Media
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus dared to challenge the accepted notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Using his powers of observation, without a telescope (it was another 50 years after his death when Galileo would have a telescope and validate the Copernican model), and relying upon his knowledge of mathematics, Copernicus postulated that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is at the center of our universe (solar system). Who, today, given the scientific evidence we have, would suggest the earth is at the center of our universe?
We humans, whether we work for federal agencies or biofuel producers, sometimes try our best to interpret the world around us with the tools available to us. The issue is whether we do the analysis with our gut or intellect, capitulate to our bias or use scientific findings and analysis. This short excerpt from a NASA teaching module provides some perspective about a preconceived notion and the role of science:
The earth was considered the center of the universe because the leading theory about this at the time came from the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy in about 140 A.D. In this theory, the earth was at the center of the universe, and the sun, the moon, the planets and stars orbited the earth.
The center of the universe remained at the center of the earth, in the view of the majority of the scientific community, until the 1500s. Occasionally there were those who suggested otherwise, the most famous of which is Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek scientist well-ahead of his time, but he, unfortunately, was not taken very seriously for very long.
The successful challenge to the earth-centered universe was begun by the Polish Astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. In his book De Revolutionibus, he argued that the Sun was at the center of the solar system (and hence universe), and that the planets - including the earth - revolved around the sun. This heliocentric theory provided a conceptually simpler explanation for certain peculiar `retrograde' motions of the planets than the Ptolemaic geocentric theory but encountered stiff resistance from those who felt it was heretical to move humanity so far from the center of the universe. http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/cs_lplan.html
Keep in mind that it was only in the 1930s when humanity gained the understanding, thanks to Hubble, that the universe is actually expanding. So, we keep on learning. But what do we do with this knowledge, whether it’s about the universe or biofuels?
With respect to biofuels and the RFS, the EPA has at least two solid arguments for aggressively enforcing the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs). First, plain and simple: it’s the law. The RFS is unequivocal about the number of gallons of renewable biofuels which are to displace finite, carbon intensive petroleum. The public policy purpose is clear - displace petroleum with renewable biofuels to improve environmental quality, reduce dependence on oil and keep more energy dollars at home.
Another argument the EPA has to aggressively enforce the RVOs is found in science. While there are many knee-jerk reactions to the term biofuels, the science is clear: ethanol from biomass such as corn starch is 44% up to 57% fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory has done an extensive analysis of the upstream and downstream GHG emissions associated with ethanol from a variety of renewable feedstocks.
In addition to the legal, policy and scientific arguments for the use of more biofuels, there is an important local and regional economic factor. The Minnesota biofuel producers I know actually live near their biofuel production plants. Many who work in the plants live nearby and use their income to support themselves and their families. All the consumer, economic, energy independence and environmental benefits are really straightforward - biofuel producers use locally grown renewable ingredients and a biological process just like that used to brew beer. Biofuels mean real energy independence and economic growth because the fuel is homegrown and more energy dollars stay in Minnesota.
Perhaps in Copernicus’ time it was difficult for the establishment to change its views. Over the last 400 years we have learned much more about our place in the world and the universe. And we have learned a great deal more about the science surrounding biofuels and the economic and environmental benefits. We are not asking the EPA to wrestle with an issue as profound as the heliocentric theory. We simply ask that the EPA comply with the RFS and acknowledge the scientific findings about the way biofuels, such as ethanol, can right here, right now, reduce GHG emissions. EPA, for the well-being of current and future generations, let renewable biofuels displace petroleum - comply with and enforce the RFS.
As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
One law which touches the lives of virtually every person in the United States is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS touches those who fuel their vehicles with renewable ethanol and those who have built and continue to sustain the biofuel industry as well as all of us who benefit from the reduced carbon emissions due to the use of renewable biofuels like ethanol. In the next few days we will know whether the EPA plans to uphold the RFS. At the least, the EPA should uphold the RFS because it is the law and for a host of social, economic, energy security and environmental reasons.
In Minnesota alone the biofuel industry supports approximately 18,600 jobs. These jobs are filled by women and men who support their households. In practical terms, biofuels help real Minnesotans pay the bills and, for example, send their young adults on to higher education and generally do those things which accompany a higher quality of life made possible by biofuels such as ethanol.
On an even more macro level, biofuels in Minnesota contributes about $1.74 billion in annual household income. And along with that are the $132 million paid in taxes. In addition to the social and economic benefits provided by the ethanol producers in Minnesota there are the tangible environmental benefits.
Annually, renewable ethanol is displacing 712,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota. For Minnesota, the use of E15 in place of E10 would serve to displace another 358,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The additional GHG emission reduction potential has the same carbon reduction value of removing 76,000 vehicles from the highways in Minnesota.
The RFS is also about consumer value and energy security. Just a few days ago E85 was selling for 62 cents less than regular and E15 has consistently been approximately 10 cents less than regular. And every gallon of renewable biofuel produced in Minnesota is one less gallon of fuel we need to import from the tar sands and overseas.
To uphold the RFS because it is the law should be self evident to the EPA. If the EPA requires additional reasons to justify doing that which is required under the law, consider the full scope of energy security, consumer, economic and environmental benefits the RFS has provided and the many more it has yet to provide under full implementation of the law. All of us are counting on the EPA to do what is right and expect the agency will do so.
As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
Despite EPA’s proclamation that it considered many public comments regarding the proposal to lower the Renewable Volume Obligation numbers, the Agency somehow missed the most important comment: enforce the law.
Based on the final rule, it seems the EPA also missed a few other critical public policy and environmental factors. In the 202 page final rule, the EPA reminds us “The fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the CAA is clear: to increase the use of renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022 in order to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase energy security.”
And the executive summary to the final rule goes on to state “Renewable fuels represent an opportunity for the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels towards a set of lower GHG transportation fuels, and a chance for a still-developing low GHG technology sector to grow. These lower GHG renewable fuels include corn starch ethanol....”
In short, the EPA affirms that ethanol, whether conventional or advanced, is a lower GHG transportation fuel. The obvious conclusion which should follow from the EPA restatement of the RFS purpose and the unequivocal statutory volumes is straightforward: (A) enforce the volume numbers to send a message of certainty to biofuel producers so they can continue to grow the sector and (B) push the petroleum industry to give consumers more biofuel options so as to reduce GHG emissions now.
The final volume numbers, without doing a RIN analysis, look like 10% of the actual and projected overall growth for gasoline consumption. While some debate whether the EPA actually did push through the mythical blendwall, we should not loose sight of the fact the actual consumption capacity for biofuels (E85 for Flex Fuel Vehicles, E10 and E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles) with the current fuel dispensing infrastructure is well above 27 billion gallons. In other words, the 15 billion gallon number for conventional biofuels is indeed feasible. For details on the consumption capacity issue, see the EPA reference to the Energy Information Administration in the Federal Register at 33128.
The intent of the RFS is indeed to stimulate and drive change, a move toward greater use of renewable biofuels. In a Nation that has been dominated by petroleum and consumers’ limited access to biofuels for many decades, the RFS provides some modicum of certainty for those who are responsible for making biofuel production investment decisions and giving consumers greater access to renewable biofuels.
Unfortunately, the EPA missed the obvious. The Agency failed to comply with and enforce the black letter law and has thereby put off greater systemic change for another day. Given the clear purpose, intent and demonstrated effectiveness of the RFS thus far, the EPA decision also sends the wrong message to conferees at the Paris Climate Convention as well as investors, the environmental community, those diligently working to tamp down GHG emissions and the petroleum industry.
