Media
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
In the realm of biofuels, it seems the threats from and chaos in Washington D.C. crop up at least monthly, if not weekly. The many threats and ongoing chaos cut to the core of the biofuel industry which has made significant investments in people and production facilities so as to meet its obligations under the RFS. Unfortunately, just when some of us thought the most recent RFS disaster may have been averted, we now learn, just days after the EPA Administrator finally acknowledged the rule of law, the petroleum industry is back hammering away at the Trump Administration to further undermine the RFS.
The most recent disaster that may have been averted for a few days or weeks is the now possibly defunct proposal to “offshore” the RFS by allowing exports to satisfy the RVOs rather than to put biofuels into the market in the United States. Such an action, we noted in the column for last month, would have been an outright repudiation of the RFS and its underlying congressional intent.
Suffice to say, thanks to President Trump’s intervention following pressure from lawmakers that included Senators Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, the spine of the RFS has been preserved at least for now.
Rather than rehash the political maneuvering and process machinations that led to saving the RFS a few days ago, the balance of remarks here are offered as a type of road map for the EPA to consider and perhaps use. First and foremost the law, that is, the statutes, rules and court cases, must transcend short-sighted political knee-jerk reactions.
The enhanced version of the RFS (Energy Independence and Security Act) has been with us for 10 years. Republicans and Democrats and all the interested stakeholders worked their way through an open and transparent democratic process to produce what we have accepted as and indeed is the law of the land, the RFS. Nothing in the RFS is a surprise to biofuel producers nor the petroleum industry but for the manner in which the EPA has devised ways to pervert and distort the simple application of the black letter law.
And, over the last 10 years, it should be apparent to all of us that the majority of the petroleum industry in and of itself has failed to make substantive and significant investments in fueling infrastructure so as to enable more consumers to have access to cleaner, renewable biofuels. Rather than helping to fulfill the spirit and the letter of the law, the petroleum industry has continuously worked to undermine the RFS and the petroleum industry seems to now be even more invigorated and aggressive in its attacks on the RFS as ethanol consumption has cracked through their fictitious “blend wall”.
We must remember that congress - Republicans and Democrats - expected the RFS would put us, as a People and Nation, on a truly renewable energy pathway. A host of energy security, consumer, economic and environmental benefits already are derived from the RFS, but the magnitude of those benefits becomes greater as the RFS is more fully implemented.
Under past administrations, lawmakers and stakeholders have had to come to the defense of the RFS especially with respect to the RVO determinations. But the most recent attack on the RFS (i.e., using exports to meet the RVOs) is unprecedented.
Stakeholders will certainly advocate for their positions with respect to implementing or changing the law, but there are reasons we have congress and agencies in the United States. The EPA Administrator is neither a member of congress nor a judge and the rules of administrative procedure govern the work of the agency rather than powerful interests from the fossil fuels industry.
As such the Administrator is charged with enforcing, for example, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and many other laws including the RFS. The Administrator should work to restore the credibility of the agency and follow the rule of law.
The road map for the EPA does include some guideposts along the way. There are of course the laws including those embodied in the RFS and the broader Code of Federal Regulations. Another important guidepost is science. Unless the Agency embraces science, particularly with respect to the emission of greenhouse gases and their effect on climate, ecosystems and human societies, the laws such as the RFS may be seen as simply giving favor to biofuels versus petroleum. That interpretation, however, flies in the face of the purpose and intent of the RFS and the science underlying biofuels.
Biofuels are a renewable fuel with a significantly lower lifecycle GHG emission compared to finite fossil fuel petroleum. Whether used in spark ignition engine powered vehicles in amounts of 10 percent, 15 percent (2001 and newer vehicles) or higher blends (flex fuel vehicles), biofuels can immediately help to lower GHG emissions in the transportation sector. It is the RFS that creates the opening for biofuels to enter the petroleum dominated marketplace so as to reduce GHG emissions.
Along this road, particularly with respect to the RFS, are many opportunities to fulfill the intent and vision expressed by Congress: to make America more energy independent with renewable biofuels.
The EPA has, for example, a special opportunity now to connect the dots between the RFS, the CAFE standards and GHG emission targets in the transportation sector. Under the law and based on science, the EPA can unleash the full potential of biofuels to fulfill the aims of the RFS and to improve environmental quality. By keeping strong and enforcing the RFS, maintaining the CAFE Standards and GHG emission targets and accepting the science supporting the use of mid-level blends of ethanol as a high-octane, low carbon fuel, the EPA can fulfill its charge and help usher in a new era for automobile manufacturers, biofuel producers and all of us who depend upon clean air and a life sustaining environment.
The EPA should use its collective energy and resources to work within the law and build a future that puts us further down the renewable energy pathway. It’s better for the economy, energy security, consumers and the environment.
The EPA Administrator should recall his role as the Administrator of the EPA. Or it won’t be too long before President Trump has to once again personally intervene to save the RFS.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
As we look ahead and take stock of the year past, it’s clear that by working together, we have once again surmounted many challenges. Whether it’s been the push back to attacks on the RFS or helping independent fuel retailer chains in making the transition from mid-grade fuel to E15, we did it. Through all these challenges, at the state and federal level and in the field with fuel retailers, equipment installers and consumers, we remained true to our organizational mission to once again deliver incremental, meaningful and tangible results in 2017.
More pointedly, our supporters helped to make possible our work on the ground to lead various battles to lower artificial barriers to both biofuel producers and biofuels. Practically speaking, these battles have been, for instance, over the RVOs proposed by the EPA; the role of mid-level blends in boosting engine performance while driving down GHG emissions; rallying support for ASTM International testing standards favorable to E15 and advanced biofuels; implementing sophisticated and targeted social media campaigns, promotional events and school tours of ethanol plants; and leading the efforts to build the network of E15 fuel retailers, fuel brands and sales volume in Minnesota.
