2017

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Did you hear the news?  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is proposing to roll back the amount of biofuels, like ethanol, to be mixed with gasoline.  Why?  When you dig deep into the rationale it goes like this: because the oil industry doesn’t want to blend more biofuels into gasoline!

Those of us who care about having fuel choice at the pump, saving money when fueling up, keeping the Minnesota biofuel producers that support over 12,000 jobs strong, decreasing pollution and keeping billions of energy dollars in Minnesota need to give the U.S. EPA an important reminder.

•    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, from eight long years ago, was the big hint given to the oil companies that they needed to do something about blending increasing amounts of biofuels, like ethanol, into the nation’s fuel supply for motor vehicles.

•    Two years later, via the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress went even further to make clear its intent by explicitly stating the increased volumes of renewable fuel that needed to be blended into transportation fuel through the year 2022.

•    For 1.5 years the petroleum industry has had another approved fuel (E15 which is 15% ethanol and 85% petroleum) that can be used to meet its volume obligations intended by Congress.

The U.S. EPA proposed rule for 2014 sends the wrong message to the petroleum companies: do everything you can to not comply with the law and the law will be changed so you are in compliance.  That’s the wrong message because it gives the petroleum companies a “get out of jail free pass” while undermining Minnesotans’ efforts to use more renewable fuel.  The U.S. EPA proposed rule sets the amount of renewable fuel to be used below the amount which is already being used in Minnesota!

To the U.S. EPA we say: don’t undermine all that is important to Minnesotans like having fuel choice, maintaining our strong homegrown renewable energy industry, growing quality jobs, cutting pollution and keeping energy dollars on Main Street.  With eight years to prepare for this time, the petroleum industry does not deserve a free pass on fulfilling its obligations under the law.  Keep the original renewable fuel requirements and do what’s right for consumers.

If you think it’s important to keep moving forward with renewable fuels, now is the time to make your voice heard.  To help you communicate your support for biofuels and oppose the U.S. EPA proposed rule, check out this “Take Action Now” web banner (www.MnBioFuels.org ) for some ideas and contact information.

Don’t let the U.S. EPA take Minnesotans backwards when it comes to our future and quality of life.  Let’s keep working together and moving forward for a brighter, more sustainable energy future.

Please keep those email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.and calls (612.924.6495) coming with your biofuel questions and thoughts about how biofuels have improved your quality of life. 

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Whether you are taking a road trip, running errands around town or driving the kids to after school sports, most likely it’s biofuels that are helping you get to your destination.  When you fuel up with “regular,” at least one in 10 gallons is clean, renewable ethanol.  If you are among the growing number of drivers who are finding “E15" at your local retail station, at least 1.5 gallons in 10 is high octane ethanol.

Why should you care if you are buying biofuels?  In short, biofuels, such as ethanol, help to hold down the overall price of fuel, save you money at the pump and put all of us on the path toward a sustainable energy future.  If it weren’t for biofuels, gasoline prices would be from $1 to $1.69 more per gallon.  That’s because biofuels are pushing down demand for the more expensive, $108 per barrel, petroleum.  The piece found in this newsletter, “RFS Kept Gas Prices Down,” by Philip K. Verleger, Jr., gives us a broad perspective on the role of biofuels and how they help our household budgets.

As for additional savings, have you noticed the difference in price for E15, or E85, compared to regular gasoline?  If you drive a 2001 or newer vehicle, you can use E15.  For those who drive a Flex Fuel Vehicle (check for the badge on the back of your vehicle, statement on the gas cap or details in your owner’s manual to find out if you have such a vehicle), you can use E85 (that means up to 8.5 gallons in 10 is renewable ethanol).  A few days ago I paid 20 cents less per gallon for E15 compared to regular.  Even though I was buying a higher octane fuel for our turbocharged car, I paid less!   And at a nearby E85 dispenser, drivers of Flex Fuel Vehicles were waiting in lines to fill up at 87 cents less than regular.

Biofuels are about more than holding down prices and saving drivers money at the pump, they are about providing all of us with a renewable energy source for today as well as tomorrow.  Consider this:  Today’s 21st century biofuels come from the solar energy stored in renewable ingredients grown right here in Minnesota.

