitted comments for the hearing record stressing that producers and farmer suppliers to the ethanol industry provide significant benefits to the U.S. environment. “With many states and localities increasingly exploring public policy options to lower carbon emissions, the use of biofuels can immediately contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reduce harmful air toxics, and provide affordable solutions to consumers and lawmakers alike,” Skor wrote. “These benefits are significantly attributed to innovations in agricultural practices like reduced tillage, use of cover crops, and continued ethanol plant innovation.”
“Programs such as the Renewable Fuel Standard as well as the continued expansion of higher biofuel blends like E15 and E85 can advance environmental progress and provide meaningful markets for American agriculture well into the future,” Skor continued. “We hope as your committee continues to explore agriculture’s role in climate policy you will continue to recognize and promote the role of biofuels for our nation’s farmers and consumers now and into the future. Thank you and we look forward to working with you on these important initiatives.”
Additional information, including a video replay of the hearing, is available on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry website.
Read the original story here.
Jun 22, 2020
Summary
Ethanol producers' share prices have largely recovered to the levels at which they traded shortly before coronavirus-related lockdown orders went into effect in the U.S.
Ethanol production margins have made a full recovery and are approaching 3-year highs.
Ethanol demand has rebounded, but the recovery has been incomplete as gasoline demand has remained below its normal weekly volumes.
Investors should not expect ethanol producers' share prices to return to the levels seen when production margins were last this high until gasoline demand has fully recovered.
The share prices of U.S. ethanol producers Aemetis (AMTX), The Andersons(ANDE), Green Plains, Inc. (GPRE), Pacific Ethanol (PEIX), and REX American Resources (REX) have largely recovered from the coronavirus-induced swoons that they underwent in March and April. One producer, Pacific Ethanol, has even recorded a sizable gain over the period, although its share price had been battered by the company's poor financial position well before the pandemic severely disrupted U.S. ethanol demand.
The sector's recovery has been driven by a strong rebound in ethanol production margins that has occurred since late April. This rebound has in turn been the result of a 34% gain by the price of ethanol from April's lows compared to 7% increases by the prices of corn and natural gas, two important inputs, over the same period. Production margins as measured by Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development set a multi-year low in April but have since moved back into positive territory, most recently pushing above the capital cost threshold (not that the construction of new capacity is likely).
Two factors have had an outsized impact on the ethanol sector's improvement. The first has been the partial recovery of U.S. gasoline demand. While the fuel's consumption remains approximately 20% lower than is normally seen in June, it has increased by 50% from April's lows. Ethanol demand is closely tied to gasoline demand since almost all of the former is blended with the latter prior to retail, and the collapse of gasoline demand that occurred earlier this year was the primary cause of the ethanol sector's poor production margins. Improved gasoline demand has therefore translated to higher ethanol demand.
That said, ethanol demand has recently rebounded by more than would be expected just based on the recent gasoline demand trend. Weekly ethanol blending volumes by the refining and wholesale/retail segments are only 15% lower than the normal volume for this time of year, having increased by almost 60% from April's lows. As I wrote earlier this month, Renewable Identification Number [RIN] prices have surged since early April, increasing the incentive to blend ethanol under the revised Renewable Fuel Standard [RFS2] biofuels blending mandate. It is possible that the superior recovery of ethanol demand is attributable to this development.
More directly, ethanol production margins have benefited from the continued strength of ethanol's price premium relative to the price of gasoline. While this has declined from the extreme ratio that was reached in March and April as rapid demand disruption occurred, it remains well above the long-term average. A strong ethanol price premium often reflects a dynamic in which ethanol demand is stronger than gasoline demand, as appears to be the situation now.
Ethanol prices have also benefited from a less-advantageous development, though: the large decline in ethanol reserves that has occurred since early April. Normally such a decline would be a good sign since it would mean that demand was outpacing the ethanol sector's ability to supply ethanol. In the present case, though, the decline to stocks has been the direct result of the mass shuttering of U.S. ethanol production capacity that occurred in March and April. While much of the capacity that had been idled has returned to production, the country's current production volumes remain 20% or more below the historical summer levels.