With a clear organizational mission and aggressive project goals, with our competent and highly motivated team and with adequate resources, we have demonstrated that almost anything is possible. To wit, the many projects managed and actualized by the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association. We broadly categorize these projects as advocacy, communications and education and fuel supply chain. During 2017, we threaded the project needle and stitched together the right combination of advocacy and education and facilitation of the fuel supply chain so as to further lower barriers to biofuels and substantially increase access to E15.
On the legislative and advocacy front, we joined other RFS proponents to make the case for minimal changes to the RVOs. Without getting too deep in the weeds on this, we underscored the disconnect between the congressional intent of the RFS and the damaging cuts proposed by the EPA.
As part of our effort to keep strong the RFS, we testified before the EPA in Washington, D.C. and later submitted substantive written comments. We also engaged with the EPA’s midterm review of the CAFE Standards and GHG emission targets for automakers, emphasizing on the costly reality of inaction with regard to climate change, the performance characteristics of mid-level blends of ethanol and existing engine technology.
And just a few words about ASTM International. This is another example of how we seek to have a high, positive impact for the industry at the most strategic level possible. ASTM International is the standards setting organization for virtually everything in the world of commerce including petroleum and biofuels. Within ASTM International, we work with colleagues from within the realm of biofuels as well as research labs to ensure the standards set a level playing field between petroleum and biofuels.
In terms of E15 sales, we need to be mindful that having the dispensing infrastructure in place is not enough to get consumers to use E15. Having a 10 cent (or even a 20 cent) price differential between regular fuel and E15 is not always enough to get consumers to use it. We still have to continue educating consumers and promoting E15 to increase sales volumes. In October, E15 sales breached the 3 million gallon mark in Minnesota for the first time. But considering the number of stations now offering E15, we're still some way from making it the new regular.
Lessons Learned for What’s Ahead
As we head into 2018, we have an excellent foundation to build upon. And we will need to use that foundation on day one of the new year.
Given the renewed push by Marathon Oil and other anti-biofuel interests, I expect the attacks on the RFS will continue to grow. But we plan to do our part to keep strong the laws which help strengthen the biofuel industry. Until petroleum products reflect their true external costs (e.g., military defense, environmental damage, climate change), we need a strong RFS and Minnesota Petroleum Replacement Law. This also means we will continue to monitor and serve as the guardian of 43 statutes in Minnesota.
On the regulatory front in Minnesota, the biofuel industry continues to be a dynamic industry. With constantly evolving biological processes and the availability of advanced production technology, regulators have been challenged to keep up with the industry. Over the past year we have charted a new course by working in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency so as to achieve a meaningful level of regulatory flexibility for biofuel producers. We aim to continue the push forward with this innovative regulatory framework to serve a variety of biofuel producers including those who will be using a variety of advanced biofuel qualified feedstock.
For 2018 we also plan to expand the capability of our social media platforms to reach even greater numbers of potential E15 consumers. And we will work to maintain the high quality of our school tours while further expanding our reach into high schools and secondary education classrooms. We also plan to expand our reach into the retail, wholesale and fleet vehicle markets. With respect to fleet operations, we aim to ensure greater access to E15 and E85 for state, county and municipal vehicle operators.
And we will explore new pathways by which to address the RVP challenge and thereby liberate an additional 25 percent in market potential for E15.
All of these new or expanded initiatives are possible, but only with the continued support from our stakeholders. As we look ahead to 2018, we need to work together and work smart. We need to build upon the foundation laid in 2017 so as to pave the way for greater volumes of biofuel, including advanced biofuels, in the marketplace. By doing so, we will move closer to fulfilling the actual intent of the RFS and the Minnesota Petroleum Replacement Law.
Happy New Year.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Yes, Sen. Ted Cruz and his henchpeople are doing all they can to tear down the RFS as I write this piece. And we, along with other biofuel proponents, are doing all we can to bolster lawmakers’ support for the RFS. Toward that end, the facts, the evidence are unequivocal: the RFS continues to deliver substantive consumer, economic, energy security and environmental benefits.
These assertions are based on facts. We, as the trade association for Minnesota's ethanol industry, need to know whether the RFS is working as intended by Congress. If the RFS is not working, it should be modified to make it work. On the other hand, if the RFS is working, it should be allowed to fully perform as intended by Congress.
So what does the data and the evidence show?
The RFS is working.
To recap the facts: ethanol (1) provides consumers with a better value at the pump (higher octane at 5 to 15 cents less than regular unleaded), (2) has the potential to reduce annual GHG emissions by 1.07 million metric tons if all regular gasoline sales in Minnesota contained 15 percent ethanol, (3) comprises 12.4 percent of the transportation fuel in Minnesota with room to grow and (4) supports over 18,800 jobs in Minnesota.
Nothing fake here. The metrics are real numbers from the field and include data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Illinois Chicago GHG specialist and the Minnesota Departments of Commerce and Revenue.
With respect to the most current analysis about the contribution of the Minnesota ethanol industry to the Minnesota economy and well-being of residents, we rely on subject matter experts to give us the facts. Upon reviewing, evaluating and analyzing the relevant data for 2017, a reputable economist reports that in addition to supporting 18,800 jobs, the Minnesota ethanol industry contributed $2.17 billion to the gross domestic product and $1.54 billion to household incomes and paid $192 million in state and local taxes.