The full scientific analysis is a bit beyond the scope of this piece, but here is a high level view of what makes biofuels a sustainable and renewable energy source.  Thanks to photosynthesis, plants use solar energy, soil nutrients, water and carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, to grow during the spring, summer and fall seasons.  For instance, entire corn plants, the starch in kernels of corn or grasses, all can regenerate.  Next, the biofuel producers in Minnesota use natural processes, similar to those used in making beer, to unlock the solar energy stored in the renewable ingredients and thereby give us ethanol.

Much has changed over the years when it comes to making the biofuels that power our vehicles.  With low input farming practices used throughout Minnesota, farmers can grow more food and renewable ingredients on fewer acres.  Minnesota based biofuel producers use high efficiency boilers, recycle water and reuse heat to make a renewable fuel that is truly green. 

In addition to getting more energy out than what goes in to make ethanol, the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (all the inputs to grow renewable ingredients and actually make ethanol) are 44% to 57% less than petroleum.  So every time you increase the amount of ethanol you are using, for example using E15 instead of regular, to get from place to place, you are helping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.  Check out “Why Are We Producing Biofuels?” (in this newsletter) for an expanded view on harnessing the sun’s energy.

It’s rather amazing when one stops to ponder what biofuels are and what they do for us.  In a society where we have been conditioned to think the only energy is that which comes from drilling, it is refreshing to know we, as Minnesotans, have the potential to grow our way into an even more sustainable energy solution.  I invite you to study the many scientific reports on our website to learn more about renewable ingredients and how biofuels are made here in Minnesota.  Biofuels move us from place to place, save us money and provide a renewable energy source for today and tomorrow.

Please keep those email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and calls (612.888.9138) coming with your questions and thoughts about biofuels. 

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Let’s not confuse testing models with the real issues of the day, namely, the adverse effects of oil, a finite fossil fuel.  By the time you read this piece, several days will have passed since the study on biofuels from crop residue was released and many other commentators have written about their points of view that challenge the science behind some questionable assumptions in the study.  The operative word in all of this is science.  Science is important in the day-to-day production of biofuels just as science is important in other aspects of life.  Science is especially important when dealing with long-term energy and climate issues that will have a profound effect on humanity and the rest of the planet far into the future.

In this short piece, I attempt to unpack a few complicated issues with you and shift the spotlight to where I think it can do the most collective good.

We often hear the word “science” bandied about.  What is science?  Science, as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.”  This rich definition suggests science is rather substantive.  How can we tell if an investigation or report uses the scientific method?

If, for example, I merely attempt to describe how biofuels are made, is that science?  Probably most of us would conclude the description of the biological process for making biofuels is not in and of itself science.  The reasoning behind that conclusion is simple: we are missing the other four essential elements of the definition which are observation, identification, experimental investigation (test, controlled conditions, demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried) and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.  In short, we can determine whether an investigation or report is credible science by testing it against apolitical elements.

Interestingly, despite sound science that passes all the tests to be science, Greenwire news service from April 28, 2014, reports “polls show that significant swaths of the American public distrust climate science, even though scientists have been warning about the risks of climate change for several decades.”  Science is not about winning a popularity contest.  Remember, at one time, contrary to scientific findings, people believed the sun revolved around the earth.  So what can possibly explain the distrust some people have of climate science?  Could it be due to the way some scientists are vilified or how some critics cloud science with uncertainty?  More importantly, if we were to collectively embrace the climate science, as a people, state, nation and global community, we would be racing to further reduce our use of high carbon fuels such as oil.  We would be racing to find ways to be even more fuel efficient and indeed use a higher percentage of renewable biofuels since these fuels are derived from plant ingredients that work with the cyclical natural systems to absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

Now for some cloudiness.  Without going too deep into the merits, or soundness of science, behind the crop residue study done by the Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska, it seems this study gives critics of biofuels and proponents of oil just what they wanted.  With media attention focused on one part of a study that relies on 39 other studies instead of in the field measurements, it can create confusion and cloud the broad range of science on this complicated issue.  The crop residue study examines other reports and data and tests models and the effects of removing extremely high levels of corn residue from fields to make biofuels.  In fact an environmental team leader at the Argonne National Laboratory said the study looked at “extreme levels of corn stover removal — up to 100 percent.”  In the real world, however, stover removal ranges from 10% to 25%, well within the range required to replenish the soil.