Digging into the numbers a bit further, we find the RFS set unequivocal volumes for renewable biofuels (conventional and advanced) to be used starting in 2006 and extending out to the year 2022. The total renewable fuel level set in law for 2014 is 18.15 billion gallons which includes at least 14.4 billion gallons as conventional biofuel. Since 2014 is history and RINs have been generated, EPA set the number at 13.61 billion gallons.
While 2015 is not yet history, according to the EIA the overall consumption of gasoline is up. The RFS explicitly calls for 20.5 billion gallons of biofuel to be used with at least 15 billion gallons as conventional. Instead, the EPA set the conventional number at 14.05 billion gallons, essentially mirroring 10% of the overall increase in gasoline consumption. If gasoline consumption were to drop below projections, would the EPA enforce the final rule or find some reason to adjust the number down to once again accommodate the petroleum industry?
Finally, for 2016, the RFS states the number of gallons of renewable fuel to be used is 22.25 billion with at least 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel. In place of the statutory provision, the EPA used its version of the biofuel future by setting the number at 14.5 billion gallons.
When one considers the history and legislative intent behind the RFS, the EPA’s final rule flies in the face of the law and sets another dangerous precedent. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act (RFS1) put key stakeholders on notice that renewable biofuels were to have more space in the transportation fuel market. Then, in 2007, RFS2 provided a second explicit notice and clear requirements along with methods by which affected parties could comply with the statute. Biofuel producers responded by committing financial and logistic investments to make the production capacity available. On the other hand, the petroleum industry clung to the habits of the past buying RINs rather than facilitating greater consumer access to E15 and higher blends.
It will take some more time to fully assess the immediate implications of the EPA’s backsliding. Meanwhile, a few preliminary observations can be made at this time. The EPA missed the obvious purpose, intent and statutory provisions in the law. Consequently, the EPA missed the opportunity to send a signal to the petroleum industry: consumers can indeed expect more biofuel options at the fuel dispensers and the industry must comply with the law.
Finally, the EPA missed a rare opportunity to stick to the law, as the RFS was written by Congress years ago, for President Obama to present to the Paris Climate Conference. The RFS should still be held up as one of the most constructive and effective models for what can be done to reduce GHG emissions from the millions of vehicles that are, and will be, part of the rolling stock for many years to come.
Despite the EPA decision, we will continue to stand strong together and find ways to push past the EPA’s failure to fully enforce the RFS. We will find creative ways to deploy the USDA Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership and the Minnesota E15 Dispenser grant programs to help fuel retailers give consumers greater access to more biofuel options. Through these actions we will build increased energy security, continue to boost the economy and further reduce GHG emissions.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
In 2015, additional new actions were taken and successfully implemented to further pave the way for greater availability and access to clean, renewable biofuels such as ethanol. These actions are important because for Minnesotans, it means greater energy independence, a stronger rural economy by using locally-grown renewable ingredients produced and processed in Minnesota, consumer savings at the fuel pump, and further reductions in climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions. Looking ahead at the biofuels industry in Minnesota can be placed in these three categories.
Where and How Biofuels Are Produced
Lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ethanol are up to 57 percent less than gasoline. But on top of that, Minnesota's 21st century biofuel producers have continued to make significant strides in further reducing the amount of energy and water used to make a gallon of ethanol. For example, producers are now using more energy efficient processing equipment and reusing stormwater and municipal wastewater.
In fact, another one of our plants recently announced a major modernization and expansion plan to build on the succeses of the past and maximize the best available technology for today and the future. We can expect to see more our producers undertake more innovative measures to improve efficiency in 2016 to responsibily produce a clean, low carbon fuel for Minnesota drivers.
Greater Availability of Biofuels for Consumers & Fleet Operators
In the past 18 months, we have reached out and directly engaged with 2,500 fuel retailers in the state as well as fuel retail networks in the region, which comprise some 2,700 fueling stations. Based on our findings, most fuel retailers are seeking to diversify their product offerings by replacing typical midgrade fuels with E15 - a fuel that can be used by almost all cars on the road and will be required by the next generation of fuel efficient, high-compression engines.
In 2016, we will see a significant increase in the availability of E15. Independent research has shown that 85 percent of fuel retailers already have fuel storage and dispensing components that are compantible with E15. And thanks to the vision and leadership of Gov. Mark Dayton and the Minnesota Legislature, funds were made availble to assist a few hundred fuel retailers to make minor modifications to dispense E15. This funding has now been augmented by a $8 million grant from the USDA under its Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program. In total, this funding will enable up to 165 stations to offer blends like E15 and E85 to consumers.
Increasing the availability of E15 in the market as the new regular fuel are far reaching. We can replace millions of gallons of carbon-intensive, finite fossil fuel (including dirty tar sands oil). All vehicles 2001 and newer will immediately benefit from the higher octane and produce fewer GHG emissions.
According to Dr Steffen Mueller from the University of Illinois at Chicago, CO2 reduction in Minnesota from making E15 the new regular (on top of the amount of CO2 already eliminated from E10) would be 1.07 million metric tons annually. This, according to the EPA's greenhouse gas equivalenceis calculator, is the same as removing emissions from 225,895 vehicles from Minnesota's roads annually.
Just as consumers are asking for a cleaner fuel, so too are state fleet vehicle managers and other leaders in local government. In cooperation with these fleet managers and the Minnesota Department of Administration, for 2016, we can expect to see E15 usage increase in state fleet vehicles which will meet their GHG reduction goals.
The Future Is Today
In the last few days, I read news that a major vehicle manufacturer has produced a non-flex fuel vehicle that is approved to use up to E25. We plan to further investigate details of this vehicle and its engine and will report our findings back to you soon. But on its fact, this news is very promising as it confirms what we've heard for years : new fuel efficient, high-compression and low emission engines perfom the best with fuels with higher ethanol content.
To sum up, the Minnesota biofuels industry is delivering on many fronts - energy security, economic, consumer and environmental benefits - and is positioned to do more in 2016. This broad scope of benefits will grow and expand to further serve all Minnesotans as more biofuels will displace a greater amount of fossil fuels and reduce even more GHG emissions. For the vast majority of people who continue to rely on vehicles with an internal combustion engine, ethanol will continue to be the biggest factor in reducing harmful emissions.
Thank you for your support in 2015 and we look forward to your continued involvement in 2016.
Happy New Year!
By Timothy J.Rudnicki, Esq
Just as individuals have multiple issues of interest to them, so too do candidates for political office represent multiple issues and interests. For voters who have a keen interest in biofuel issues, such as the future of ethanol, it's important they ask candidates for office where they stand on their support for biofuels. More importantly, voters need to ask pointed questions to get beyond the sound bites and, after the election, voters will need to hold their elected officials accountable for their claims while running for office.
All too often candidates claim they support biofuels by reading a script which contains some magic words such as : the RFS, the blend wall and regulations. For those Minnesotans who support the ethanol industry and the renewable fuel it produces to boost the economy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, save consumers money at the fuel dispenser and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, you can put your probing questions skills to work at candidate forums leading up to the Minnesota caucuses on March 1.
First, you should have a few facts at your fingertips. You should know that the RFS is working in Minnesota. Thanks to the RFS and its counterpart law in Minnesota, the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association has the new and fresh opportunity to engage with thousands of fuel retailers and to work with them to make E15 and higher blends of ethanol available to their customers.
The RFS and its Minnesota counterpart have also helped to boost the economy. In 2014, for example, the ethanol industry contributed more than $2.34 billion to the economy while supporting over 18,000 jobs. Meanwhile, E15 is selling for approximately 10 cents less per gallon compared to regular unleaded. In addition to the economic boost and savings provided for consumers, ethanol is helping to lower GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Equally important is the fact these benefits have room to grow under the RFS. Replacing regular fuel with E15 can reduce the annual carbon emissions in Minnesota by an estimated 1.07 million metric tons (equal to taking 225,895 vehicles off Minnesota highways for a year).
