×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 727

In the News

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 21, 2016

By Mike Bryan

All eyes are turning to Iowa as the State Caucus looms on Feb. 1. Of course, those of us in the ethanol industry hang on every word candidates speak when it comes to ethanol and renewable energy, in general. I wonder, however, if it really makes a great deal of difference.

In theory, it’s great to have a president who supports renewable energy, but in practice, Congress is the body that actually determines the success or failure of our industry. I’m reminded of this when I hear presidential candidates make wild claims about what they are going to do if they are elected to the Oval Office. In fact, there is little they can do (outside of veto power) without Congressional approval, as it relates to renewable energy.

I’m not a Washington insider, so what I’m saying here may not be the view of those who are insiders. But, from someone who has seen a few presidents come and go (more than I would like to admit), I do wonder how important their comments about renewable energy are, when they are vying for the top job. Aside from only a handful of candidates over the years, just about all of them, when they are in Iowa, say they support ethanol. Following through on that commitment is another story.

Not to do so would be like a vegetarian seeking the position of CEO for the National Cattlemen’s Association. If you really wanted the job, you would probably, albeit reluctantly, wolf down a T-bone over dinner with the board and comment that there is nothing like a good steak. Of course, once you have the top job, there are all sorts of reasons you can revert back to being a vegetarian but, boy, deep down I really do support the meat industry. I think you get my point.

Over the years I’ve become pretty cynical about what politicians promise when on the campaign trail. The political realities of Washington soon come to roost once the election is over. That list includes campaign donations, the compromises required in order to get things though Congress and pressures from a vast array of lobby groups, all with very convincing stories.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is said on the campaign trail about ethanol, because I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. What makes a difference is what’s in their heart. Unfortunately it’s difficult to know that unless they have some voting or other public track record of either support or opposition. Looking at a number of candidates, what they say about ethanol in Iowa and what their track record is, are two different things. Some have no track record at all on ethanol and it becomes almost impossible to know if they are simply saying what Iowans and others want to hear. Maybe we should listen to them when they are campaigning in the coal country of Kentucky or in the oil producing states of Oklahoma or Texas. Renewable energy would likely not be on their list of topics.

So I’ll let the political insiders make the call on which candidate is best suited from a renewable energy perspective. For me, I’m not sure it makes a gnat’s worth of difference.

That’s the way I see it.

Read the original story: Promises Made In Iowa

The Wall Street Journal

Jan 20, 2016

By Amy Harder and Beth Reinhard

Donald Trump, who is battling Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), for the top spot in in corn-rich Iowa, is seeking to draw a contrast between the two candidates by catering to the state’s corn ethanol industry more than any other top GOP candidate.

“He’s really spent time in Iowa, talking to Iowans and talking good policy on this issue,” said Eric Branstad, son of Iowa’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad and state director of America’s Renewable Future, a group calling on all presidential candidates to support a government mandate requiring ethanol be blended into gasoline.

Mr. Trump has met with the group three times since April, toured an ethanol plant late last year, and had his staff stay in touch with America’s Renewable Future on a weekly basis, according to Mr. Branstad.

“I am there with you 100%,” Mr. Trump told a crowd of hundreds of Iowans whose livelihoods depend on the ethanol industry at a summit in Altoona, Iowa, on Tuesday. “You’re going to get a really fair shake from me.”

Corn has long been king in Iowa, the nation’s top corn-producing state, implanting in Iowa voters a sentiment that every candidate must cheer Washington’s backing for ethanol. Since 2011, though, that universal backing has been eroding.

Congress decided at the end of 2011 not to renew a tax credit that cost the government $6 billion a year. Critics of the government’s ethanol policy then set their targets on the ethanol mandate, which requires refineries to blend an increasing amount of biofuels into the U.S. gasoline supply each year.

At the ethanol summit Tuesday, Mr. Trump also read a prepared statement opposing Congress “changing any part of the RFS,” or Renewable Fuel Standard, the mandate’s formal name.

This year’s presidential election is testing the corn industry’s political power more than ever, with Republican candidates seeking to find a middle ground between repealing the mandate outright, a move supported by the party’s conservative base, and phasing it out.