The primary factor for investors in the ethanol sector to watch this summer, then, is gasoline demand. A full recovery as the summer driving season commences would allow ethanol production margins to remain strong even as production returns to normal levels. On the other hand, an incomplete recovery would threaten to cause a repeat of Q4 2019, when rising margins became self-defeating by inducing oversupply by producers. (The exception is if E15 demand experiences exponential growth, but there is little evidence that this is happening yet.)
Two secondary factors for investors to keep an eye on are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] upcoming RFS2 rulemaking and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Following multiple legal defeats in the federal courts, the EPA is supposed to require the full biofuel blending required by statute in 2021. Merchant refiners have embarked on a last-ditch effort to have this volume effectively reduced, however, injecting a fresh source of uncertainty into the outlook.
Likewise, resurging coronavirus rates in many southern U.S. states following the re-openings of their economies have both dashed earlier hopes that the virus would struggle in warm weather and worsened the outlook for the pandemic in H2 2020. While some energy analysts have argued that the reopening would ultimately see higher-than-normal summer gasoline (and, by extension, ethanol) demand this year as travelers opted for cars over airliners, this is unlikely to happen if infection fears cause travelers instead to opt for "staycations" over driving vacations. The prevailing gasoline demand weakness certainly raises the prospect that the latter scenario will occur.
Any investor asking when ethanol producers' share prices are likely to return to their January 2020 highs, as opposed to their pre-coronavirus levels, must consider the supply scenario. Production margins have recovered to their earlier highs, it is true, but production volumes remain lower than they were at that time (let alone than their historical summer levels). Producers' earnings and, by extension, share prices are unlikely to set new highs in 2020 until the demand situation has improved to the point at which margins can remain strong following a full rebound of supply. Much will depend on how drivers respond this summer to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the original story here.
Jun 21, 2020
In Washington, D.C., ethanol production rose 0.5%, or 4,000 barrels per day (b/d), to 841,000 b/d—equivalent to 35.32 million gallons daily and a twelve-week high, according to EIA data analyzed by the Renewable Fuels Association. However, production remains tempered due to COVID-19 disruptions, coming in 22.2% below the same week in 2019.
The four-week average ethanol production rate increased 6.0% to 792,000 b/d, equivalent to an annualized rate of 12.14 billion gallons.
Ethanol stocks declined 2.1% to 21.3 million barrels, the lowest reserves this year and 1.2% below year-ago volumes. Inventories tightened in the East Coast (PADD 1) and Midwest (PADD 2) but increased across the other regions.
The volume of gasoline supplied to the U.S. market, a measure of implied demand, softened by 0.4% to 7.870 million b/d (120.65 bg annualized). Gasoline demand was 20.7% lower than a year ago.
Refiner/blender net inputs of ethanol perked up, moving 3.1% higher to 789,000 b/d, equivalent to 12.10 bg annualized but 16.2% below the year-earlier level.
There were no imports of ethanol recorded for the fourteenth consecutive week. (Weekly export data for ethanol is not reported simultaneously; the latest export data is as of April 2020.)
Read the original story here.
Jun 18, 2020
In response to rising public outcry for greater transparency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today disclosed that 52 new petitions have been received from small refineries seeking retroactive exemptions from their Renewable Fuel Standard requirements in 2011-2018. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, refiners are filing these “gap year” waiver petitions as part of a cynical scheme to circumvent the recent Tenth Circuit Court decision. In its January decision, the court overturned three exemptions and set a precedent for significantly curtailing the waivers going forward.
“Just when we thought we’d seen everything, the refiners have come up with another new scam to undermine the RFS. This ‘gap year’ waiver ploy is as surreal as it is appalling, and certainly the courts would frown upon EPA flouting another unequivocal decision,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “It is beyond absurd that refiners who didn’t even ask for an exemption or claim hardship in the past are now asking for waivers dating all the way back to 2011. EPA should swiftly deny these waiver requests and immediately adopt the Tenth Circuit decision nationwide. The agency should stop trying to rewrite history and start trying to follow the law.”