As for the blend wall issue, thanks to the RFS and its Minnesota counterpart, in 2014, Minnesota was using 12.2 percent ethanol in its transportation fuel. The mythical 10 percent blend wall is just that - a myth. Remember, the RFS calls for using "at least the applicable volume of renewable fuel" set forth in the law.
Finally, when it comes to regulations, let's be smart. It's too easy for political candidates to lodge some general complaint about regulations in the hopes of getting our attention. We need to be clear with candidates about which regulations act as artificial barriers to biofuels and focus on repairing them. A vibrant industry is being built upon our system of statutes and rules. We need to be strategic in industry efforts to improve those laws which have helped to make Minnesota and the Nation more energy independent, save consumers money at the fuel dispenser, boost the economy and improve environmental quality.
Second, once we have some facts in hand, we need to use them to have meaningful and constructive discussions with candidates running for office. Generally, does the candidate actually understand the good benefits that have been produced for communities in Minnesota, consumers and the environment based on some of the facts noted above? Test their knowledge about the tangible benefits of the RFS and how it has helped Minnesotans.
After you ask the candidate where they stand on the RFS, take your probing questions to the next level. When a candidate says she or he supports the RFS, dig deeper to get them to tell you what it means to support the RFS. For instance, would the candidate, as the President or a Member of Congress, work to aggressively support the RFS as written? Will Congressional candidates, if elected, fight for the RFS in Committees and on the House floor (note: no US Senators from Minnesota are up for election this year)? Will the presidential candidate veto any bill which attempts to modify the RFS?
You might also test the candidates' knowledge, or educate them, with some follow-up questions. For example, if they support the RFS, what do they see as the future for biofuels beyond 2022? Find out what they know about the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program. Would they expand it or do they have some ideas for making E15 and higher blends available across Minnesota and the Nation? Are they familiar with the E15 Dispenser Law in Minnesota and how funding will be used to help fuel retailers make the minor upgrades necessary so they can offer E15 as the new regular fuel?
The facts and questions offered here are merely the starting point. You probably already have a set of probing questions ready to go when you meet with the candidates. What do you plan to ask the candidates about biofuels? We'd like to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. from you.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Last week, on behalf of Minnesota biofuel producers, I spent a few days in Washington, D.C., meeting with members of Congress. My goal was to “tell the renewable biofuel story” for the purpose of creating or bolstering support for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the ethanol produced in Minnesota. But I also made it my goal to listen to what policymakers, legislative aids and others had to say about those issues that matter to biofuel producers. My take away from many hours of meetings is a mix of support and new challenges.
Many policymakers understand the economic, energy independence, consumer and environmental benefits associated with renewable biofuel. And that’s why they support the RFS, the United States Department of Agriculture initiated the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program and some discussions are underway to explore how to address the Reid Vapor Pressure issue.
The message we brought to Washington was built upon the facts reflected in the number of producers in Minnesota, the growing number of fuel retailers who offer E15 and higher blends of ethanol, businesses associated with the biofuel industry and the metrics from a new ABF Study on the contribution of the ethanol industry in Minnesota (this study will be released soon).
Among supporters of the RFS and biofuels generally, our message was well received. We “refreshed” the numbers and gave a human face to otherwise two-dimensional reports. We must continue to bolster those who support the RFS and all it represents for today and the future of biofuels.
But we can’t ignore the challenges that remain. While I was in Washington, some policymakers ramped up their attacks on the RFS. Some have suggested the RFS be eviscerated because it simply is not needed or is a subsidy or that we will never get to producing cellulosic biofuels or because carbon emissions don’t matter. The list goes on.
One of the more bizarre statements I heard from a group of independent petroleum producers speaks volumes about the delusional state in which some function in our nation's capital. The science is very clear on the fact that petroleum is a finite carbon source, which emits carbon and other pollutants. It is not renewable on a human timeline as are biofuels. In the face of these facts and common sense, these petroleum representatives made a rather startling remark : anyone who puts fuel in their vehicle or uses a petroleum-based product is responsible for carbon emissions and other pollution. Not surprisingly, they left out the part that consumers don't have much a choice in the matter and that consumers would be able to reduce their carbon footprint if there were more renewable options and alternatives to carbon-intensive finite fossil fuels.
I was still in my listening mode and here is what they offered next: "We, the petroleum industry, have let others define us, and we need to change that."
This time, they conveniently omited scientific fact: no matter how much you try to redefine yourselves - carbon intensive finite fossil fuels, when burned, will always emit carbon and other pollutants. And fossil fuels, as their name implies, will not be regenerating anytime soon.
None of this would matter if this were some silly word game with PR spin doctors nor if some form of reason were prevalent in Washington. But here we have peddlers of propaganda twisting reality to sustain the fossil fuel status quo. More importantly, some policymakers either have, or are considering, adopting positions which could prop up petroleum while throwing a damaging blow to biofuels.
We will continue to call out the outright fictions where we need to do so to ensure policymakers build upon the success of the RFS. And the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association will continue to build upon the facts and science and make the case to bolster our allies and win over new supporters. We will continue to do that by using a three dimensional approach which highlight biofuels, such as ethanol, and their concomitant economic, consumer, energy independence and environmental benefits. Further, we will continue to remind policymakers that it is the RFS which provides those immediate benefits while holding promise for an even more sustainable and renewable future with biofuels.
Later this week, we will be releasing a report on the ethanol industry's economic contribution in Minnesota in 2015. You can also check out national economic reports and other studies here. As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Lately, some environmental groups have stepped up their attacks on biofuels. Some attacks are blatant while others are a bit more subtle like ignoring the legal definition of renewable biofuels and instead creating some fictional definition to serve the purpose of a photo opportunity. Some environmental groups seem more intent on subterfuge rather than building upon biofuels' success in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Here is some context for why I think it's important for all of us to be working together and using the tools we already have to reduce GHG emissions. According to NASA, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.."
The NASA climate change website contains many measurements showing a rise in sea levels, decreases in land ice, decreases in the arctic's sea ice in the summer and an increase in global temperature. Based on some extensive measurements, CO2 levels are now at their highest level in 650,000 years. Even a non-scientist can draw some informed conclusions from NASA's data.
As such, if we collectively want to cut GHG emissions, we need to face reality and have an honest conversation about the pragmatic issues that confront us.
Consider, for example, that approximately a third of annual GHG emissions emanate from the transportation sector which still relies heavily on carbon-intensive petroleum. Last year, some 17.5 million new vehicles were sold in the United States and well over 99.5 percent of those vehicles are equipped with internal combustion engines.
Given the service life of those vehicles, they will probably be on the road for at least another 12 to 15 years. Closer to home, 4.6 million vehicles are registered in Minnesota and all but about 3,500 use gasoline.
While walking, biking or using mass transit may be an option for some, the vast majority still need to drive their gasoline-powered vehicles to get to their destinations. So how do we help those millions of people reduce their GHG emissions?
One simple option is to displace more gasoline with renewable biofuels, which have lower lifecycle GHG emissions, because nearly 90 percent of the vehicles on the road can use E15.
E15 has higher octane than regular unleaded, generally costs 10 cents less per gallon and, on average, each gallon of ethanol has 44 percent fewer lifecycle GHG emissions.
Additionally, according to the University of Illinois at Chicago, switching to E15 in Minnesota would cut GHG emissions by an additional 358,000 metric tons annually (based on data analysis conducted in 2015). Those emission reductions are the equivalent of removing 75,368 passenger vehicles off the road for a year.