Mr. Cruz, who is leading in the latest polling ahead of Iowa’s caucus, has sought a balance between backing a powerful political constituency and eschewing “big-government” policies the conservative base abhors.

Mr. Cruz has faced criticism from the ethanol industry primarily through America’s Renewable Future, the group Mr. Branstad works for. Mr. Branstad’s father, the governor, on Tuesday urged Iowa Republicans not to vote for Mr. Cruz because of his lack of support for the ethanol mandate.

America’s Renewable Future released a report card late last year grading the presidential candidates on their support of the fuel mandate. All three Democratic candidates and all Republican candidates except for Mr. Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who opposes the mandate, received a good rating.

Mr. Paul has instead pushed proposals aimed at allowing greater access into the gasoline market for ethanol companies, ideas similar to those Mr. Cruz articulated in a recent op-ed he penned for the Des Moines Register, which drew more criticism from Mr. Branstad’s group.

“He’s never even wanted to utter the word ‘ethanol’ for the last three and a half years until the last few weeks,” Mr. Branstad said of Mr. Cruz.

Mr. Cruz’s position on the issue has shifted over the years. He initially supported legislation repealing the mandate right away, as a co-sponsor of a bill in 2013. In 2014, Mr. Cruz introduced a separate bill that would overhaul several energy policies, including phasing out the mandate over five years and eliminating it by 2018.

While on the campaign trail over the past year, Mr. Cruz’s campaign has said he supports phasing out the fuel mandate and ending it by 2022, there years later than the bill he sponsored two years ago.

Read the original story here : Donald Trump Turns To Ethanol To Fuel Fight With Cruz

CNN

Jan 19, 2015

By MJ Lee

Altoona, Iowa - Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad called for Ted Cruz's defeat Tuesday, in a dramatic and highly public repudiation of the Texas senator just two weeks out from the Iowa caucuses.

Speaking to a small group of reporters at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit in Altoona, where several 2016 presidential candidates are slated to speak, Branstad labeled Cruz a "big oil" candidate whose victory would be "very damaging to our state."

"It would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him," Branstad said. "And I know he's ahead in the polls but the only poll that counts is the one they take on caucus night and I think that could change between now and then."

Asked by a reporter whether he wants to see Cruz defeated, Branstad answered: "Yes."

Branstad's attack on Cruz is an extraordinary intervention in the caucus campaign. The state's caucuses take place on February 1.

"I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Ted Cruz is going to win this state," Branstad told CNN afterwards. "Because as Iowans learn about his anti-renewable fuel stand, and that it will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income, I think people will realize that it's not in our interest."

He added: "I don't think that Ted Cruz is the right one for Iowans to support in the caucus."

Cruz's stance on ethanol subsidies has emerged a significant vulnerability for the senator in Iowa, a state where farming and agriculture are hugely influential industries. His rivals -- particularly Donald Trump -- have been hitting Cruz hard for his opposition to ethanol subsidies, and voters here have expressed concerns about Cruz's rejection of ethanol subsidies.

Branstad's son, Eric, works with the group America's Renewable Future, which has targeted the Texas senator.

Cruz has been leading in some recent Iowa polls, and Trump is his closest competition.

Iowa governors have typically stayed neutral in the caucuses, and Branstad did not endorse a candidate in the 2012 Iowa contest. In 2008, Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, did not pick sides between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Read the original story here : Iowa Governor Wants Ted Cruz Defeated

Renewable Fuels Association

January 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) vehicle emissions modeling system is inadequate and unreliable as a tool for estimating the exhaust emissions of gasoline blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol, according to a new comprehensive third-party evaluation of the model.

The evaluation of EPA’s latest Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014) model was conducted by scientists from Wyle Laboratories, Inc., and Volpe (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation), and commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Foundation.

“Overall, it was found that the predictive emissions results generated by MOVES2014 for mid-level ethanol blends were sometimes inconsistent with other emissions results from the scientific literature for both exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions,” according to the study. “…results and trends from MOVES2014 for certain pollutants are often contrary to the findings of other studies and reports in the literature.”