In ruling on a petition filed by the Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, and American Coalition for Ethanol, a panel of Tenth Circuit Court judges unanimously found on January 24 that EPA had exceeded its authority in granting certain exemptions. The court ruled that EPA may only consider granting waivers to refiners who have received continuous extensions of their exemptions each compliance year. The judges also said EPA may only grant waivers to refiners who demonstrate the RFS itself is the cause of “hardship,” not some other factor, and noted that EPA’s own analysis shows that refiners pass compliance costs on to their customers. EPA’s own data show that no more than seven small refineries could have possibly received continuous extensions of their exemptions. Yet, EPA has recently granted as many as 35 exemptions in a single year.
Now, in a brazen attempt to get around the court decision, refiners are requesting exemptions for past years so that they may claim they are eligible for future waivers because their exemption was “continuously extended” by EPA. RFA first exposed the “gap year” plot in a letter to Administrator Wheeler on May 22, and called on EPA to reject the secretive waiver requests outright. The Tenth Circuit petitioners—RFA, NCGA, NFU and ACE—and other groups sent another letter to EPA later, requesting specific information about the “gap year” petitions.
Refiners are apparently attempting to justify the “gap year” waivers by suggesting the statute allows them to file a petition “at any time.” However, the Tenth Circuit said the phrase “at any time” does not open the door for EPA to grant a petition regardless of when it is received. The court stated that “even if a small refinery can submit a hardship petition at any time, it does not follow that every single petition can be granted.” The court noted the absurdity of a broader interpretation of “at any time,” explaining that “[b]y that logic, the EPA could grant a 2019 petition seeking a small refinery exemption for calendar year 2009 – more than a decade after the fact.”
Approving “gap year” waiver petitions would also contradict EPA’s long-held position that “…petitions be submitted as soon as possible to enable the EPA to conduct its evaluation and issue a decision prior to the…compliance deadline…”
Cooper said granting the “gap year” waivers “would be akin to a principal changing a high school senior’s freshman biology grade from an ‘F’ to an ‘A’ four years later so the student can get into college. It’s cheating—plain and simple. Farmers and biofuel producers in states throughout the Heartland are likely to view the granting of any ‘gap year’ waivers as the last straw in an increasingly tenuous relationship with the administration.”
He also noted a recent comment by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who said “If the EPA ends up accepting these petitions, not only will they lose again in court, they will risk President Trump’s support in Iowa and other Midwestern states.”
Read the original story here.
Jun 18, 2020
Members of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus held a virtual town hall Wednesday to discuss the challenges currently facing the ethanol industry and what can be done to help.
Participating in the meeting were caucus members including Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Dave Loebsack (D-IA), and Rodney Davis (R-IL) as well as ethanol and agricultural group leaders.
House Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson says while the Senate has yet to vote on the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, he will not vote for any bill that provides no aid for biofuels producers – and he is still hopeful USDA could yet find dollars for producers in the previous legislation.
Read the original story here.
Jun 16, 2020
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet taken action on petitions by refiners seeking retroactive biofuel blending waivers, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa said on Tuesday.
The Iowa senator called on the EPA to reject such petitions in a weekly call with reporters.
Grassley said the petitions were an attempt to skirt a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this year that said waivers from the nation’s biofuel blending laws granted to small refineries after 2010 had to take the form of an “extension.”
The decision, if applied broadly, would likely put an end to the Trump Administration’s practice of granting large numbers of exemptions to blending mandates.
However, a Department of Energy official said last month the department would review retroactive blending waivers. If granted, such waivers could be considered compliant with the court’s ruling.
His comments sparked outrage from biofuel advocates, who claim waivers undermine demand for ethanol and other biofuels. The oil industry refutes that claim.
Grassley said the petitions should be immediately dismissed, and the fact that they haven’t was a big concern of corn farmers and the industry in general. Iowa is the largest ethanol-producing state in the country.
“If the EPA ends up accepting these petitions, not only will they lose again in court, they will risk President Trump’s support in Iowa and other Midwestern states,” he said.
Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, refineries must blend billions of gallons of biofuels into their fuel pool or buy credits from those who do. Small refineries have been able to get waivers from the EPA, after their applications are reviewed by the Department of Energy.
The 10th circuit court’s decision made it unclear whether the large number of waivers issued in recent years could go ahead.
“Small refinery petitions received are sent to DOE for further analysis and we will await their recommendations,” an EPA spokesperson said.
Read the original story here.