Some environmental groups might accept the science surrounding biofuels and GHG lifecycle analysis, but we know they still take issue with how biofuels are produced without having even studied or toured a modern ethanol plant. They miss, for example, the fact that Minnesota ethanol producers recycle their water (no discharge), recapture Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from air emissions and use stormwater runnoff or treated municipal sewage for some of their process water. Today's 21st century ethanol plant operates even more efficiently compared to those operating just a few years ago. Read here for more details.
Another issue some environmental groups challenge is the renewable ingredients used by ethanol plants. While MBA does not represent farmers, we did our homework. I have personally met with and interviewed some farmers who produce renewable ingredients for ethanol plants. I learned, for example, these farmers care about making a living today and the future wellbeing of generations of new farmers and all of us who depend upon the farmer and the land for food, feed, fiber and fuel. These farmers use, for instance, GPS and other modern equipment to minimize inputs and control runoff and they were doing so before Minnesota passed the buffer strip law.
Finally, I want to emphasize that some Minnesota environmental groups are engaging with us to have constructive conversations about GHG emissions and the role of biofuels in reducing those emissions. Let's keep those conversations going. For all those other groups who purport to have an interest in reducing GHG emissions now rather than in the distant future, I invite you to engage with us as others have done so we can explore the scope of issues and how we can address them.
Energy security, consumer, economic and environmental benefits are already being derived from ethanol produced in Minnesota. Ethanol can play an even bigger role in reducing GHG emissions in Minnesota's transportation sector right here, right now. The challenge is for all of us to find a way to work together so we can maximize every GHG reducing solution.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Whether Governor Mark Dayton will call a special legislative session, at the time this column is written, remains open to speculation. But, we do know that 1,652 bills were introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives and 1,414 bills were introduced in the Minnesota Senate in the recently concluded legislative session. And it may surprise some but some of those bills if passed would have either directly or indirectly lowered or raised market barriers to ethanol and renewable chemicals.
We were, once again, active on two fronts as we (1) worked to advance legislation aimed at strengthening the biofuel and renewable chemical industry in Minnesota and (2) played offense by tracking, monitoring and “fixing” or opposing bills which could be detrimental to the biofuel industry in Minnesota.
To determine a bill’s relevance, MBA uses a two-prong approach. First, we look for bills that explicitly reference ethanol and biofuels generally. Then we assess whether the bills are helpful, act as a barrier or are neutral and take metered action.
The second prong consists of a deeper dive into the bill's language. For example, we assess various bill provisions and whether they could impact, either in a positive, negative or neutral manner, legal definitions, renewable ingredients and other production inputs, business-related issues and rail transportation issues, to name a few. Our assessment informed the engagement process. Based on our assessment, at least 24 bills introduced during the 2016 Legislative Session had some touch point with biofuels and biochemcials or their production and distribution in Minnesota and other markets.
Let’s briefly examine two of those 24 bills and what happened behind the scenes.
Changing a state or federal definition of biofuels has profound implications for biofuel and biochemical producers, the supply chain and consumers. In other words, the implications, especially when the definition is embedded in many other statutes, stretch far and wide. One such bill involved the definition of biobutanol.
The purpose of the bill provision at issue, according to its proponents and the Senate sponsor, was to secure producer payments for renewable biochemicals. In its first iteration, the bill changed the legal definition to make the end product fit the producer payment criteria. Given the implications of such a change, following discussions and a review of the existing law, stakeholders found an agreeable, transparent solution: rather than changing the legal definition, simply make biobutanol eligible for the payments.
That change is embodied in a much larger set of appropriation provisions found in Chapter 189 which was presented to Gov. Dayton on May 24. As of this writing, the Governor has not signed nor vetoed the bill.
Another example of our two-prong approach involves catching an energy security bill spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The bill, in its initial form, essentially called for an inventory of Minnesota’s energy sources. It noted the role of petroleum and biofuels but in the fuels inventory provisions, the bill included petroleum gasoline but excluded biofuels. Given this bill’s history, although it did not pass out of the 2016 legislature, we can expect to see it in 2017. We can work with the department to improve the bill by, for example, explicitly including E15 and E85 in the inventory and perhaps defining the greater role E85 and E15 can play in further diversifying Minnesota’s transportation fuel.
This behind the scene look at the Minnesota Legislature provides just a few examples of how the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association continually strives to help strengthen the biofuel industry in Minnesota and give consumers more choice at the fuel dispenser.
As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
More...
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq.
The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA) serves the ethanol industry by focusing on three key project areas in Minnesota : Fuel Supply Chain (assisting fuel retailers in making the transition to E15), Communications and Education (getting the biofuel message out and empowering consumers) and Advocacy (lowering artificial barriers to the ethanol industry). For this month's column, I will limit it to the latest developments in our work with lawmakers.
Anyone who has kept abreast with the ethanol industry in the last 10 years has probably noticed that there are constant attempts to eviscerate or undermine laws that support the industry such as the RFS and Minnesota's Petroleum Displacement Law.
Both these laws are roadmaps towards a more sustainable energy future. But, as you can imagine, lawmakers and their staff are constantly bombarded with "data" and (mis)information from parties that have a vested interest in eliminating ethanol from our nation's fuel supply. As such, we work with lawmakers to ensure they refer to actual facts and have the most accurate and latest information on ethanol. We also work on a one-on-one basis with lawmakers to provide them with Minnesota-specific data such as ethanol consumption volume, economic impacts, environmental metrics and technological and process improvements within ethanol plants.
From time-to-time, we bring lawmakers and their staff to ethanol plants and provide them with tours so that they can get a better understanding of ethanol production and the industry. This month, for example, we hosted Paula Sunde, the agriculture and energy field representative for Sen. Al Franken, at the Guardian Energy facility in Janesville. During her visit, she had the opportunity to observe the many technological advancements the ethanol industry has made over the years.
For instance, she learned how energy and water use have been dramatically reduced from what they were a decade ago. She also learned how water is reused, wastewater discharge is eliminated, "waste heat" is recaptured and used to preheat process water, and corn oil is derived from the ethanol production process.
Moreover, we gave her the opportunity to meet with the men and women who work at these plants and the far reaching economic impact of the ethanol produced. After all, the renewable ethanol produced at the Guardian Energy facility in Janesville is not only used in Minnesota, but across the nation and overseas.
So, what's ahead?
This is a busy election year and every seat in the House and Senate will be up for election. That means we will be engaging with candidates to inform them about the Minnesota biofuel industry as well as incoming and returning legislators. And we will continue to work with members of Minnesota's congressional delegation to ensure lawmakers have Minnesota-specific information they can use to push back on attempts to alter the biofuel roadmap.
At MBA, we look forward to continuing advocacy efforts that serve to strengthen the biofuel industry. That's because renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn starch or other plant material, produced in Minnesota make all of us more energy secure, help save consumers money at the pump, boosts the economy and drives down harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Picture Caption : Jim Slattery, production supervisor at Guardian Energy, Brian Kletscher, CEO at Highwater Ethanol, Paula Sunde, agriculture and energy field representative for Sen. Al Franken and Ben Stover, plant manager at Guardian Energy.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Does a fanatical fixation on an advanced biofuel fiction do anything to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions today? Based on the clear and convincing evidence provided by science, the answer is a resounding no. This particular work of fiction I am referring to is the malarkey contained in the 2016 Climate Solutions and Economic Opportunities report (CSEO Report 2016) by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), which was issued on July 21.