Yes indeed, the RFS is working and most likely working better than the petroleum industry interests anticipated. Perhaps that’s why Sen. Cruz and his ilk are using Philadelphia Energy Solutions, a refiner that is failing due to its own mismanagement, as a tool to inflict harm upon and damage to the RFS.
We encourage lawmakers to ask tough questions about petroleum’s ruse. And we ask lawmakers to have the facts when a party challenges the RFS. Please know the RFS is working as intended by Congress. Ethanol is indeed displacing finite petroleum and moving us toward a more renewable and sustainable energy pathway. While we are making progress in displacing finite, carbon intensive petroleum, we have much more work to do. Therefore, to complete the transition to renewable energy in the transportation sector, we, as a state and sation, need to keep strong the RFS so we can collectively more fully decarbonize the transportation sector.
This takes me to the last point about the RFS - where do we go from here or in 2022? For the immediate future, given the results delivered by the RFS, we should all work to keep strong the RFS. To explore the longer term issues, MBA will be convening stakeholders in the next few months. To queue up the broader issues, I will close with a few points for the biofuel industry, lawmakers and other stakeholders to consider. At the root of all our efforts should be the drive to more fully decarbonize the transportation sector.
What does this mean over a span of 10 to 15 years? In the short term, that means making E15 available to all consumers with a spark ignition powered vehicle that was built after 2000. While we celebrate the sale of approximately 20 million gallons of E15 during 2017 in Minnesota, we need to displace at least 150 million gallons of petroleum gasoline each month! Providing RVP parity for E15 will help to further accelerate this transition. Perhaps the next rung to decarbonizing the transportation sector is the use of mid-level blends of ethanol.
The infrastructure is moving into place so a growing number of fuel retailers can actually offer to consumer, for example, 25 percent ethanol blends for use in EPA-approved vehicles. This will require the proper research and testing so as to obtain approvals similar to what was done for E15. Meanwhile, in my humble opinion, we should also embrace EVs powered by a green electrical grid, a grid filled with electrons moving from wind energy conversion or solar arrays. Europe is making the transition as evidenced by various policies and the vehicle line-up for a growing number of manufacturers. My hunch is this: if we embrace a broader renewable vision and put the focus on decarbonizing the transportation sector, we will discover new and expanded opportunities for biofuels.
In closing, all of us must continue to work to keep strong the RFS. Let’s put the focus on getting E15 fully deployed across the entire fuel supply chain in the United States.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
A tax credit being proposed in the Minnesota legislature to help ethanol producers improve energy efficiency could boost Minnesota’s economy by $189 million.
To qualify for the tax credit, ethanol producers in Minnesota would have to make significant capital investments to install and operate combined heat and power (CHP) and expander generators (EG) systems.
These systems improve energy efficiency because they can generate process steam and electricity with a lower carbon fuel, like natural gas, without losing electricity over many miles of transmission lines.
While this technology is relatively common in Europe, it is still in its infancy in Minnesota. A properly crafted tax credit would provide the necessary push for a diverse mix of ethanol producers and other eligible businesses to make the commitment to install these energy systems.
Some have asked why a tax credit is needed if such technology is so great? They argue against the proposed incentive because they believe the market provides all the necessary price signals. And if the price signal is negative, businesses can either heed that finding or disregard it and build the systems at their expense.
While there might be some merit to the traditional economic market argument with respect to some capital investments, it fails to recognize that economic signals from the marketplace can be inadequate or incomplete.
For the CHP and EG systems, the current price signals for electricity fail to fully incorporate the environmental externalities associated with generating electricity from fossil fuels such as lignite or coal. And almost half of the electricity generated and used in Minnesota is derived from these carbon-intensive finite fossil fuels.
Furthermore, the positive economic impact from the adoption of CHP and EG systems cannot be overlooked.
Minnesota’s 19 ethanol plants currently use 178.3 megawatts of electricity annually. To produce 50 percent of that electricity through CHP and EG systems, Minnesota’s ethanol plants would have to invest $260 million to install the aforementioned systems.
And according to an analysis by ABF Economics, those investments would add $189 million to Minnesota’s gross domestic product (GDP).
It would also support 1,458 full-time equivalent jobs in all sectors of the state economy, add $17 million in tax revenue and contribute $147 million in household income
In addition, ethanol producers and other eligible business would benefit directly with lower operating costs as energy would be used more efficiently.
Minnesota residents would benefit too.
Ethanol already emits 44 to 57 percent fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline. With CHP and EG systems, lower carbon fuels such as natural gas would replace electricity from coal and lignite in the ethanol production process, thereby making ethanol an even greener fuel.
Minnesota lawmakers should consider supporting the tax credit for CHP and EG systems because of its benefits to Minnesota’s environment and economy.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
On July 24, the new acting administrator for the EPA, Andrew Wheeler said the agency is open to changes sought by the biofuel industry, but only if we make concessions with Big Oil.
“When everyone is complaining about the program, we need to look at ways to change the program,” he said.
Let’s be clear here. There are legitimate complaints from the biofuel industry because Wheeler’s predecessor turned over the agency to Big Oil. How else can you explain the 2.25 billion gallons of ethanol that were lost via the EPA’s RVO waivers to refineries in the last two years?
But more importantly, it’s not Wheeler’s job to set policies and promulgate laws. That responsibility lies with Congress. So with respect to the RFS, his sole job is to implement the law.
Simply put, that means increasing the RVOs to push biofuel producers to make more biofuels, including from greater amounts of cellulosic biomass, and for petroleum refiners and the entire fueling infrastructure to blend increasingly greater amounts of biofuels. That’s his job.