Jun 12, 2020
Five railcars of U.S. gasoline pre-blended at an E10 rate arrived in Guadalajara in May 2020 – 14,500 gallons of ethanol (5,300 bushels in corn equivalent) – a direct success of the U.S. Grains Council’s collaboration with the Mexican Association of Service Station Providers (AMPES) to demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of increased ethanol use. The delivery exemplifies the importance of continued engagement in the Mexican market, including an in-country presence, to realizing increased ethanol use.
“The economic benefits keep proving themselves load-by-load,” said Stephan Wittig, USGC director in Mexico. “Despite the adverse conditions due to COVID-19, ethanol is supporting the Mexican environment, gasoline distributors, fuel retailers and most importantly, the Mexican consumer.”
The Council – together with U.S. ethanol industry partners Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and state corn organizations – are providing information to Mexican stakeholders on the benefits of ethanol use, including savings at the pump, improved air quality and a long-term commitment to the environment.
As part of that education effort, the Council developed a strategic partnership with AMPES to offer educational workshops. This series updated Mexican gasoline station owners on developments in fuel regulations, dispelled myths about ethanol use and encouraged distribution companies to ask for quotes on ethanol and how to incorporate ethanol tanks in their facilities. In 2019, the groups – including the Council, AMPES, Growth Energy, RFA and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) – conducted 11 workshops throughout the country.
Grupo Topete, a family-owned gasoline trader building a fuel terminal in Jalisco near Guadalajara, attended two of these workshops. The Council also connected the company with Petrorack, a fuel retailer in northern Mexico supportive of E10 following USGC programs like the 2019 Global Ethanol Summit.
Taking advantage of the economic benefits and shared support the company learned about during the seminars, Grupo Topete started importing pre-blended E10 gasoline in May 2020 to its already-built rail track to distribute to independent retail stations.
“Despite the steep decrease in gasoline demand in Mexico due to coronavirus restrictions – down 70 percent at the lowest point – ethanol realized competitive advantages in the Mexican market,” Wittig said. “Enough margin was offered to deliver the pre-blended E10 gasoline to retail stations within a four-hour drive of the Grupo Topete terminal in Jalisco.”
While these sales are only a small part of the overall ethanol sales to Mexico, this success demonstrates the effectiveness of the Council’s approach to provide technical education and support within the Mexican fuel industry. Each is a step toward encouraging increased ethanol use through a mix of growing quantities of locally produced ethanol with U.S. ethanol filling in the missing demand.
To accomplish that goal, the Council will continue to help fuel retailers, station equipment installers and local fuel station owners learn more about the advantages of selling ethanol-blended gasoline as Mexico’s transportation fuel sector continues to evolve.
Read the original story here.
More...
Jun 10, 2020
U.S. fuel ethanol production increased by more than 9 percent the week ending June 5, while weekly ending stocks of fuel ethanol fell by 3 percent, according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on June 10.
Ethanol production averaged 837,000 barrels per day the week ending June 5, up from an average of 765,000 barrels per day the previous week. The week ending June 5 marks the sixth consecutive week of growth following sharp declines that began in late March and continued through April due to market impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Production was down 259,000 barrels per day when compared to the same week of 2019 and down 242,000 barrels per day when compared to the final week of February, before U.S. fuel markets started to be impacted by COVID-19.
Weekly ending stocks fell to 21.802 million barrels the week ending June 5, down from 22.476 million barrels the previous week and the lowest level of weekly ethanol ending stocks reported since the final week of 2019. The week ending June 5 marks the seventh consecutive week of falling ethanol stocks following a record high of 27.689 million barrels set the week ending April 17. Weekly ending stocks for the week ending June 5 were flat when compared to same week of last year.
Read the original story here.
DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences
Jun 10, 2020
DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences today announced the launch of SPEZYME® HN, the latest in the SPEZYME® line of alpha amylase enzymes and a new inclusion in business’s suite of XCELIS® Ethanol Solutions.
The SPEZYME® line is known for offering numerous advantages for ethanol producers, including robust liquefaction and significant viscosity reduction across a variety of temperatures and pH levels. For the new SPEZYME® HN blend – which combines an alpha-amylase with a thermostable phytase – that means delivering industry-leading liquefaction for dry grind ethanol plants operating under harsh conditions.