The CSEO Report 2016 merely gave lip service to biofuels. If its vacuous and shallow analysis of the actual use of biofuels in Minnesota and the evolution toward advanced biofuels is meant to serve the Governor and his Cabinet, then it was a waste of paper.
The truth is, the CSEO Report 2016 sets forth a delusional vision of advanced biofuels that is far removed from reality. Waiting for the fulfillment of this delusional vision is as good as handing the petroleum industry a blank check.
And that check will be paid by present and future generations and through further degradation of the environment as the petroleum industry is projected to supply carbon intensive fuel well into 2040.
The EQB is comprised of commissioners from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture and the Department of Employment and Economic Development and the purpose of the CSEO Report 2016 was a call to action to further reduce GHG emissions in Minnesota.
Perhaps the only thing positive of the CSEO Report 2016 was the unity within the Administration to making more progress in reducing GHG emissions. The subject matter and jurisdiction of key commissioners, for instance, appeared to align with the issue of emissions.
But here are some examples of the flawed assumptions in the report that omitted some basic yet critical and essential science surrounding biofuels and lifecycle GHG emissions.
First, to be clear, the report does acknowledge the role of biofuels in displacing carbon intensive, finite fossil fuels.
On page 7, it states “Minnesota energy sources include wind, solar, biomass, and hydro” and makes a connection between “homegrown, renewable resources” and their uses, which include “vehicle fuel.” But that connection is quickly lost or forgotten in subsequent sections.
In the real world, the connection between biofuels and GHG reduction is clear and supported by sound science. Failure to connect the dots between biofuels and GHG emission reduction is akin to adhering to the theory the earth is at the center of the solar system.
The EQB need only turn to the analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory to gain greater insight into emission savings from biofuels.
Argonne’s comprehensive analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions examines all stages of biofuel production including growing and harvesting biomass (e.g., corn, grasses), making biofuel and the combustion of biofuels in vehicles. Argonne’s data show GHG emissions for ethanol are from 44 percent to 95 percent less compared to gasoline.
Thus, the more petroleum that is displaced with biofuels, the greater the GHG emission reductions in the transportation sector.
But, according, to the CSEO Report 2016, biofuels will not have a positive impact on reducing transportation sector emissions.
For example, on page 18, it concludes that future emission reductions will ONLY be achieved through fuel efficiency. What about increasing the use of fuels with lower GHG emissions? Surely any environmental board serious about reducing emissions can see the benefits of fuel efficient vehicles using greener fuels.
Shouldn’t the opportunity to further reduce emissions with biofuels, such as E15 be embraced and acted upon in an expedited manner?
Instead, the only time biofuels have a role to play, according to the report, is when it’s an advanced biofuel. This astounding, flawed and irresponsible conclusion could lead to flawed policy recommendations that would undermine efforts to actually reduce GHG emissions.
Indeed, it is as though conventional biofuels, which is in almost every gallon of gasoline consumed in Minnesota, has done nothing to reduce emissions.
Here are some metrics to put the last assertion into perspective. According to an analysis conducted by Dr Steffan Mueller from the University of Illinois, E10 reduces 712,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions annually in Minnesota. If E15 became the new standard in Minnesota, annual emission reductions would total 1.07 million metric tons. This is the equivalent of removing 225,895 vehicles a year.
The incremental number of tons of GHG emissions reduced when going from E10 to E15, based on the EPA’s greenhouse gas equivalency calculator, is equivalent to 90 wind turbines.
On a more macro level, California's Life Cycle Associates concluded that the federal Renewable Fuel Standard reduced GHG emission by 354 million metric tons from 2008 to 2015. That is equivalent to removing annual emissions from 74 million cars. Note, Life Cycle Associates is the same entity that completed studies used to establish fuel carbon pathway intensities for California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
But such data or that from Argonne are not found in the report nor the complete strategies document. Absent this type of information, how can the Governor and his Cabinet make truly informed decisions?
To act upon the Report alone would undermine progress that is being made to reduce transportation sector GHG emissions with biofuels. Instead, acting upon the science of biofuels holds great potential to create new opportunities for reducing GHG emissions today and well into the future.
In short, the CSEO Report 2016 rings hollow with respect to biofuels and at best is a distraction from the real work at hand. It missed an incredible opportunity to connect the dots for the Governor and his Cabinet.
Even more critical, the EQB commissioners hold the potential to facilitate cost-effective opportunities to further cut GHG emissions.
There is still time, however, for the Governor and his Cabinet to get this biofuel GHG analysis and some results-oriented policy positions back on track.
Embracing the science of biofuels and actualizing their potential can provide an economic boost, help consumers save money at the fuel dispenser, strengthen our collective energy security and drive down GHG emissions. We strongly encourage Governor Dayton and his Cabinet to embrace the science of biofuels and we stand ready to work with him and his Cabinet to actualize the biofuel benefits today.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Seldom do the puzzle pieces align so perfectly as they now have to give Minnesota motorists greater access to E15 and higher blends of Minnesota grown, renewable ethanol.
Some of those puzzle pieces include State and Federal funds for fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction tools, economic development and consumer savings.
The puzzle picture, however, is only complete when the aligned pieces are put together.
Infrastructure
One part of the storage and dispensing infrastructure puzzle involves pre-blended E15. This is a valuable product for the growing number of fuel retailers who are unable to install a blender pump yet desire to offer their customers E15 (marketed by some and better known to consumers as “88 Octane” or “unleaded plus”). The good news: this part of the puzzle is now in place and more pieces of the fuel supply chain can be added.
Diesel Dogs Fuel Services, based in St. Paul, is the first fuel wholesaler known to have actually delivered a load of pre-blended E15. And Diesel Dogs is prepared to deliver many more loads of E15 to a rapidly growing range of customers. We at Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association are pleased Diesel Dogs has seized this opportunity to service the rapidly growing number of fuel retailers who want to make the switch to E15.
Based on Minnesota transportation fuel consumption data from the Energy Information Administration, approximately 2.4 billion gallons annually remain to be converted from 10 percent ethanol to 15 percent ethanol.
This brings us to the next piece of the puzzle - fuel retailers. While we have seen a growing demand for E15 from fuel retailers, some fuel retailers need to make relatively minor adjustments to their dispensers so they can make E15 available to their customers. That’s where the State and Federal Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership Programs fit in.
Both State and Federal Funds as well as private matching dollars are available to assist fuel retailers. Hundreds of fuel retailers have already expressed interest in these programs which consist of either concrete breaking and blender pumps or the dispenser retrofits. In addition to fuel retailers’ demonstrated interest in the fuel dispenser retrofit program, we know of at least 50 independent retailers, annually impacting at least 60 million gallons of fuel, who sought to participate in the Federal Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership Program which could partially fund new underground storage tanks and blender pumps. For both these programs, the complete infrastructure fix and the dispenser retrofit, we know the fuel retailers remain interested because they will have the resources to rapidly roll out E15 or E15 plus higher level blends of ethanol.
But all of this potential is just that until it is actualized. Based on available information, the Program must be completed by the end of the year and to the best of our knowledge has yet to be actualized. Thus, the multi-million dollar question yet to be answered: will the State seize this Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership Program and secure its full implementation based on a realistic timeline?
GHG Emissions
The second big puzzle piece are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While the consultant who put together the Climate Solutions and Economic Opportunities Report dismisses the role of today’s 21st century biofuels in reducing GHG emissions, to ignore this factor and the concomitant science puts Minnesotans at risk.
To compound this problem, State Agencies have gone so far as to dismiss the additive value of more efficient vehicles and biofuels in the fight to reduce GHG emissions. These State Agencies ignore the science and metrics and are content with waiting for only the biofuels of the future.