Of particular concern is that the MOVES2014 model predicts increased exhaust emissions of nitrogen components and particulate matter as the ethanol content in gasoline increases, even though real-world emissions testing based on mid-level ethanol blends has shown distinctly opposite trends. “The results from other researchers often show ethanol-related emissions trends that are different than the MOVES2014 results obtained for this study…” the study found. “In some cases not only were magnitudes different but different [directional] trends were presented.”

The study’s authors suggest the MOVES2014 model’s questionable predictions for certain emissions likely result from the use of data that misrepresents the actual parameters and composition of mid-level ethanol blends. Specifically, the default ethanol blend data in the model is based on arcane “match blending” methods intended to “match” specific fuel parameters, rather than “splash blending” methods that are used in the real world. According to the study, “…real-world splash blends may not have the same attributes as the modeled default match blends used in MOVES, and actual emissions may be different than the emissions predictions from MOVES.”

These likely distortions are then multiplied through the use of overly restrictive adjustment factors and equations. The authors write that “…the trends used to determine constants in the model’s equations may need to consider many more variables than are now being considered,” and “the adjustment factor approach may need to be more robust and consider the changes to emissions as a function of all properties, not independently.”

In an attempt to simulate the emissions of mid-level ethanol blends created using real-world “splash blending” practices, the Wyle and Volpe scientists performed an analysis where certain fuel parameters were modified. However, the model still produced questionable results that suggested increases in emissions of nitrogen components and PM as ethanol content increases.

To correct the deficiencies with the MOVES2014 model, the authors recommend obtaining new mid-level ethanol blend emissions data using blends that better represent real-world fuel properties and blending practices. They write that “…additional vehicle exhaust testing from mid-level ethanol blends with well-defined fuel properties is recommended.”

Commenting on the findings of the new study, RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen said:

“This is more than an academic exercise. The MOVES model is used by state regulators to assess air quality and determine their progress and compliance with national emissions standards. It is thus essential that EPA’s model be accurate and based on sound science. Unfortunately, this analysis concludes that just like EPA’s now dated and misguided carbon intensity modeling for ethanol, the MOVES model is fundamentally flawed and biased against ethanol.”

To read the evaluation, click here.

Read the original story: New Study Questions Reliability of Ethanol Results from EPA Vehicle Emissions Model

Ethanol Producer Magazine

Jan 11, 2016

By Erin Voegelle

On Jan. 8, seven agricultural and biofuel groups filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asking the court to review the U.S. EPA’s final rule setting 2014, 2015 and 2016 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) under the renewable fuel standard (RFS), along with the 2017 RVO for biomass-based diesel.

The petitioners include Americans for Clean Energy, American Coalition for Ethanol, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Growth Energy, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, and Renewable Fuels Association.

A statement released by the petitioners indicates a preliminary, non-binding listing of issues to be raised in the court of appeals will be filed at a later date. Among other things, the petitioners said they intend to demonstrate that the EPA’s interpretation of its general waiver authority under the RFS statute was contrary to the statute.

“By focusing on fuel distribution capacity and demand rather than supply, and by failing to consider surplus [renewable identification numbers (RINs)] from prior years, the agency erroneously concluded that there was an inadequate supply of renewable fuel to justify a waiver of the levels established by Congress,” said the petitioners in the statement, noting they also plan to point out other fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in the government’s rule.

In addition, the petitioners said they look forward to presenting their arguments to the court of appeals to provide clarity and certainty to market participants concerning the requirements of the statute.

The EPA released its final rule setting the 2014, 2015 and 2016 RFS RVOs, along with the 2017 RVO for biomass-based diesel on Nov. 30. Groups representing the biofuels industry expressed mixed reactions following the release of the rulemaking. While the rule does make progress in piercing the blend wall, many criticized the EPA’s interpretation of RFS statute as allowing for “distribution waivers,” which is one issue targeted by the petition for review.

Read the original story here : Biofuel, Ag Group Ask Court To Review EPA's Recent RFS Rule

Minneapolis Star Tribune

January 10, 2016

By Jose A. DelReal

– GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is escalating his criticism of rival Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa, painting him as a political follower beholden to pro-oil special interests and the donor class.