“This is a significant development for the industry right now, particularly following the success of Clean in Place (CIP) solutions that lead to lower cations in the ethanol production process, which has traditionally caused challenges for alpha-amylases,” said Josh Naylor, marketing coordinator, DuPont Biorefineries. “SPEZYME® HN is a unique alpha-amylase blend in that it is designed to perform extremely well in harsh low cation or high temperature liquefaction conditions. This gives plants unprecedented flexibility in how they run their front-end operations.”
SPEZYME® HN generates high dextrose equivalents (DEs) and starch solubility when liquefaction cation concentrations are far below the industry average. In fact, it produces higher DEs and lower slurry viscosity than competitive alpha-amylases at liquefaction temperatures up to 195 degrees Fahrenheit.
To learn more about SPEZYME® HN and other XCELIS® Ethanol Solutions from DuPont, visit www.xcelis.com/spezymehn or https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/xcelis-ethanol-solutions
Jun 8, 2020
A group of 44 members of Congress sent a letter to President Trump on June 8 urging him to deny requests filed with the U.S. EPA by several governors seeking a waiver of 2020 Renewable Fuel Standard blending requirements.
“We write to express our concern regarding recent requests to waive blending requirements under the [RFS],” the representatives wrote. “This pandemic has severely strained the market for biofuels, closing plants and dealing another crippling blow to an industry that is already struggling. We urge you to stand with our farmers and rural economies during this challenging time and deny any request for blanket statewide or nationwide waivers from the 2020 RFS blending requirements under the Clean Air Act.”
In the letter, the members of Congress stress that granting the RFS waiver requests would compound the challenges facing rural America and weaken one of the most successful clean air policies in the U.S. “These waivers directly undermine the RFS and only stand to put more pressure on the ethanol and biodiesel industries, which support over 300,000 high-paying American jobs,” they continued.
The representatives also noted that the effects of COVID-19 combined with the damage caused by the EPA’s abuse of small refinery exemptions (SREs) caused more than 150 biofuel plants to idle or reduce production. “This means that over 50 percent of U.S. ethanol production capacity has ceased operations, resulting in economic uncertainty for our rural economies and the loss of a critical market for corn farmers. At an already turbulent time for ethanol and biodiesel producers, we must take action to support—not undermine—the industry and our farmers,” they continued.
The 44 representatives also called the waiver requests “unjustified,” said that they “run contrary to the EPA's well-established precedents,” and stressed the waiver requests fail to meet necessary legal criteria. The letter stresses that recent oil market volatility is not being caused by the RFS. Rather, that volatility is a result of COVID-19-related factors and high production levels in Russia and Saudi Arabia. In addition, the representatives point out that RFS regulations already account for the drop in fuel demand because blending standards are percentage-based. They also note there is currently an excess supply of renewable identification numbers (RINs) on the market and available to refiners, offering flexibility for RFS compliance.
We stand ready to work with you on ways to deliver on continued investment and support for biofuels,” the members of Congress wrote. “They offer an immediately available and proven path towards decarbonizing the transportation sector, driving economic growth, creating jobs, and improving air quality. We need to make sure that our rural economies are in the best possible position to recover from this crisis and any move to weaken the RFS would only put us further behind.
“Again, we strongly urge you to uphold the integrity of the RFS and decline issuing any blanket statewide or nationwide waivers from the 2020 RFS blending requirements under the Clean Air Act,” they continued.
The letter is signed by Reps. Abby Finkenauer, D-Iowa; Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa; Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; Collin Peterson, D-Minn.; Rodney Davis, R-Ill.; Angie Craig, D-Minn.; Ann Wagner, R-Mo.; Darin LaHood, R-Ill.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.; Mark Pocan, D-Wisc.; Jim Hagedorn, R-Minn.; Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.; Mike Bost, R-Ill.; Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo.; Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.; Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.; Cindy Axne, D-Iowa; Jim Baird, R-Ind.; Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb.; Jason Smith, R-Mo.; Robin Kelly, D-Ill.; Jim Himes, D-Conn.; Sam Graves, R-Mo.; Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.; Ron Estes, R-Kan.; Jahana Hayes, D-Conn.; Steve Watkins, R-Kan.; Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; James Comer, R-Ky.; Scott Peters, D-Calif.; Sean Casten, D-Ill.; John Larson, D-Conn.; Jacki Walorski, R-Ind.; Joe Courtney, D-Conn.; TJ Cox, D-Calif.; David Cicilline, D-R.I.; Adrian Smith, R-Neb.; Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif.; Steve King, R-Iowa; Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H.; Ron Kind, D-Wisc.; David Scott, D-Ga.; and Rick Crawford, R-Ark.