Obviously the consultant and the State Agencies have not done their homework with respect to 21st century biofuels and the actual production of biofuels in Minnesota. Furthermore, had the consultant and the State Agencies done their homework, they would have discovered that fuel storage and dispensing systems as well as internal combustion engines are incapable of distinguishing between today’s 21st century biofuels and advanced biofuels. The molecule is the same.
What should matter to those State Agencies that have the authority to set policy priorities and corresponding budgets that will impact all Minnesotans is reducing carbon emissions in the transportation sector.
Consider this reality. Minnesota ethanol producers are in a continuous process improvement mode. That means they actively look for ways to make more renewable ethanol, dried distillers grains with solubles and corn oil for biodiesel by using less energy and less water. Given all the continuous process improvements that have been made in the last few years, the GHG lifecycle factor for ethanol is even better today than it was in 2012. Yet even in 2012, when the Well to Wheels GHG lifecycle analysis was completed by Argonne National Laboratory, the GHG lifecycle for ethanol was from 44 percent to 57 percent less than petroleum gasoline.
More importantly, in the world beyond consultants to State Agencies, when renewable ethanol is used in vehicles, it does have a major impact on reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector.
Dr. Steffen Mueller, with the University of Illinois, Chicago, did some investigation. He found that by simply moving from E10 to E15 as the new unleaded regular, Minnesota could cut annual GHG emissions by 358,000 metric tons. The slight increase in ethanol (from 10 percent to 15 percent) produces a GHG emission reduction which is equivalent to removing at least 75,000 vehicles from Minnesota roadways or installing and operating approximately 90 2MW wind conversation systems.
State Agencies, rather than dismissing today’s 21st century ethanol, should embrace ethanol as the immediately available GHG reducing tool for the transportation sector. But will Minnesota Agencies finally embrace today's ethanol as a GHG emission reducing tool and seize the opportunity to make an impact in the transportation sector today?
Economic Contribution
On the economic front, the third big puzzle piece, there remains a great deal of opportunity for growth in Minnesota’s renewable fuel sector. In 2015 the ethanol industry supported over 18,000 jobs and injected $ 2.1 billion into the economy. These renewable ethanol industry dollars went into the household incomes of real working Minnesotans, tax coffers and the overall vitality of communities.
In addition to the ongoing economic contribution of the renewable ethanol industry to Minnesotans, some producers are investing millions of dollars to further modernize the local ethanol plant and increase the capacity to displace more finite, carbon intensive petroleum gasoline.
Here again, the question remains: will State Agencies passively or actively dissuade ethanol producers from making further contributions to the economy or instead seize opportunities to build upon success and facilitate the further growth of this homegrown industry and the production of renewable fuel?
Consumer Benefits
Finally, what about the consumer? By consumer I mean, for example, individuals who purchase E15 for their personal transportation needs as well as local units of government who fuel vehicle fleets.
E15 offers more octane for engine performance and is generally 10 cents less per gallon compared to regular. Using data from the Energy Information Administration, annual gasoline consumption is approximately 2.4 billion gallons. When we do the math on E15, at 10 cents less per gallon, Minnesotans could save $240 million in a year. That $240 million can stay in household budgets and be used in other sectors of the economy.
Conclusion
Over the years, many State Lawmakers and Governors, along with renewable ethanol visionaries, have been instrumental in fostering the growth and development of Minnesota’s ethanol industry. More recently, while some progress is being made in efforts to go to the next level by creating greater access for E15 in the marketplace, it has become clear that much more work remains to be done. We need to redouble our efforts on fuel supply chain issues and in educating consumers about their fuel choice options and the implications for their household budgets and the environment.
But we also need to have better alignment of the puzzle pieces within Minnesota government. Then we need to put the puzzle pieces together to create a renewable energy future that grows the economy and tackles GHG emissions today and well into the future. To be clear, some progress has been made and continues to be made in providing more access for E15 and higher blends of ethanol. Yet in some quarters of State Government there seems to be a certain comfort with thinking about ethanol as that gasohol in the 1980's rather than learning about today’s 21st century ethanol. Unfortunately, where there is a lack of understanding, or misunderstanding, sometimes junk science or personal feelings get substituted for the facts and the law.
Will Minnesota State Agencies put the puzzle pieces together and seize the biofuel opportunities within our collective grasp? Failure to do so is not an option, especially with respect to the action which is required to reduce GHG emissions and given the current and foreseeable vehicle fleet on Minnesota highways.
To seize all the biofuel opportunities, however, will require key State Agencies to put aside the junk science and the misinformation and instead focus on how to maximize the energy independence, consumer, economic and environmental benefits today’s 21st century ethanol has to offer. We stand ready to help.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
September has been an especially busy and constructive month for the ethanol industry in Minnesota. The US EPA’s discriminatory RVP season ended, thus making E15 available once again to all 2001 and newer vehicles. Gov. Mark Dayton joined several other Midwestern governors in calling on the EPA to end the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) ban on E15 and declared Sept 16, 2016, Ethanol Day, in Minnesota.
Separately, we made some progress with state agencies with some tangible and meaningful action. There’s still more to be done to lower or remove artificial barriers to ethanol producers and the fuel marketplace.
Minnesota has a set of interrelated laws which are designed and intended to lower or remove some of those barriers. The petroleum displacement law, for example, calls for using at least 30 percent biofuels (excluding biodiesel) by 2025. But until these laws (words) are actualized, Minnesota will continue to be dependent on carbon intensive fossil fuels while shipping energy dollars out of Minnesota.
Here are some of the present challenges facing our industry in Minnesota and steps we have taken to give consumers greater fuel choices at the pump.
1. We tracked the 2016 Energy Security Bill which may as well have been drafted by Big Oil. While it never got out of the legislature, it is expected to resurface in 2017. In an attempt to bring this bill into alignment with existing biofuel laws in the state, we worked with the Deputy Commissioner of Division of Energy Resources to include ethanol in a fuel inventory survey and recognize the role ethanol can play in further displacing gasoline.
2. We have also identified some cumbersome regulatory barriers that prevent ethanol producers from rapidly changing out production and pollution control equipment in order to use even more efficient equipment. These regulations clearly run counter to laws aimed at strengthening and growing Minnesota’s ethanol industry. We are currently engaging the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to identify a common roster of equipment that could potentially be changed in a matter of a few days, rather than months, through an administrative amendment or some comparable time-sensitive process.
3. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) “Climate Solutions and Economic Opportunities” report will purportedly be used by state agencies to set policy directions and budgets with respect to carbon reduction plans. Unfortunately, the report contains data that is flawed at best. Despite informing the EQB on these deficiencies, the EQB refuses to accept the science which demonstrates that ethanol’s CO2 reduction benefits augments the CO2 reduction from the use of more efficient vehicle engines.
This is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of policies that are out of alignment with the Dayton Administration and our state’s biofuel laws, goals and science. We will continue to work with the Governor to align department policies and actions with the biofuel laws.
4. The RVP ban on E15 during the summer months can be fixed by the EPA through administrative action as well as well by calling for the use of a better quality base gasoline (reformulated gasoline). In fact, we’ve discovered that there are particulate matter (PM2.5) concerns in a specific region in the state that could necessitate the use of RFG.
We are currently reviewing a variety of air quality measures to determine the PM2.5 levels in various counties and have engaged with local governments to explore the use of E15 blended with RFG to ensure their region is within compliance with air pollution laws.
5. For many years the state’s procurement contract has made E10 and E85 available to state fleet operators as well as counties and cities. E15, however, has not been included. That will change moving forward. After working with the Department of Administration for over a year, E15 will now be a fuel option for all units of government across Minnesota thereby paving the way for higher consumption of E15 in Minnesota.