Perhaps he’s doing just what his boss wants: advance the use of more fossil fuels. While the President gives mixed signals as to whether he actually supports the use of ethanol, the White House Energy Plan is crystal clear - promote fossil fuels with no mention of renewable energy or biofuels.
But regardless of what the White House Energy plan states, the RFS is the law of the land.
Wheeler might, however, be challenged to get more biofuels into the marketplace. One of the simplest first steps to rectify that problem is to give E15 RVP parity with E10. While I recognize some thought leaders have already weighed in on this matter, here are a few general ideas about how the RFS actually supports the EPA in granting an RVP waiver to E15.
Starting with 42 USC § 7545, Regulation of Fuels, there is a pathway for the E15 RVP waiver. Subsection (h)(4) specifically addresses the RVP waiver for E10 and has three subparts the EPA uses to determine whether “a distributor, blender, marketer, reseller, carrier, retailer, or wholesale purchaser-consumer shall be deemed to be in full compliance.” One of those parts, (B), goes to the blend of ethanol not exceeding its waiver condition.
What is that singular waiver condition? In 2012, the EPA granted a partial waiver for E15 whereby it was approved for use in all cars 2001 and newer. Keep in mind, approval for E15 was issued seven years after the RFS became law.
Another pathway to obtain RVP parity for E15 is through a Congressional act - an amendment to only the Clean Air Act provision dealing with RVP. Although one party in Washington controls all three branches of government, the Consumer and Retailer Choice Act (Senate 517 and House Resolution 1311) appears to be stalled.
Lastly, the EPA could initiate a rulemaking process. An agency has at least nine factors it may consider to do so and here are a few factors:
-
New technologies or new data on existing issues: E15 is new relative to E10 when the RFS was signed into law.
-
Petitions from interest groups, corporations, and members of the public: Ethanol trade associations fall into this category. The rulemaking, however, should be narrowly tailored to specifically address RVP parity for E15. This could be the opportunity to also “fix” section (h)(4) so as to include anticipated higher blends going forward.
-
Presidential directives: The President could direct the EPA to begin rulemaking. While efforts may have been made in this direction, perhaps this avenue should be reviewed and pushed more aggressively.
By failing to comply with and enforce the law, the EPA has weakened the RFS and created unnecessary confusion and uncertainty for the biofuels and agriculture industries. The agency must take immediate steps to get the RFS back on track. That means holding Big Oil accountable for compliance as well as fixing the RVP problem so greater volumes of ethanol can be used by consumers throughout the year.
Those were the central questions put to about 60 participants in a recent energy discussion hosted by the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment. The answers to those questions, especially by and for lawmakers, have profound implications for biofuel producers and the future of biofuels in Minnesota.
As the event progressed and information was shared and discussions opened up, an extremely ludicrous notion came up several times – that to support renewable energy was akin to “locking-in certain technologies.”
What exactly does this notion mean? It means – believe or not – that by supporting renewable energy, we could be curtailing support for some yet to be discovered form of energy.
Perhaps calling this notion ludicrous is too kind.
What was more alarming is that this notion came from a Minnesota state senator. He was among the diverse group of participants which also included other Minnesota lawmakers, commissioners and stakeholders from the agriculture industry.
As luck would have it, the aforementioned senator was in my discussion group, which included an investor handling carbon credits, a representative of a non-profit organization promoting renewables, a professor from a renewable energy laboratory and a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
It should be noted that all of us but the senator were having a fast moving, positive, proactive conversation about the role and future of three renewables (biofuels, solar, wind), distributed generation, microgrids and combined heat and power systems.
It was during this discussion when the senator floored the rest of us by suggesting that any support for renewables is akin to “locking in certain technologies.”
Naturally we were curious about this notion so we peppered him with questions:
“How do you think supporting renewables would ‘lock-in technology?’”
“And what do you mean by locking in certain technologies?”
“What problems do you have with supporting renewables, especially when they cut greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the economy?”
“Moreover, how could any future technology be locked out just because one supports renewables?”
As one would expect, he struggled to provide a logical explanation for his position. Was his judgement clouded because he was biased towards another form of energy? Was his connections to the nuclear industry the underlying reason for his opposition towards renewable energy? Or was he just misinformed?
Equally shocking, during their closing remarks, a few other lawmakers brought up this technology lock-in issue. Simply put, they said renewables are great, but we should not pick winners and losers – a mantra popular with politicians aligned with the fossil fuel industry.
Had the opportunity presented itself, one could have asked whether the lawmakers realize that finite, carbon-intensive fossil fuels have been picked as winners because they are heavily subsidized through, for instance, exploration, the depletion allowance and the failure to account for externalities such as climate change, polluted air and other related human health problems.
Make no mistake, these lawmakers would indeed hinder the growth of biofuels in Minnesota and they might attack or undermine Minnesota’s Petroleum Replacement Promotion law, which calls for the consumption of at least 30 percent biofuels in transportation fuel by 2025.
Their arguments and “concerns” over renewable energy lock-in and picking winners and losers are red herrings. As such, lawmakers who support renewable energy cannot be silent.
Minnesota’s biofuel industry already faces a multitude of barriers – be it access to E15 or regulatory bottlenecks in the air permitting process. It does not need another and this illogical “technology lock-in” idea is just that. Lawmakers who take seriously their support for renewables must lead and support the Renewable Fuel Standard and the Minnesota Petroleum Replacement laws. We must continually work together to address these and other challenges. That’s how we can keep Minnesota a biofuel leader.