The Renewable Fuels Association has spoken out to thank the 44 members of the House of Representatives for urging Trump to deny the RFS waiver requests. “RFA is grateful to this bipartisan group of leaders in the House for standing with consumers, farmers and ethanol producers to uphold the integrity of the Renewable Fuel Standard,” Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA. “While refiners are appealing to governors in a callous effort to evade the RFS under the guise of COVID-19 relief, the law requires—and EPA has previously concluded—that waivers can only be granted when any potential hardship is being caused by the RFS, not any other factor. However, in this case, the governors correctly state the harm is caused by plummeting oil prices attributable to an international oil glut and falling demand caused by COVID-19. Those factors are also hurting ethanol. In fact, half of the nation’s ethanol production capacity was shut down over the past several months.
“The rural communities that depend on a thriving renewable fuels industry are fortunate to have such dedicated supporters in Congress protecting the RFS from endless attacks,” Cooper continued. “These lawmakers understand that caving into the whims of the oil industry and waiving the RFS would not only be illegal, but it would also have devastating impacts on working families and small businesses already reeling from the effects of this terrible pandemic.”
Growth Energy also thanked the representatives for combating oil-backed efforts to undermine the RFS. “Rural America cannot afford another setback, and we’re grateful for the tireless efforts of House leaders to protect our road to recovery by defending the Renewable Fuel Standard,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “Oil industry efforts to waive the RFS would do nothing to reverse the market challenges facing all fuel makers, but they would eliminate a vital economic lifeline for thousands of rural workers, biofuel producers, and farmers who already face unprecedented hardship. It’s past time for the administration to declare these schemes dead on arrival, so we can all get back to rebuilding America’s agricultural supply chain in the wake of COVID-19.”
A full copy of the letter can be downloaded from Finkenauer’s website.
Read the original story here.
Jun 5, 2020
Guardian Energy, Minnesota’s largest ethanol plant, restarted production this week as the state’s battered biofuels industry has begun rebounding.
After motor-fuel demand tanked as COVID-19 stay-at-home orders took hold, ethanol production also plunged this spring to record lows. Plants throughout the country — including four in Minnesota — were temporarily idled.
Three of those plants have now reopened, while other Minnesota biofuel facilities have increased production as ethanol demand and prices have risen from their April nadir.
“It’s not nearly what it was pre-COVID, but every week it is getting a little better,” said Jeanne McCaherty, CEO of Guardian Energy Management.
Guardian Energy in the southern Minnesota town of Janesville is the largest of the state’s 18 ethanol plants, with a production capacity of 149 million gallons per year. The plant, which employs around 50, closed April 2.
The Janesville plant gradually reopened this week and was running at 95% capacity on Thursday. “You don’t just turn a key and it jumps right back up,” McCaherty said.
Granite Falls Energy was idled April 3 and reopened May 18. The Denco II ethanol plant in Morris closed on March 30 and began reopening in the middle of May.
Only Gevo’s facility in Luverne, the state’s smallest ethanol plant, appears to remain closed. Gevo, which aside from ethanol makes isobutanol for jet fuel, was idled on March 31. The company could not be reached for comment.
About 20% of all U.S. ethanol plants remain idled Friday, down from 30% on April 21, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group.
Meanwhile, U.S. ethanol production has risen to 765,000 barrels per day for the week ending May 29, up from a historic low of 537,000 for the week ending April 24, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Ethanol production had been running more than 1 million barrels per day before the economic lockdowns prompted by the spread of COVID-19.
“We have seen some slight recovery in both prices and demand in the ethanol industry,” said Brian Kletscher, CEO of Highwater Ethanol in Lamberton and current board president of the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, a trade group.
“It has been very, very gradual,” he said. “The industry is still struggling through this.”
Highwater Ethanol had reduced its production earlier this spring to 80% of capacity and is now running at about 90%, Kletscher said.