Trump's strategy: to raise further questions about Cruz's stance on ethanol — an important industry in the Hawkeye State — in the final weeks before the Feb. 1 caucuses. Cruz has faced renewed scrutiny over his opposition to the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires gasoline to be blended with amounts of corn ethanol and is set to expire in 2022.

"As you know, my primary opponent in Iowa — only in Iowa, because Ted actually isn't doing very well in New Hampshire, but in Iowa he's doing well — was totally opposed to ethanol and the ethanol industry because he's with the oil industry. He's from Texas, I guess that makes sense," Trump said Saturday at a rally in Ottumwa.

His criticism comes amid a growing battle between the two candidates for the top spot in polls of Iowa voters. A Fox News survey of Iowa voters had Cruz leading Trump among likely GOP caucusgorers, 27 percent to 23 percent.

While touting his own ­support for the industry, Trump said he believes Cruz's position on ethanol has undergone "a very big change." Cruz has softened his position in recent years, calling for legislation that would gradually phase out the ethanol blending requirement.

"He was getting clobbered and all of a sudden he said, 'Uh, oh, I'm for ethanol.' You can't do that. You can't do that. With three weeks to go, you're not allowed to do that. Nobody really believes it," Trump said.

Supporters and spectators waited outside of the Bridge View Center in Ottumwa — a small town in southern Iowa — where a harsh cold wind blew as they waited for a chance to hear one of Trump's notoriously raucous speeches. Though the crowd capacity in the auditorium was about 650, according to police, the overflow area held about 1,000.

Trump has a series of stops in Iowa planned for the next three weeks leading to the caucuses. This is a contrast to his previous campaigning in Iowa, where he has darted in for occasional rallies before huge crowds, relying on TV news coverage to reach Iowans.

Trump's rallies Saturday afternoon in Ottumwa and Clear Lake came after an 11-day absence from the state.

"Next couple of weeks, I'm going to be seeing you so much that you're going to be so sick of me," Trump said at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake.

Read the original story: Trump Accuses Cruz of Flip-Flopping on Ethanol

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 6, 2016

By Erin Voegele

Representatives of the ethanol industry are speaking out to criticize comments on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) made by American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard during a recent speech.

On Jan. 5, Gerard delivered the keynote address at API’s sixth annual State of American Energy event. During the speech, he called for the RFS to be repealed or significantly amended. “It is relic of our nation’s era of energy dependency that poses a direct threat to our nation’s economy, risks reversal of important environmental improvements and could raise energy costs for American consumers,” he said.

Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen has spoken out to reject Gerard’s claims.  “I’m not sure what reality Jack is living in, but it is clear that he believes API’s actions and policies are making our nation more energy secure when nothing could be further from the truth,” Dinneen said. “Perhaps he has convinced himself that fracking will provide the answer to all of our nation’s energy needs. What Jack conveniently failed to mention is that as oil prices have crashed, so has the rig count. The number of active U.S. oil rigs has plunged 67 percent from its peak in 2014. Last week’s rig count was actually the lowest since May 2010, according to the oil field services firm Baker Hughes. If Jack spent time living in the real world, instead of his revisionist reality, he would find himself whistling past the graveyards of shuttered wells that have been abandoned in the bust that inevitably follows a temporary boom of an oil well.”

“Even though U.S. oil production has risen in recent years, U.S. refiners still import a substantial amount of crude oil,” Dinneen continued. “In 2015, U.S. refiners processed roughly 16 million barrels per day, while crude oil imports averaged about 7.3 million barrels per day. This means that roughly 45 percent of the oil processed by U.S refineries came from imports. And about one-third of our nation’s imports came from OPEC nations with Russia and Columbia also serving as major suppliers.”

 “The fact is our nation needs domestically-produced clean burning renewable fuels now more than ever,” Dinneen said. “Ethanol plants strengthen communities, they do not abandon them. Ethanol jobs are as stable and renewable as the fuel itself. Jack needs to wrap his arms around the fact that the era of unconstrained energy consumption is the real relic, and no longer exists. Renewable energy resources like ethanol provide the only real hope of a more sustainable energy, environmental, and economic future.”