With the mid-term elections finally behind us, 2019 is set to usher in a new political landscape in both St Paul and Washington, D.C. For us in the ethanol industry, it will be an opportunity to work with leaders and lawmakers who actually understand the dynamics in rural and urban communities and the role biofuels can play in solving a host of problems.
From the Governor to the state legislature to Minnesota’s two senators and members of congress in Washington, we now have fresh leadership that is more open and willing to work with us to further lower the artificial barriers to the ethanol industry. We are eager to work with these leaders and lawmakers to find pragmatic solutions to tangible problems and thereby unleash the pent-up production and demand potential for ethanol in Minnesota.
We believe Governor-elect Tim Walz will provide a fresh perspective to Minnesota’s ethanol industry. Over the last few years, we have worked with then Rep. Walz and his team to seek solutions to the challenges confronting our industry. Despite the many obstacles, Walz, along with Rep. Peterson and Rep. Emmer and other supporters of the Biofuel Caucus, have led efforts to push back on the oil industry and protect the RFS.
Walz’ experience on the RFS at the federal level also opens the possibility of an energizing approach for the ethanol industry in Minnesota. Indeed, over the years, he met many of the women and men who run our ethanol plants so he has firsthand knowledge about the barriers standing between ethanol producers and air permits and greater access to E15.
With regards to Minnesota’s Petroleum Replacement Promotion Law (which calls for at least 30 percent biofuels in transportation fuel by 2025), Walz told us, prior to the elections, that he plans to work with his commissioners of agriculture, pollution control and commerce to achieve this goal. We look forward to working with him on this, among a significant host of issues, as well as a Plan B for an RVP waiver for E15.
In the Minnesota House, there will be some new and returning representatives in leadership positions. These members, from both parties, have also expressed strong support to meeting the goals of the Minnesota Petroleum Replacement Law as well as funding for E15 storage and dispensing systems.
On the federal level, we can expect a new beginning for the Biofuels Caucus with several new members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation. These new members went on-the-record in some depth to express their support for the RFS, finding a permanent fix for the RVP problem and funding for additional biofuel infrastructure. It is important to note that some of these new members are from largely urban districts in the Twin Cities metro. In the past, representatives from these districts have not always been supportive of our industry.
All of this points to new possibilities for Minnesota’s ethanol industry at both the state and federal level in 2019. The new alignment of leadership at the Minnesota legislature and in the Minnesota Congressional Delegation presents us with opportunities to unlock the potential of E15 and higher ethanol blends to provide even greater energy independence, economic and environmental benefits to Minnesota.
In 2019, all eyes will be on the EPA and its planned rulemaking in February to extend a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver to E15 and thus enable E15 to be sold during the summer months. It’s no secret that the RVP ban on E15 in the summer has been a major impediment on the growth of E15 in Minnesota and the rest of the country. While the EPA’s shorter-than-usual timeframe for the rulemaking process raises some concerns, we remain cautiously optimistic that RVP parity for E15 will be achieved in 2019. As such, we have already begun planning advertising and promotional activities in the summer of 2019 to boost E15 usage in Minnesota during the traditionally high driving season.
On the legislative front, there will be several new opportunities for Minnesota’s ethanol industry in 2019. During the run-up to the recently concluded mid-term elections, we communicated with both state and federal candidates on issues concerning Minnesota’s ethanol industry. We are pleased to note that many of the incoming federal and state lawmakers, as well as Governor-elect Tim Walz, have voiced strong support for increasing the amount of ethanol in Minnesota’s transportation fuel and the need for funding for more E15 and E85 stations in the state.
It should also be noted that several new members of Minnesota’s delegation in congress that represent districts in the Twin Cities metro have gone on record , in some depth, to express their support for the RFS, finding a permanent fix for the RVP problem and biofuel infrastructure funding.
This new dynamic means the Congressional Biofuel Caucus can grow with strong support from Minnesota’s second, third and fifth congressional districts.
In the 2019 Minnesota legislative session specifically, we will work on expanding the availability of E15. Even with 315 E15 fuel retailers in Minnesota, just under 10 percent of the total fuel supply chain network in the state is equipped to offer E15 and higher ethanol blends. Our aim is to push closer to 20 percent market penetration so that at least 660 fuel retailers can offer E15 to motorists. But some fuel retailers will need some financial assistance to modify their fuel storage and dispensing systems and we intend to address this issue in the 2019 legislative session.
We will also work to make further refinements to the air permitting process to decrease the number of days it takes for the issuance of permits to ethanol producers from approximately 730 to 150 or fewer days. At the time of this writing, we are preparing for a face-to-face meeting with the commissioner of the MPCA and the outcome of this meeting will determine whether additional action needs to be taken during the 2019 legislative session.
We will also work to support efforts aimed at creating a tax stimulus for a modern distributed generation system that makes lower carbon intensive electricity available to ethanol producers. Such systems could include combined heat and power and expander generators. These systems decrease the transmission line loss and have the potential to move from coal-fired generating systems to those operated by less carbon-intensive natural gas.
In closing, for 2019, we will continue to focus on lowering tangible barriers to ethanol producers and increase ethanol consumption in Minnesota. We will also continue our efforts to learn more about two new vehicle concepts - Toyota’s hybrid flex fuel and Nissan’s solid oxide fuel cell - that have the potential to present new opportunities for the ethanol industry in the future.
More...
With 1,125 bills introduced thus far in the 2019 Minnesota Legislative session, it can be easy for issues to get lost in the process of making laws. This is where MN Biofuels comes in to do its advocacy work by providing legislative leaders the tools to focus on issues that are important to the ethanol industry and the state.