Conclusion
The constructive actions we have undertaken are aimed at implementing Minnesota’s laws so as to facilitate the expanded use of clean, homegrown ethanol in the State. We will continue to blow the dust off those law books and turn the two dimensional words into three dimensional results and in turn, keep more energy dollars in Minnesota, boost our economy, give consumers savings at the pump and reduce the carbon emissions in the transportation sector.
It’s all about aligning and implementing those words (laws).
By Timothy J, Rudnicki, Esq
Over the last few months the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association has been taking the political pulse.
We were keenly interested in what local candidates had to say about their support for: (A) ethanol as used in regular gasoline and E15, (B) Minnesota’s petroleum displacement law, (C) the RFS and (D) expanding the fueling infrastructure to make more E15 and higher ethanol blends available to Minnesotans across the State.
Our findings tell an interesting story.
The pilot project survey was broad but targeted. Survey questions and follow up telephone calls were made to those candidates having specific ethanol touch points in their districts. We examined, for instance, whether an ethanol plant, industry stakeholder, or fuel retailer (selling E15 or higher blends) were in the district and then tallied the total number of touch points for ethanol in each targeted district. All but one of the 67 Minnesota senate districts has at least one touch point such as a fuel retailer selling E15 or E85. Other senate districts have as many as 13, 18 and 21 touch points.
A district with numerous touch points might, for example, have an ethanol plant within its bounds as well as one or more ethanol fuel retailers and ancillary ethanol businesses such as an engineering company, accounting firm or fuel marketing enterprise. The threshold for this phase of the survey project required at least 10 touch points in a senate district. While we plan to refine and expand the survey's methodology for use in the future, the results for this round are useful and instructive.
We have identified those senate districts where House and Senate members might benefit from some additional information regarding the social, economic, consumer and environmental benefits that stem from the production and use of renewable biofuel in Minnesota. And we also have information showing us where the very strong support exists, too.
As we connect the dots for what this election means for ethanol in Minnesota, I have a couple of observations. First, the vast majority of candidates expressed strong support for ethanol indicating that ethanol is party neutral. Regardless of one’s party affiliation, the production of homegrown, renewable ethanol provides tangible benefits for Minnesotans.
The second point is about politics and the future. We all know that petroleum has dominated the transportation fuel market for more than 100 years. And that dominance has come at a steep cost to our energy security and carbon emission budget. Therefore, the Minnesota Petroleum Displacement law and the Renewable Fuels Standard remain necessary to ensure, as a state and nation, we continue to move further down the sustainable and renewable, low carbon path. Many of our lawmakers understand the importance of these two laws and the incredible social, economic and environmental benefits that have flowed from them thus far.
There is an equally important future component at issue, too. While some see electric vehicles dominating the future transportation landscape, a July 2016 publication from the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory suggests otherwise. In the “Summary of High-Octane, Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Study,” it states:
"[Automakers] are pursuing a broad portfolio of technologies to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy. Central to this effort is higher efficiency spark ignition (SI) engines, including technologies reliant on higher compression ratios and fuels with improved anti-knock properties, such as gasoline with significantly increased octane numbers. Ethanol has an inherently high octane number and would be an ideal octane booster for lower-octane petroleum blendstocks."
The Report then goes on to cite additional studies which point to 25-40 volume percent as the range for a new high octane fuel and how it would assist in reaching the goals set forth in the RFS and to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In short, it seems the spark ignition engine, along with ethanol, could play a major role in future automobiles.
With respect to the election results and what it means for ethanol, we look forward to working with incoming House, Senate and Congressional Members. We have a fantastic story to share with them about the thousands of jobs that are supported by the ethanol industry in Minnesota, how E15 is about 10 cents less per gallon compared to regular, the billions of dollars of economic contribution from the ethanol industry and the millions of tons of greenhouse gas that can be displaced annually with ethanol. Equally important, as the auto industry retools for the high mileage, high efficiency, lower emitting spark ignition engine, so long as we work together, Minnesota will have the ethanol producers necessary to provide the high octane low carbon fuel.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
The November elections did shift the balance of power among Democrats and Republicans in both the Minnesota Senate as well as the US Senate and the White House. Following the elections, I’m frequently asked, what does this shift mean for ethanol and renewable chemicals?
On an academic level, the social, economic, energy security, consumer and environmental benefits that stem from biofuels are apolitical and have no party affiliation. For nearly six years the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association has worked with Democrats and Republicans including lawmakers from the urban and suburban areas and rural communities of the state. We all found common ground and ways to grow the biofuel and renewable chemical industry to displace imported, finite petroleum-based products.
To produce what we require for mobility and products from renewable ingredients grown right here in Minnesota helps our community and improves the environment.
Doing what’s best for us is keeping billions of energy dollars in Minnesota rather than exporting those dollars to Canadian tar sands oil, Bakken crude or Middle Eastern oil producers. Doing what’s best for us is saving Minnesota drivers $240 million annually with E15. Doing what’s best for us is reducing nearly a million tons of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector annually.
All of the above are being achieved with renewable chemicals and ethanol produced right here in Minnesota.
Here is a case where the old adage “if it works, don’t fix it” applies. As MBA has reported on the 2015 Minnesota ethanol industry data, Minnesota ethanol producers supported over 18,000 jobs, generated $7.37 billion in gross sales, generated $1.6 billion worth of income for Minnesota households and contributed $2.13 billion to Minnesota’s gross domestic product.
Given the very tangible benefits the ethanol industry provides for people in Minnesota, I would expect that lawmakers will do no harm or try to fix something that doesn’t need fixing. In other words, that means doing no harm to both the Minnesota Petroleum Displacement Law and the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.
We must, however, be ever vigilant and continue to advocate our positions. MBA will, once again, launch a major campaign to help Minnesota lawmakers and members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation more fully understand the tangible, positive benefits the renewable ethanol industry and the growing renewable chemical industry provides all Minnesotans.
In addition to ensuring lawmakers do no harm to the existing biofuel laws, we will ask lawmakers to help build upon successes in the biofuel sphere. One way we can do this is by making a few minor regulatory adjustments to obtain even greater economic, social and environmental benefits. For instance, if E15 were given the same Reid Vapor Pressure treatment as E10, E15 could be sold throughout the year including the high mileage, busy summer driving season. Using more E15 would displace more carbon-intensive petroleum and also cut more greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.
We will also ask lawmakers for assistance with expanding the fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure to handle more E15 and higher blends of ethanol. As of this writing, there are 62 E15 stations in Minnesota. The next phase of this infrastructure project will call for adding several hundred additional E15 dispensers, which can handle up to at least E25.
Many positive social, economic, energy security and environmental benefits have flowed from biofuel laws. And those benefits, and the success stories, are measurable and linked to real people in each US Congressional District and each Senate District in Minnesota. One would, therefore, expect lawmakers to allow society to build upon these tremendous success stories.
But, as we have seen this past election cycle, this has been a year of change. Some who question me about the implications of the election seem satisfied with the thought that change will come to Minnesota or Washington.
What does this mean? Change what? Change for whom? If this change comes, who will be benefitted and who will be burdened? Change for the sake of change seems like a rather infantile and dangerous game for people, the economy and the environment.
What if lawmakers decided the best change is to stop trying to make a political football out of biofuels and instead embrace the growing success and positive benefits of biofuels and to build upon that success to produce even more benefits? What if lawmakers demonstrate change by articulating and reinforcing a renewable energy vision which puts more Americans to work building, expanding and further modernizing ethanol plants to produce an even lower carbon biofuel?
