In the News
February 12, 2016
By Susanne Retka Schill
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) does not expire in 2022, but an analysis of the statute reveals major changes could occur. University of Illinois economist Jonathan Coppess examined recent RFS discussions regarding the RFS in campaign coverage in a FarmDoc Daily post, “Following-up on RFS Questions.”
The statute does not contain a sunset or end date provision, writes Coppess, but setting the annual mandates becomes more discretionary for the U.S. EPA. “After 2022, the applicable volumetric mandates for renewable fuels are to be determined by the EPA administrator,” he writes, “and based on analysis of the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on various matters such as environment factors, U.S. energy security, infrastructure, cost to consumers of using renewable fuels and other factors including job creation and food and commodity prices.” Estimates of expected commercial renewable fuel production are to be included as well.
Two features of the post-2022 provisions speak to the current discussions around the agency’s interpretation of its waiver authority—specifically consumer and infrastructure considerations. “On one hand, Congress included issues related to the ultimate consumer and fueling infrastructure (the blend wall) in EPA's volumetric determinations. On the other hand, however, those matters are included only for determinations made after 2022 when the statutory levels (and arguably the waiver authority) no longer apply. Additionally, these are among a large set of factors within six categories for EPA to consider and all of the analysis is to be based upon a review of implementation of the RFS during the calendar years leading up to 2022.”
Another feature in the statute affects the impact of waiver decisions already made by the EPA. “If any of the statutory mandated levels are reduced by at least 20 percent for two consecutive years or at least 50 percent in any single year, the EPA administrator is given the authority to write a rule modifying the applicable volumes for all years that follow the final year of the waiver, except that this modification cannot take place prior to 2016,” Coppess writes, citing the statute language. That already has happened regarding advanced and cellulosic biofuels, but did not occur for other fuels in the modified mandates for 2014-’16, though it came close, he points out.
Crossing that 20 percent threshold in future years could become easier, if EPA’s interpretation of its waiver authority prevails. The ethanol industry has brought suit to challenge that, however. “The fact that EPA's use of the waiver authority could also set it up to completely modify the statute might well impact a judge's review of the reasonableness of EPA's arguments,” Coppess writes, adding the outcome of the litigation is “very much unknown.”
To read his full analysis, including citations to specific statute language, click here.
To read the original story: Economist: No Sunset for RFS, Waivers Impact Future Authority
February 11, 2016
By Kassidi Andres
New research by American Coalition for Ethanol President Ron Alverson indicates life cycle modeling has demonstrated significant improvement in emissions performance of the corn-based ethanol life cycle, with continued improvements expected during the next few years.
Alverson conducted research based on the Greenhouse gases Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation model. The model was developed by Argonne National Laboratory to evaluate the life cycle emissions of various fuel combinations, including ethanol and gasoline and ethanol-gasoline blends.
According to the national lab, "The peer-reviewed model has laid to rest some long-held misunderstandings about ethanol (EtOH) and its important role in reducing petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of key energy and environmental benefits, Argonne’s GREET shows that cornstarch ethanol clearly outpaces petroleum-based fuels, and that tomorrow’s cellulose-based ethanol would do even better."
According to Alverson’s research, life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with ethanol have dropped by approximately 60 percent over the last 25 years and will continue to decrease with improvements in production efficiencies and negative land-use change.
GREET’s calculations show that the fossil energy input per unit of ethanol is lower, with 0.78 million British thermal units (Btu) of fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of ethanol delivered. In comparison, 1.23 million Btu of fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of gasoline delivered.
Read the original story: ACE: GREET Shows Improvement in Life Cycle Ethanol Emissions
February 9, 2016
By Susanne Retka Schill
A 25 million bushel increase in projected corn use for ethanol in USDA’s February supply-demand report is partially offsetting a 50 million bushel lower export forecast. Corn imports are projected 10 million bushels higher based on recent imports of corn into southeastern U.S. feed markets and corn exports are projected 50 million bushels lower as larger supplies of South American corn further increase competition for U.S. exports. The result is USDA is projecting feed grain ending stocks for the 2015-’16 crop year higher by 35 million bushels. USDA narrowed its projected range for season-average farm prices by 5 cents on both ends to $3.35 to $3.85 per bushel.
The increase in ethanol use projections are based on the strong pace of ethanol production during January, as indicated by weekly Energy Information Administration data and higher forecast gasoline consumption. Corn use for ethanol is now projected to reach 5.225 billion bushels, up from 5.2 billion in the January report. That compares with 5.124 billion used in the 2013-’14 marketing year (beginning Sept. 1) and the estimated 5.209 billion bushels in 2014-’15.
Global coarse grain supplies for 2015-’16 are projected 1.3 million tons higher. Higher Brazil and Argentina corn production more than offset lower corn beginning stocks in these same countries and lower production elsewhere. Brazil and Argentina 2015-’16 beginning stocks are lowered with higher 2014-’15 exports. Brazil corn production for 2015-’16 is raised 2.5 million tons based on higher first-crop yields and indications that strong domestic corn prices, reflecting the devalued local currency, will increase second-crop plantings. Argentina corn production is increased 1.4 million tons on higher area. Argentina corn production is revised higher for 2014-’15, also on higher area. South Africa corn production for 2015-’16 is lowered 1.0 million tons, as continued historic drought conditions further reduce crop prospects despite some stabilizing rain during the month of January. Indonesia corn production is reduced 500,000 tons.