The crop residue study itself does acknowledge its focus is on the removal of high levels of crop residue without any mitigation actions.  On the other hand, within the same study, specific mitigation factors and management options are suggested as actions that can be taken to balance soil carbon dioxide emissions.  In other words, the study tests what appears to be the absolute extreme effects associated with removing virtually all the crop residue and yet it does suggest ways to avoid the extreme so as to keep a balance between soil carbon and emissions.  Confusing, or confusing enough to take the spotlight off petroleum for a brief time?

Let’s take a look at the fine print of other studies and apply some critical thinking.  In the study Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use, Argonne National Laboratory determined that ethanol made from corn starch reduces lifecycle GHG emissions from 48% to 57% below emissions from petroleum.  This study examined the full spectrum of emissions for fertilizer, farming, production of biofuels and combustion in vehicles.  Biofuels, such as ethanol, produced in Minnesota unequivocally reduce GHG emissions.

In the same study by Argonne National Laboratory, the use of corn stover, the material in the crop residue study done by the University of Nebraska, was examined.  Here is the finding from Argonne’s examination of the issue:  using the corn stover increases the GHG reductions to approximately 103% better than petroleum!  The critical factor that differs between the Nebraska study and Argonne is this: management of corn stover removal.  The Nebraska study is based on removing virtually all the stover whereas Argonne’s position was “The general consensus has been that we would manage corn stover removal to avoid adverse impacts to soil health, including a decline in soil organic carbon.”  

If we go back to the real issue of the day, it is GHG emissions and how to significantly reduce them.  Biofuels, including from corn stover (crop residue), is part of the solution.  The sound science we have, based on countless studies done over the years, should be enough to remove any clouds of doubt.  Those studies demonstrate that biofuels, including advanced biofuels that use crop residue, are indeed a solution to our climate change challenge because their lifecycle GHG emissions are far below those for petroleum.

Furthermore, renewable biofuels produced in Minnesota provide some solid economic benefits.  In a recently released comprehensive economic study conducted by John Dunham & Associates, we learn the production of biofuels in Minnesota injects $11.7 billion annually into the economy.  This same economic analysis finds the Minnesota biofuel producers help support 48,506 jobs (direct, induced and supplier), pay $3 billion in wages annually and contribute $1.1 billion annually in combined state and federal taxes.

While the fine print does matter, we should be clear about the issues.  The high carbon emitter in town is oil.  On the other hand, biofuels, for today and tomorrow, are an important renewable, low carbon emitting energy source.  Biofuels do, and will, continue to drive down GHG emissions to help stabilize the climate.  Biofuels do, and will, continue to be a big economic boost for Minnesota as well as the consumers who benefit from having a higher octane fuel that holds down the price of gasoline.  By keeping the focus on the real issues and applying science to further enhance the production of biofuels, we can indeed displace at least 30% of petroleum use in Minnesota by 2025 and be on a truly sustainable, low carbon biofuel cycle.

Please direct any comments This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq

The carbohydrate economy, or the biofuel vision, has been in the works for more than 100 years. At present, the most significant manifestation of that biofuel vision is expressed in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and Minnesota’s Petroleum Replacement Statute (PRS). For those of us concerned about the future of biofuels and the role they can play in boosting our energy security, creating economic prosperity, helping consumers and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is especially important that we take our right and responsibility to vote one step further. We need to diligently seek out candidates for elected office who really do understand and support biofuels, then we should vote for those candidates and once they are in office we need to hold them accountable for their actions that either hinder or help biofuels.

We've come this far. Let's not backslide. Most of you probably realize that the first Flex-Fuel Vehicle was the Model T which was introduced by Henry Ford in 1908. The Model T was designed to run on gasoline as well as ethanol. Although gasoline was the dominant fuel at that time because it cost about a third less than ethanol, gasoline prices rose significantly near the end of World War I. Those price increases for petroleum gasoline sparked a healthy debate about the role of biofuels as explained in “The Quest” by Daniel Yergin.

According to Yergin, some leading thinkers in the early 20th century were considering the advantages of biofuels over petroleum and a couple of prominent scientists had this to say about biofuels:

"(...alcohol is) a wonderfully clean-burning fuel… that can be produced from farm crops, agricultural waste and even garbage." - Alexander Graham Bell

"(alcohol fuel is) the most direct route which we know for converting energy from its source, the sun, to a material that is suitable for use as fuel." - Scientist for General Motors.

And biofuels did indeed get a boost in the marketplace.