To keep the focus on lowering barriers for biofuel producers and providing the growing number of motorists greater access to biofuels, we have opened up key discussions with the Governor and some of his cabinet members and state lawmakers. Specifically, our focus this 2019 legislative session will be on advancing four initiatives.
Our first initiative is about securing additional funding for biofuel infrastructure. We are working with legislative leaders to find a pathway to provide financial assistance to some 150 retailers who are keen on offering E15 and higher blends of ethanol.
Our second initiative recognizes the challenges that come with the EPA's approach to providing RVP relief for E15 by this summer. While we remain optimistic that the agency will promulgate some rule, given the recent government shutdown and possibly another one on the horizon, we are working on a backup plan should the EPA fail to lift the RVP ban on E15 this summer. Such a plan will require close work with the Governor and other stakeholders.
Our third initiative goes to the potential use of E15 and higher ethanol blends by state, county and municipal fleet vehicles. Our focus will be on the Department of Administration and fully using state procurement contracts to make E15 readily available for the aforementioned fleet vehicles. This would be another incremental step in the process of making E15 the new regular fuel across Minneosta.
Lastly, we are working with lawmakers and the Governor to make Minnesota a new and refreshed leader when it comes to biofuels. Toward this end, we are exploring a fleet testing program concept and how we might engage with various state agencies and the University of Minnesota to either add to existing research on 30 percent and 40 percent blends of ethanol or blaze our own trail.
It should be noted that the bedrock principles for our initiatives are found in two important Minnesota laws. One law calls for displacing petroleum with at least 30 percent volume ethanol by 2025 (Governor Walz has signaled strong interest in fulling the aims of the Petroleum Replacement Promotion law). The other law calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to a level at least 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Given that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emission in the transportation sector, ethanol is an ideal tool by which to satisfy this policy objective.
Given the receptivity to the concepts presented by MN Biofuels, we expect the 2019 legislative session to be fast paced and filled with potential to move the ethanol industry closer to fulfilling the Minnesota public policy objectives and more fully and effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier this month the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, along with the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association and 29 other stakeholders, lent its name to the white paper, “A Clean Fuels Policy for the Midwest.” For more than nine months we participated in stakeholder discussions that developed the white paper, which lays the foundation for a clean fuels policy that could expand ethanol usage in Minnesota’s transportation sector.
Simply put, a clean fuels program is a performance-based incentive program that supports the usage of fuels with a lower lifecycle carbon intensity (CI) such as ethanol. Moreover, this program is designed to contribute to existing goals at the state level such as the Minnesota Petroleum Replacement Promotion Law, which calls for ethanol to comprise 30 percent of all transportation fuel in Minnesota by 2025.
While we are unlikely to meet that target in the next five years, a Minnesota Clean Fuels Policy could set us on the right path to achieving that goal and more. This is because when there is an economic value on carbon, the right incentives are placed for more ethanol usage in Minnesota’s transportation sector.
Here’s how the policy would work: a governing body is established and a price is set for a ton of carbon (greenhouse gas emissions). As farmers and ethanol producers continue to improve their respective CI scores, so does ethanol’s CI score improve. The standards set through the policy and ethanol’s low CI then provides the necessary incentive for the petroleum industry to use more ethanol.
The policy could also lead to the usage of mid-level blends of ethanol as well as the introduction of new vehicles such as a plug-in flex fuel hybrid because auto manufacturers would also be provided an incentive.
And just like it would for the Minnesota Petroleum Replacement Promotion Law, a Minnesota Clean Fuels Policy would contribute to achieving the Walz Administration’s greenhouse gas emissions goal in the transportation sector.
Last year, the Minnesota Department of Transportation released a report that said a push for higher blends of ethanol and the necessary storage and dispensing infrastructure is a critical component in decarbonizing the state’s transportation sector.
The need for rapid GHG reductions underscores the need for more ethanol in the global transportation system. Over here in Minnesota, ethanol’s GHG savings are widely known but there hasn’t been an official policy that recognizes ethanol’s improving CI scores as a result of sustainable farming practices and increased efficiencies at ethanol plants.
Furthermore, a properly crafted Clean Fuels Policy for Minnesota holds the potential to further transform production efficiencies from the farm to ethanol plants to end-users and in turn, replace significant volumes of carbon-intensive petroleum. If we get this right, the beneficiaries will be farmers (and by extension rural communities), ethanol producers and present and future generations of Minnesotans.
The Covid-19 pandemic has upended much of life as we knew it a few weeks ago. First, and foremost, we extend our best wishes to all of you as you work to protect the safety and health of your teams and family members. And to the ethanol producers that have stepped up to the current challenge by managing multiple priorities while making renewable transportation fuel, animal feed and ingredients for sanitizers, we thank you.
In an effort to slow the spread of Covid-19, Gov. Tim Walz has issued a shelter-in-place order in Minnesota for two weeks. During this period, there will be a big decline in the sale of transportation fuel which in turn will adversely impact Minnesota’s ethanol industry.
We will continue to engage with members of Minnesota’s Congressional Delegation, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and state lawmakers by providing updates on the present and anticipated challenges facing our ethanol industry and offering some suggestions for ways to keep our ethanol industry viable.
One suggestion is a funding package to keep ethanol plants open. Rural Minnesota needs the jobs created and provided by ethanol plants and retaining those jobs is our top priority. We are also looking at various funding mechanisms to cover some of the costs associated with the procurement of corn.
Finally, on the advocacy front, we have been working with a variety of state agencies and the Governor's office to find certain regulatory flexibility in response to the need for sanitizers and other valuable ethanol co-products.