If lawmakers want to make this election about change to serve their constituents and society as a whole, then let’s work together to find ways to make Minnesota and the nation more energy independent with homegrown biofuels. Collectively, we have tremendous potential and opportunities to match the next generation of internal combustion engines with a higher octane low-carbon fuel, expand the fueling infrastructure, put more people to work and improve the quality of our environment.
Let’s do change with a vision and a purpose. Toward that end, MBA will remain vigilant and continue to advocate for meaningful change. Happy New Year!
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
With 598 House Bills and 499 Senate Bills introduced as of January 30, a fired up legislature and four more months remaining in the 2017 Legislative Session, we have an excellent opportunity to do more advocacy on behalf of the biofuel and renewable chemical industries in Minnesota.
As usual, the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association will work both defense and offense. Thus far, at some point in every legislative session, we have seen bills introduced which, either by accident or intent, attempt to hack away at the core of Minnesota’s biofuel and renewable chemical industries. Regardless what the attack might be, MBA is there to confront, challenge and change the offending bill.
MBA also works on the offense. For instance, this session MBA is working with key stakeholders and legislative bill champions in the Minnesota House and Senate to advance a couple of bills. One bill involves a tax credit to jump start a new technology and the other bill is aimed at giving at least 150 fuel retailers the types of resources they need so they can rapidly transition to making E15 the new unleaded regular fuel in Minnesota.
The first technology bill holds some super potential to increase efficiency of production. At issue is the need to stimulate the generation of electricity onsite with, for example, combined heat and power systems or expander generators or some combination of both. These energy technologies can enable renewable biofuel and chemical producers to use cleaner energy and further lower their carbon footprints.
With these energy efficiency technologies, carbon footprints are lowered in at least two ways. First, when a producer generates their electricity onsite, they immediately reduce the problem associated with transmitting electricity over long distances: line loss. The resistence of the transmission wires essentially “wastes” electricity, hence the term line loss, yet energy had to be used to generate that electricity. So, when renewable biofuel and chemical producers use the onsite generating technology they can cut the amount of wasted energy due to line loss.
Biofuel and renewable chemical producers can also reduce the carbon footprints of their products with the onsite generating technology because the technology uses cleaner fuel to make electricity. While the vast majority of the grid serving Minnesota is still powered with very carbon intensive fuel, the biofuel and renewable chemical producers can use much less carbon intensive fuel such as natural gas, biogas or pressure differentials.
Today’s onsite electricity generating technology is really fantastic. A combined heat and power system produces both the heat needed to process renewable biofuels and chemicals and to generate the electricity used to power, for instance, fans and pumps. The expander generators convert high pressure gases or fluids to lower pressure by taking and using the pressure (energy) to spin a generator to produce electricity. Given the tremendous environmental benefits associated with these systems, as well as the potential to jump start the use of this dormant technology, MBA is working with lawmakers to advance a bill that would provide a phased out tax credit to producers.
Another key bill is the 2017 biofuel infrastructure build out program. This bill aims to literally build upon the success of the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership Program which was funded by the US Department of Agriculture and matched with grants from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the ethanol industry.
Through the course of its work with fuel retailers across Minnesota, MBA has identified another set of more than 100 fuel retailers who are interested in and prepared to offer E15 and higher blends if they can get some assistance. We have identified a range of needs for the retailers including from those requiring relatively minor adjustments to their dispensers to those who could offer two or three tankers of E15 a week to their customers but for some changes that need to be made to their tanks or pipes or dispensers. The multi-million dollar bill at issue could go a long way to making E15 the new regular, boosting the Minnesota economy with homegrown biofuels and driving down GHG emissions.
When E15 is the new regular fuel, renewable ethanol will cut an additional 358,000 metric tons annually of carbon dioxide equivalent gas from the atmosphere. That’s the equivalent of taking about 75,368 passenger vehicles off Minnesota roadways. A few million dollars can get GHG emission reductions within a matter of months. It would cost several billion dollars to displace the same number of passenger vehicles with alternative technology.
In short, both of the bills spearheaded by MBA hold tremendous potential to boost the biofuel and renewable chemical industries in Minnesota, jump start an energy efficiency technology, expand annual consumer fuel savings by about $240 million and drive down those GHG emissions now. For more news between newsletters, be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter. As always, I welcome you comments This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
The current legislative session in Minnesota has been filled with policy and finance bills. For instance, 1,824 bills have already been introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives. In the Senate, 1,572 bills have been introduced. But among the more than 3,000 bills are two which can unlock and unleash the full energy security, economic, environmental and consumer benefits of renewable ethanol made in Minnesota.
The key to unlocking all this potential is currently in the hands of legislators and embodied in House File 1257 and Senate File 1277.
First, a bit of context.
Minnesota Statute 239.7911 calls for at least 25 percent biofuel use within the transportation fuel market by 2020. As of 2015, ethanol comprised approximately 12.47 percent of transportation fuel in Minnesota. The gap between the 2015 metrics and the 2020 target can be bridged, in part, with a robust program to help fuel retailers make some technical decisions and install the most appropriate and cost-effective fuel storage and dispensing systems so they can offer E15 and higher blends to consumers.
Although Minnesota ethanol producers can supply the transportation sector with more renewable biofuel, some fuel storage and dispensing equipment needs to be adjusted or replaced to handle E15. Both House File 1257 and Senate File 1277 provide the necessary funding for technical assistance and appropriate technology so fuel wholesalers and retailers can ween themselves from foreign oil. More importantly, more stations will be able to dispense E15, thus increasing access to a clean, locally-produced fuel that is growing in popularity.
While only 2 percent of retail fuel stations in Minnesota are equipped to offer E15 (also known as Unleaded Plus), where E15 is available, consumers choose it. E15 sales in Minnesota hit an all-time high of 5.68 million gallons in 2016, nearly double the volume in 2015. In fact, each month in the fourth quarter of 2016 broke a new monthly record with 550,270 gallons (October 2016), 742,253 gallons (November 2016) and 841,589 gallons (December 2016). Moreover, the volume in December 2016 was 60 percent higher than the total recorded in December 2015 (528,171 gallons).
Millions of Minnesotans will benefit from this biofuel bill. But for solar and wind energy and biofuels, Minnesota imports all the rest of its energy. Using more biofuels made in Minnesota keeps energy dollars in the state. According to the 2016 ABF Economic Report, the Minnesota ethanol Industry supported about 18,000 jobs, contributed $2 billion to the GDP, paid $80 million to state and local taxes and, in more human terms, generated nearly $1.5 billion in household income.
When the legislators use the biofuel key to unlock the potential of made-in-Minnesota biofuel, additional benefits could flow to consumers. If, for instance, E15 was ubiquitous, based on current market conditions and demand analysis, annual fuel cost savings to consumers are estimated to range from $168 million to $240 million. Additionally, E15 could reduce air pollution while also reducing GHG emissions by an additional 358,000 metric tons annually or the equivalent of removing approximately 76,000 vehicles from Minnesota roadways.
Thus far, Minnesota legislators are taking some action on the biofuel key. On Monday, February 27, the Minnesota Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, and Housing Finance Committee held a hearing on the bill. The House Agriculture Policy Committee is scheduled to take up the bill on March 1. For those Minnesotans who support greater access to renewable biofuel made in Minnesota, now is the time to contact the Members of the House and Senate Committees to voice your support for House File 1257 and Senate File 1277.
In the final analysis, the key to unlocking more of the benefits of biofuels in Minnesota rests with legislators. While legislators have many public policy, economic, consumer, energy security and environmental reasons to use the biofuel key, they need to hear from you.