Global coarse grain consumption for 2015-’16 is raised 900,000 tons with foreign consumption up 200,000 tons. The largest change this month is a 2.0-million-ton increase in China corn feed use as relative internal market prices are expected to support greater corn feeding at the expense of wheat. Corn use is also increased for Mexico, India and Turkey. Partially offsetting are corn feeding reductions for Brazil and Argentina. Sorghum feed use is lowered for Mexico.
Global coarse grain imports for 2015-’16 are raised 4.3 million tons with corn imports higher for South Africa, Iran, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey. Corn exports are raised for Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, but lowered for the United States. Barley exports are raised for Argentina and Kazakhstan, with higher imports for Saudi Arabia. Global coarse grain ending stocks for 2015-’16 are slightly higher, as larger barley and rye stocks more than offset a small reduction for corn.
Read the original story: Corn Use for Ethanol Offsets Lower USDA Export Forecast
February 8, 2016
By DTN/Progressive Farmer
DuPont filed a motion Friday to intervene in a lawsuit seeking review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, arguing the final volume requirements put the company’s cellulosic ethanol investments at risk.
DuPont filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a petition for review filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by American Coalition for Ethanol, Americans for Clean Energy, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Growth Energy, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers and the Renewable Fuels Association.
DuPont has completed construction and is in the process of launching commercial cellulosic ethanol production at its plant in Nevada, Iowa.
In the court filing, the company said the final RFS numbers released in November 2015 hurt DuPont’s efforts.
“DuPont has invested substantial resources in cellulosic ethanol, including hundreds of millions of dollars to construct a state-of-the-art facility in central Iowa to produce commercial quantities of cellulosic ethanol,” DuPont stated in its motion to intervene. “Having made this substantial investment, DuPont is keenly interested in ensuring that the RFS program remains true to its intended purpose — incentivizing investment to grow the renewable fuel market in the United States.
“…Quite simply, EPA’s action puts DuPont’s investment at risk.”
EPA announced a three-year program for 2014, 2015 and 2016 that includes biofuel volumes below those set in the original 2007 law.
The agency also announced biomass-based diesel volumes through 2017. The overall RFS cuts came about as a result of overall decreased demand for gasoline, reflected in about a 20% reduction in overall biofuels volumes in the RFS.
“DuPont shares the petitioners’ concerns with EPA’s decision to reduce the statutory renewable fuel volumes,” DuPont said in the court motion. “Additionally, DuPont brings a different and complimentary perspective to this litigation — namely, the impact of the RFS rule on the nascent cellulosic renewable fuel industry and on a company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in cellulosic biofuel technology.”
The DuPont motion comes about one month after the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers filed a motion to intervene on EPA’s behalf.
DuPont’s 30-million-gallon, $228 million plant is expected to employ about 80 people, including about 50 on a seasonal basis for stover harvest, which is conducted by DuPont on a contract basis for farmers within 30 to 35 miles of the plant. The plant is co-located with corn-based ethanol producer Lincolnway Energy.
Read the original story: DuPont Says RFS Volumes Put Company’s Cellulosic Ethanol Investments at Risk
February 5, 2016
The U.S. ethanol industry exported 836 million gallons of ethanol worth $1.8 billion in 2015, according to a new summary of ethanol trade statistics released today by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). The final tally for 2015 was identical to the 2014 export total. The RFA publication, which draws data from several U.S. government entities, offers a succinct overview of U.S. ethanol export and import trends in 2015 and prior years. RFA’s new statistical summary will be distributed to attendees of the upcoming National Ethanol Conference (NEC), including prospective ethanol importers attending the International Buyer Program (IBP).
The RFA report finds that U.S. ethanol made its way to all six inhabited continents in 2015, reaching more than 75 countries. The top five countries receiving U.S. ethanol last year included Canada, Brazil, the Philippines, China, and South Korea. Notably, China emerged in 2015 as a leading destination for U.S. ethanol, and total exports to Asia are up 1,515 percent over 2012. While U.S. ethanol exports had a strong showing in 2015, imports of ethanol continued to sag. The United States imported just 93 million gallons of ethanol last year, with more than one-third entering through California ports.
Bob Dinneen, RFA president and CEO, noted, “Ethanol’s value as an octane booster was in the global spotlight in 2015. Even with falling crude oil prices, ethanol remained the lowest-cost—and cleanest—source of octane in the world. Clearly, refiners in foreign markets are optimizing their operations to take advantage of ethanol’s unique octane properties, just as U.S. refiners have done in recent years.”