Just as ethanol was on the rebound, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution took effect and alcoholic beverages were prohibited. This prohibition reached into the fuel sector as critics claimed that "To force the use of alcohol in motor fuel would be to make every filling station and gasoline pump a potential speakeasy." It was only after the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition, and when the Great Depression took a toll on farmers and commodity prices, that ethanol became a key component in farm relief and within the fuel supply. By the late 1930s, "Agroblends" - a mixture of gasoline and alcohol - were sold across the Midwest.

But the success of ethanol in the Midwest and other parts of the United States was short-lived as evidenced by a series of events over the following 66 years. Shortly after World War II, ethanol, once again, fell out of favor. But by the 1970s the United States was dealing with the adverse economic hardship caused by the oil shocks. Subsequent energy policies served to once again encourage the development of ethanol facilities.

Unfortunately, when oil prices collapsed in the mid-1980s, ethanol, once again, faded away. This type of whipsaw effect was due, in part, to the absence of a comprehensive renewable energy policy and inaccurate and incomplete economic cues regarding the externalities associated with petroleum. The runaway petroleum industry, with all the overt and hidden subsidies, had taken a toll on the economy, energy security, the environment and consumers.

It was only in 2005, with the introduction of the RFS and the PRS, that policymakers demonstrated an understanding about the complex interplay between energy policy, the agricultural sector, consumers, the economy, energy security and the environment.

While it might seem farfetched to expect that 100 years of neglect and damage to biofuels could be reversed in 10 years, the RFS and PRS are doing just that. These laws, while not fully implemented yet, are helping to deliver many positive benefits to people across Minnesota and the Nation.

Due to the RFS and PRS, Minnesota has seen some dramatic improvements and tangible benefits on a number of fronts. As for energy security, Minnesota ethanol producers are displacing at least 1.1 billion gallons of finite, carbon intensive, petroleum. Although Minnesotans have yet to maximize use of all the biofuels produced within the state, current biofuel production levels are approximately one half of the total motor fuel consumed annually in Minnesota.

As for economic benefits, Minnesota-based biofuel producers annually are injecting approximately $11.7 billion dollars into the economy as we grow our liquid transportation fuel. Rather than sending our energy dollars out of Minnesota to purchase and import finite petroleum, energy dollars used to purchase homegrown renewable energy are dollars that go to Main Street Minnesota.

Consumers receive economic benefits directly at the fuel dispenser. The more visible benefit is in, for example, the difference in price between non-oxygenated gasoline versus regular unleaded gasoline (E10 which consists of gasoline at 90% and ethanol at 10%) versus E15 which ranges from 10 cents a gallon to 20 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline. While less obvious, an equally important economic benefit is the role ethanol plays in offsetting the demand for petroleum. Several comprehensive studies have found that the supply of ethanol at the wholesale and retail levels helps to suppress demand for, and therefore the price of, gasoline by up to $1.69 per gallon in the Midwest.

Biofuels, such as ethanol, provide energy security, economic and consumer benefits as well as a broad range of environmental benefits. For example, according to scientific findings and reports compiled by the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol contains 35% oxygen which, when added to petroleum gasoline, promotes more complete combustion and thereby reduces harmful tailpipe emissions. Further, while ethanol displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene - a carcinogen - ethanol also decreases GHG emissions. In 2013 alone, the amount of ethanol produced in the United States reduced GHG emissions from on-road vehicles by 38 million metric tons which is equivalent to removing 8 million cars from the road.

But we’ve only just begun. The RFS and PRS have laid the foundation for a more durable and sustainable energy future. For nearly 100 years we have been beholden to petroleum, including all the risks that come from putting all of one’s proverbial energy eggs in one finite fossil fuel basket. Finally, thanks to the RFS and PRS, we have at least another seven and ten years respectively to more fully grow, use and realize the full scope of benefits from renewable biofuels.

As you prepare to vote on Nov 4, if you value the benefits of biofuels and want to keep moving forward rather than getting caught in the past biofuel whipsaw, take some time to do a bit of homework and put the tough questions to the incumbents and their challengers. Examine past votes the candidates might have taken on energy policy matters. Ask whether a candidate supports the RFS and the PRS. Determine what, specifically, the candidates have done, or propose to do, to advance the production and use of renewable biofuels? If a candidate states they support the RFS and the PRS and generally like biofuels yet they call for keeping E10 as the status quo, ask them to explain their position until you have a clear understanding of where they really stand regarding biofuels. Finally, after you have weighed the evidence and made your decision, be sure to cast your vote.

As always, you can direct your questions or comments to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.