At Al-Corn Clean Fuel in the southern Minnesota town of Claremont, production over the past two weeks has ramped up to full capacity. At April’s low point, Al-Corn was running at only 38%.
“The market is telling us, if you want to run, there is maybe a little bit of [profit] margin in it, or at least you will break even,” said Al-Corn CEO Randall Doyal. Ethanol producers were generally losing money earlier this spring.
Still, with transportation-fuel demand still considerably below normal, there’s a risk of too much ethanol production being added to the market too quickly, he added.
The ethanol upturn is pegged to a rebound in motor-fuel demand and production: Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, most gasoline is required to include 10% ethanol.
U.S. gasoline production stood at 7.8 million barrels per day for the week ending May 29, down 2.2 million from a year ago — but up from an April bottom of around 6.2 million, according to EIA data.
Read the original story here.
Jun 3, 2020
U.S. fuel ethanol production increased by nearly 6 percent the week ending May 29, while weekly ending stocks of fuel ethanol fell by approximately 3 percent, according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on June 3.
Ethanol production increased to an average of 765,000 barrels per day the week ending May 29, up from an average of 724,000 barrels per day the previous week. The week ending May 29 marks the fifth consecutive week of growth following sharp declines that began in late March and persisted throughout April due to market impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Production was down 279,000 barrels per day when compared to the same week of 2019, and down 314,000 barrels per day when compared to the final week of February 2020, before COVID-19 began to impact U.S. fuel markets.
Weekly ethanol ending stocks fell to 22.476 million barrels the week ending May 29, down from 23.176 million barrels the previous week. May 29 marks the sixth consecutive week of falling ethanol stocks following a new record high that was set at 27.689 million barrels the week ending April 17. When compared to the same week of last year, weekly ethanol ending stocks were down 77,000 barrels.
Read the original story here.
Jun 2, 2020
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 1 updated guidance to provide additional clarification on the manufacturing and compounding of certain alcohol-based hand sanitizer products to help ensure that harmful levels of impurities are not present in ethanol used in hand sanitizer. The Renewable Fuels Association said the guidance provides clarity, but won’t resolve the shortage of hand sanitizer products.
In its announcement, the FDA said it appreciates industry’s willingness to help meet the increasing demand for alcohol-based hand sanitizers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early on during the public health emergency, the FDA said it issued temporarily policies to provide flexibility to help meet increased demand for alcohol-based hand sanitizers.
“We previously updated these temporary guidances in April to reflect data submitted by fuel ethanol manufacturers producing ethanol via fermentation and distillation, indicating that at least some of their fuel ethanol products have harmful chemicals, including gasoline and benzene, which are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents),” said the FDA in a statement released June 1. “These impurities would not be expected from a typical fermentation and distillation process but may be present in the manufacturing environment of fuel or technical-grade ethanol, due to the use of certain chemicals, equipment or containers.
“The FDA is working with industry to ensure that harmful levels of impurities are not present if ethanol is used in these products,” the agency continued. “Based on careful review and consideration of available data, we are specifying interim levels of certain impurities that we have determined can be tolerated for a relatively short period of time, given the emphasis on hand hygiene during the COVID-19 public health emergency and to avoid exacerbating access issues for alcohol-based hand sanitizer.”
FDA’s updated guidance comes roughly a week after Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn on May 26 urging the agency to clarify its temporary policy for the manufacture of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products during the COVID-19 pandemic. In that letter, Ernst and Grassley addressed concerns by the agency that gasoline or other fuel additives come into contact with ethanol during the ethanol production process. That concern, they said, “appears to reflect a misunderstanding of how ethanol plants operate.” The senators stressed that “gasoline is not present at ethanol plants, and alcohol for hand sanitizer that is produced at ethanol plants does not come in contact with gasoline, benzene, or other petroleum contaminants.”
Following the FDA’s June 1 announcement, the RFA issued a statement indicating the updated guidance provides clarity to ethanol producers, but said it won’t resolve current shortages of hand sanitizer products.