We are also working with E15 fuel retailers in the state to shift an even greater share of their existing and foreseeable consumer demand to E15. We have also launched advertising campaigns encouraging consumers in the Twin Cities who have to travel during this period to support Minnesota’s local economy by fueling up with E15.
To all of our friends and supporters, we wish you the very best during this challenging time and extend our sincerest gratitude to all front line healthcare workers.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Minnesota’s ethanol industry, like the rest of the nation, has and continues to face an unprecedented crisis. Some plants have reduced production by as much as 50 percent while others have temporarily idled production. This, in turn, has adversely affected the countless number of industries that work closely with Minnesota’s ethanol industry.
Over here at the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, we have been working closely with our state government and congressional delegation to find ways to keep our industry afloat and position it toward an upward trajectory when this crisis ends.
Earlier this month, as demand for sanitizing agents skyrocketed, the FDA relaxed its rules concerning the use of industrial alcohol from ethanol plants for sanitizer. Back here in Minnesota, we worked closely with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Departments of Agriculture and Public Safety - Alcohol and Gambling Division and the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) to provide our ethanol producers with the necessary guidelines to produce 190 proof and 200 proof ethanol for hand sanitizer or surface sanitizer. Since then, several ethanol producers in Minnesota have diversified their operations to produce ethanol for in-demand sanitizer products.
Other opportunities for diversification for the ethanol industry include meeting the growing demand for CO2 from beverage makers and the livestock industry. We have engaged several engineering firms to explore some options for the rapid deployment of systems to capture CO2 during the ethanol production process. We hope we’ll be able to share some developments in this area with you in the very near future.
Still, it is important to note that these diversification opportunities are not nearly enough to replace the gallons of ethanol that have been lost from this crisis. As such, we have been working with our congressional delegation, the Walz Administration and state lawmakers for some aid that could keep our ethanol industry afloat.
One of our proposals includes cash payments for bushels of corn that were processed by an ethanol plant over a certain date range based on tracked and recorded data. These cash payments would help ethanol plants remain financially viable for a few months so that they will be ready to resume full production when this crisis begins to dissipate. Additionally, we have been working with DEED to provide our ethanol producers with up-to-date information about the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other loan options that are part of the CARES Act to help them retain their teams.
For the medium and long-term viability of the ethanol industry, we have long advocated to our congressional delegation on the need for funding for fuel infrastructure that can dispense E15 and other higher blends of ethanol. We are pleased to note that on April 28, Minnesota’s Rep. Angie Craig introduced the bipartisan Clean Fuels Deployment Act of 2020 which authorizes $500 million over five years to help retailers offer higher blends of ethanol. This initiative will help increase the availability and use of E15 and other blends and provide rural Minnesota with some much needed economic relief while reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
In the coming days and weeks, we hope we will be able to share with you more positive developments for our industry. There is a light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel and it is aimed at a new and positive upward trajectory for our renewable fuels industry.
When the US Senate returns from its one-week Memorial Day break, it will begin discussions for a fifth coronavirus relief bill.
With unemployment at record highs and the economy contracting at unseen rates, there is little time for discussions. Relief is needed now and this time around, the Senate should follow the lead of its colleagues in the House and include the ethanol industry in any aid package.
More than 130 ethanol plants across the nation have partially or fully shutdown operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic which has led to a plunge in fuel demand. In Minnesota, the traffic volume in the Twin Cities metro area was 67.1 percent below a baseline for 2016-2019.
Since then, as the state economy has slowly reopened, the traffic volume has increased. But as of May 20, it was still 15.5 percent lower than the baseline. As such, the ethanol industry in Minnesota is still in serious distress, putting in jeopardy the 18,000 jobs it supports.
The Senate does not need to look too hard to find a way to help the ethanol industry.
Two of its members, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, introduced the Renewable Fuel Feedstock Reimbursement Act last week.
Advocates for the ethanol industry like MN Biofuels have in the past month suggested to both Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Tina Smith that cash payments for bushels of corn processed by an ethanol plant during a specific timeframe would help keep them financially viable for a few months.
This bill does that.
Under the act, the USDA will use the Commodity Credit Corporation to reimburse ethanol producers 75 percent of the price of feedstock purchases made from Jan 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020.
The Senate could also take a page out of the HEROES Act that was recently passed by Congress.
The HEROES Act includes the Renewable Fuel Reimbursement Program which would require the USDA to make payments to renewable fuel or advanced biofuel producers that experienced unexpected market losses due to the pandemic.
The program will pay ethanol producers 45 cents per gallon of ethanol produced from Jan 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020. Minnesota’s Rep. Collin Peterson and Rep. Angie Craig were both instrumental in including aid for the ethanol industry in the HEROES Act.
The ethanol industry, and to a larger extent the agriculture industry, cannot wait for the Senate to drag its feet during the deliberations for the upcoming relief package.
Both the Renewable Fuel Feedstock Reimbursement Act and the Renewable Fuel Reimbursement Program would significantly help the ethanol industry. Either one would provide the industry with a much-needed shot in the arm.
Members of the Senate who like talking about homegrown industries and American jobs should act fast to save America’s ethanol industry.
Unlike those senators, the industry doesn’t have the luxury of taking a one-week Memorial Day break.
The worst may be over for the ethanol industry as production in Minnesota and other parts of the country begin to approach pre-pandemic numbers. But it would be a mistake for anyone to believe the industry is back on a sound footing.
When traffic volumes plunged in April and May, ethanol production throughout the country fell to unforeseen levels with many plants idling production while others reduced output by 50 percent.
That is why it is imperative for the Senate to include the financial aid package for the ethanol industry that was introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar in the next COVID-19 relief bill.