Growth Energy co-chair Tom Buis has also spoken out to criticize Gerard’s comments. “API’s ‘State of American Energy’ speech, brought to you by Big Oil, is nothing new,” he said “While oil companies talk about the future of energy in this country, they seem fixated on a finite resource and fail to acknowledge that renewable fuels play a critical role in meeting the nation’s growing energy needs.

“Year after year, API attempts to drive the narrative that the renewable fuel standard (RFS) must be reformed or repealed,” Buis said. “This argument is fundamentally flawed. The claims that renewable fuels will increase the cost of energy or that they are worse for the environment are simply ridiculous. Countless independent studies have shown that renewable fuels like ethanol help drive down the cost of fuel. Furthermore, when it comes environmental damage, no one has a worse record than oil companies. Their record of ecological disasters is extensive and deeply troubling.”

“They claim the RFS is a ‘relic’ that is no longer useful, but the fact is that the RFS has been a resounding success, doing exactly what it was intended to do when a bipartisan Congress passed it over a decade ago,” Buis continued. “The RFS is the most successful energy policy this nation has enacted in the last 40 years. Not only is it creating jobs, it is revitalizing rural economies, reducing harmful emissions, improving our environment and reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel. Additionally, it is providing consumers with a choice at the pump.”

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw noted the API continues to defend its special tax preferences while attacking the RFS. “You can’t help but laugh when API wraps themselves in the banner of market competition while advocating just the opposite, “he said. “They’ve done that for so long you get the feeling they actually have started to believe their own false rhetoric.”

“Big Oil simply does not want consumers to have the choice of higher ethanol blends because oil can’t compete in a free market,” Shaw continued.  “Ethanol blends are cheaper, cleaner, and higher octane.  Ask the pioneering retailers who give their customers a choice and the picture is clear—consumers prefer cheaper, cleaner E15 and E85.”

“Despite API’s claims that its oil monopoly worldview is gaining political support, the facts on the ground are clear.  First, the only vote in Congress to repeal the RFS failed by a 2 to 1 margin in the Senate Banking Committee,” Shaw said. “And here in Iowa, 12 out of the 14 candidates running for president have pledged to—at a minimum—support the Congressional RFS schedule through 2022 and to insist on a level playing field thereafter.  Quite frankly, we are likely closer to the end of Big Oil’s Century of Subsidies than to API’s goal of repealing the RFS.”

Read the original story: Ethanol Industry Reacts to API Criticism of RFS

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 5, 2016

By America's Renewable Future

America’s Renewable Future recently released its final candidate report card. The report card places each presidential contender into a good or bad category based on their support for the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS). ARF will use the report card to let more than 50,000 pledged caucus-goers and Iowans know which candidates will protect the state’s economy or which will be job killers. The tactics used will be a combination of grassroots and paid efforts.

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul stand out as the bad candidates on the report card, while the rest of the candidates on both sides of the aisle are graded as good. The report card designates a “good” candidate as one who has demonstrated support for the RFS and Iowa farmers and a “bad” candidate as one who has stood against Iowa farmers and the RFS.

The organization has gone after Cruz prior to the release of the report card on statewide radio for his hypocrisy on support for oil subsidies. The efforts will resume after the holidays. In addition to paid media, ARF’s grassroots organization covers the state’s 99 counties with 17 field staffers who have organized over 1,000 events around the state. From test plot events and RV stops at biofuel plants and co-ops to county fairs and farmers’ markets. From our urban centers in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids to the smallest rural towns, ARF has been getting its message out to Iowans. A message that’s resonating with Iowa caucus-goers with 61 percent of republicans and 76 percent percent of democrats saying they support the RFS.

“Ted Cruz is dangerous to Iowa and thousands of Iowa jobs,” said Eric Branstad, ARF state director. “Our economy depends on a strong RFS and Iowans count on $5 billion in wages thanks to it, Ted Cruz wants to kill their jobs and we are going to make sure every Iowan knows that.”

Read the original story: ARF Releases Candidate Report Card on RFS Support