“While we appreciate that FDA responded to RFA’s request for more clarity and specific interim impurity limits, we do not believe the new guidance will help alleviate the hand sanitizer shortage in any meaningful way,” said Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA. “We welcome the specificity in the new guidance, but the new interim limits for certain impurities are overly restrictive and create a roadblock for producers who could otherwise supply huge volumes of safe, clean, high-quality ethyl alcohol to hand sanitizer manufacturers. For example, FDA’s new limits for certain impurities are eight times more restrictive than what is typically found in a glass of red wine and twenty times more restrictive than what has been allowed in hand sanitizer by other countries, including Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Meanwhile, as hospitals, first responders, nursing homes, restaurants, retail stores, churches, and other public and private spaces seek out new sources of hand sanitizer to address the shortage, the U.S. continues to significantly ramp up imports of hand sanitizer from China and other countries,” Cooper added. “It is unfortunate that we are importing this product from China, when abundant supplies of high-purity American-made ethanol could be used instead. Still, we will continue to work with the FDA to ensure ethanol producers can do their part to combat COVID-19 and provide larger quantities of ethyl alcohol for hand sanitizer.”
Additional information is available on the FDA website.
Read the original story here.
May 31, 2020
In Washington, D.C.,according to EIA data analyzed by the Renewable Fuels Association for the week ending May 22, ethanol production shifted 9.2%,or 61,000 barrels per day (b/d), to 724,000 b/d—equivalent to 30.41 million gallons daily and the largest volume since March. However, production remains tempered due to COVID-19 disruptions, coming in 31.5% below the same week in 2019.
The four-week average ethanol production rate rose 7.8% to 651,000 b/d, equivalent to an annualized rate of 9.98 billion gallons.
Ethanol stocks thinned by 1.9% to a 19-week low of 23.2 million barrels. Inventories tightened across all regions except the Rocky Mountains (PADD 4), including a 7.8% drop in the West Coast (PADD 5). Total reserves are 2.4% above year-ago volumes.
The volume of gasoline supplied to the U.S. market, a measure of implied demand, rebounded by 6.8% to 7.253 million b/d (111.19 bg annualized). Gasoline demand remained 22.8% lower than a year ago.
Refiner/blender net inputs of ethanol followed, rising 4.7% to 712,000 b/d, equivalent to 10.91 bg annualized but 24.9% below the year-earlier level.
Read the original story here.
May 26, 2020
Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn on May 26 urging the agency to clarify its temporary policy for the manufacture of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The letter references temporary guidance that was issued by the FDA on March 27 and updated on April 15. In its March 27 guidance, the FDA said ethanol used for hand sanitizer production does not need to meet U.S. pharmacopeia (USP) or food chemical codex (FCC) standards as long as other purity standards were met. “Based on this guidance, biofuel manufacturers made investments and began production of alcohol for hand sanitizer,” Ernst and Grassley wrote.
“On April 15, the FDA inexplicably revised this guidance to require ethanol made for hand sanitizer to adhere to USP or FCC standards unless otherwise approved and requested ethanol companies to submit data regarding impurities,” they continued. “Our staff has received conflicting messages about FDA’s concerns and what standard applies for alcohol for use in hand sanitizer. At one point, the indication was that FDA had become concerned that gasoline or other fuel additives might come into contact with ethanol in the production process, which appears to reflect a misunderstanding of how ethanol plants operate. Gasoline is not present at ethanol plants, and alcohol for hand sanitizer that is produced at ethanol plants does not come in contact with gasoline, benzene, or other petroleum contaminants.”
Ernst and Grassley indicated that their constituents in Iowa have said most, if not all, submitted samples of ethyl alcohol have been rejected. “It appears that these rejections may be based on levels of acetaldehyde, a substance that occurs naturally in the distillation process, comparable to what is common in alcoholic beverages,” they wrote. “We note that Health Canada—the Canadian government’s equivalent to FDA—has published a temporary standard that slightly relaxes limitations on acetaldehyde so that ethanol producers may help meet the growing need for hand sanitizer. We trust the FDA will use science and data to ensure the proper threshold for acetaldehyde in hand sanitizer, and I encourage you to consider Canada’s approach.”
The senators ask the FDA to update the April 15 guidance to clarify the threshold for acetaldehyde to give regulatory certainty and end the confusion that renewable fuel manufacturers currently face.
A full copy of the letter can be downloaded from Grassley’s website.
Read the original story here.