While this aid package is much needed for the short-term to stabilize the industry in this turbulent time, there are several measures that can be adopted at the state level to rebuild and regrow the ethanol industry for the medium and long-term.
Moreover, these measures would grow the economy, retain jobs in the ethanol industry and significantly cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector.
One way is to boost the use of E15. State vehicle fleets should be able to have access to, and use, E15 and E85. As more fleets use E15 and E85, these renewable fuels will gain even greater acceptance and become the new standards.
The second measure is focused on the use mid-level blends in non-flex fuel vehicles. The Walz Administration could set up a task force to identify the next steps to obtain data required by the EPA to certify a mid-level blend fuel for use in non-flex fuel vehicles and obtain certification.
Biofuel infrastructure should also be a high priority to give Minnesotans greater access to renewable fuels. This can be done through creative funding options to help fuel retailers transition to E15 and higher blends. With 370 fuel retailers in the state already offering E15, we should focus on bringing another 290 retailers online.
With 660 fuel retailers offering E15 and higher blends, we will reach critical mass and help E15 become the new standard in Minnesota.
Another medium to longer term project would be a clean fuels policy. If such a policy were properly designed to account for the GHG value of ethanol and technology improvements made at ethanol plants, the policy would amplify the benefits of ethanol compared to petroleum. This could provide a huge catalyst for the petroleum industry in Minnesota to use E15 as the new regular fuel.
Another measure would be to use the Clean Cars Minnesota rulemaking process to stimulate automakers to offer a variety of Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs) powered with ethanol.
This vehicle rule gives us an opportunity to advocate for flex fuel, hybrid flex fuel and plug-in hybrid flex fuel as well as evolving technologies that can use E100. Success with this initiative will ensure future vehicles are compatible with E15 and higher blends.
All these measures will serve to fulfill a vision wherein Minnesota’s transportation sector is powered with increasing amounts of a homegrown renewable fuel and the energy dollars now used to import petroleum are kept in Minnesota, and the GHG emissions from the transportation sector are more rapidly reduced.
To say that 2020 has been a challenging year for the ethanol industry would be a severe understatement.
A recent analysis by the Renewable Fuels Association shows that the industry has already suffered $3.4 billion in lost revenue this year with the possibility of losing up to $9 billion next year.
Just to reiterate, this is an industry that annually supports some 350,000 jobs nationwide and contributed $43 billion to GDP last year.
But somehow, every time the Senate comes up with a coronavirus relief package, the ethanol industry gets passed over.
Their latest relief package includes $20 billion allocated for agriculture which could theoretically be used to help ethanol producers. But considering what the industry has been put through in the last few years, you’ll forgive us if we’re a bit skeptical that this would actually happen.
Even more absurd is the fact that the Senate is refusing to include a proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar to provide direct financial aid to ethanol producers through the Renewable Fuel Feedstock Reimbursement Act of 2020.
The problems the renewable ethanol industry have been saddled with require immediate financial aid. The problems are real, relevant and big.
Despite their track record on inaction, the Senate can still get this right - provide direct financial aid, now, to the ethanol industry so it can fulfill the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The industry has a proven track record of building up rural communities, stimulating the economy and cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.
Surely, this is an industry worth helping?
Then again, considering how tone-deaf some members of the senate seem to the plight of Americans suffering from a recession, why should we expect anything different?
On a personal note, we want to express our condolences to Larry Johnson’s family.
Larry was known as the “ethanol man.” But when I met him in 2011, and throughout the intervening years, I came to know Larry as the renewable fuel visionary. He also saw a pathway to advanced biofuels and understood the role it could play in aggressively cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. When we get the costs and benefits properly adjusted, that vision will again take off.
We will miss Larry’s foresight in all things ethanol.
What would it take to cut petroleum use by at least 85 percent in the near term? What vehicle powertrain can use two renewable sources of energy and on one fill provide a range greater than 450 miles? It’s the plug-in flex fuel hybrid vehicle.
As California and other states, including Minnesota, explore the role of ultra low emission vehicles in cutting harmful greenhouse gas emissions, it’s time for a closer look at the plug-in flex fuel hybrid, which is built on existing powertrain technology.
This vehicle is comprised of three key components.
The plug-in component enables this vehicle to charge a traction battery and operate in electric vehicle mode. An electric vehicle range of approximately 30 miles, according to research from the University of Southern California, Davis, is sufficient for commutes in certain metro areas. To make the EV power component truly green and low emission, the electricity used for charging the battery should be generated with only renewable energy sources such as that from wind or solar photovoltaic systems.
Then there is the flex fuel component of this vehicle that can use E85. When a driver exhausts the EV mode, the flex fuel powered engine operates the powertrain. This dual energy combination (from the plug-in and ethanol) significantly extends the range of travel. The dual energy arrangement is especially well suited for those climate zones where greater amounts of energy are required to provide vehicle cabin cooling and heating.
The hybrid component mirrors that in vehicles with traditional hybrid powertrain systems. In typical braking systems, the brakes convert vehicle momentum into heat which is lost to the environment. A hybrid system, however, captures the energy from braking to charge the traction battery.
Moreover, as noted above, carmakers won’t have to make significant investments to offer plug-in flex fuel hybrid powertrains in their vehicles. Plug-in hybrids and flex fuel vehicles already exist in the market. In fact, in 2017, Toyota introduced a flex fuel hybrid vehicle in South America.
With the right signals from regulators and consumers, carmakers will be compelled to offer plug-in flex fuel hybrids to the market in the near term and improve energy security by cutting dependence on one energy source and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.