Dinneen said the RFA and its partners will continue to seek opportunities to expand foreign markets in 2016. “Growth in the export market is critically important to the future of our industry,” Dinneen stated. “With EPA failing to enforce the Renewable Fuel Standard volumes established by Congress, we must continue to aggressively seek new market opportunities around the world. We will continue to work collaboratively with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Foreign Agriculture Service, U.S. Grains Council, Growth Energy, and others to expand international markets for American-made ethanol.”
One such opportunity to build new markets is just around the corner. RFA’s upcoming National Ethanol Conference, held Feb. 15–17 in New Orleans, will serve as host to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Buyer Program (IBP). Through the department’s network of offices in U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, the IBP recruits pre-screened foreign buyer delegations and brings them to selected trade shows and conferences in the United States, connecting U.S. companies with international buyers. Prospective ethanol buyers from Brazil, India, Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines are expected to attend.
“The RFA is excited about participating in the IBP, and for the opportunity the program provides to create a pathway that connects domestic ethanol producers with international markets,” said Randall J. Doyal, RFA Board of Directors Chairman. “By providing a forum to establish these important business-to-business relationships, the NEC will serve as the premier destination for U.S. ethanol producers who are looking for opportunities to promote their products on the world stage.”
View the summary here.
Read the original news release: As RFA Prepares to Host International Buyers, New Report Shows U.S. Ethanol Exports Reached 836 Million Gallons in 2015
February 4, 2016
By Susanne Retka Schill
Ethanol continues to maintain its status as the low-cost octane enhancer, in spite of low oil prices reducing the cost of competing petroleum-based aromatics. The biggest threat, say University of Illinois economists Scott Irwin and Darrel Good, would be a shortfall in U.S. corn production that would cause both corn and ethanol prices to spike. The economists analyzed octane enhancers in the refinery business in a recent FarmDocDaily post, “The Competitive Position of Ethanol as an Octane Enhancer.”
Benzene, toluene, and xylene are petroleum-based aromatic compounds with long histories as octane enhancers in gasoline blends, all with similar octane ratings as ethanol. “Despite the recent increase in ethanol prices relative to gasoline, ethanol prices still remain below that of the aromatics,” Irwin and Good found.
In examining weekly prices of the aromatics and the price of ethanol at the Gulf for two years, January 2013 through January 2015, ethanol was priced under each of the aromatics, with the exception of one brief period in spring 2014. Benzene was the highest priced, but this premium disappeared in early 2015, and now all three aromatics prices are moving together, they write. “CBOB prices were always substantially lower than the price of the aromatics, which is not surprising given the higher production costs of the aromatics compared to other petroleum blendstocks. In general, the aromatics have been priced about 140 to 170 percent above CBOB. It is interesting to note that the aromatic price premium has actually increased in recent months.”
The spread between ethanol and competing aromatics has shrunk, they continue. “The average price of aromatics increased sharply during the first half of 2015, causing the spread between aromatics and ethanol to exceed $1 per gallon. The price of aromatics has since declined below $2 per gallon, but still sits today at 35 cents above the price of ethanol, which has been relatively constant over the past year.”
The economists point out that blending economics for gasoline are rather complicated “due to the differing array of characteristics of alternative blending components and regulatory requirements to produce spec gasoline. For example, ethanol has chemical characteristics that may be beneficial, e.g., as an octane enhancer, or detrimental, e.g., high vapor pressure. Energy companies have developed sophisticated mathematical refinery models to determine optimal blends of the various gasoline components given prices and technical specifications.” Thus, while the direct comparison of the price of ethanol and alternative octane enhancers sheds some light on their relative value, it doesn’t represent all of the factors involved in blending economics.
Read the original story: Economists: Ethanol Retains Low-cost Octane Enhancer Status
February 4, 2016
By Holly Jessen
Which needs to come first, a new high-octane midlevel ethanol blend or new vehicles optimized to more efficiently take advantage of the higher octane content?
“It is that classic chicken and egg thing,” says Timothy Theiss, bioenergy technologies program manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “The analysts say it's the simultaneous introduction of a new fuel and a new vehicle, which is very difficult.”
Brian West, deputy director of the Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center at ORNL, offered a slight tweak to that perspective. “All we are talking about doing, and I don't mean to make it sound easy, is just changing that ratio a little bit,” he says, adding that the nation already has a gasoline and ethanol infrastructure. “It would certainly seem to me to be a much simpler thing than putting in a whole new infrastructure of, say, hydrogen.”
West believes a new E25 or E40 blend, perhaps marketed as a “renewable super premium,” could be sold in a way that is a win for consumers, retailers and everybody involved. In fact, vehicles optimized for the new fuel could be manufactured today. “I often say, there's not a good technical reason we couldn't see this in the marketplace in five or 10 years,” West adds. “That doesn't mean I think it will happen in that time frame. There's just too many parties that need to be in agreement.”
Thiess and West are two of many researchers at ORNL, Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory who have been engaged in a study since 2013. The goal of the U.S. DOE-sponsored scoping study was to assess the potential of an E25 to E40 mid-level blend.
In mid-January researchers were wrapping things up, preparing to provide a short, high-level summary to the DOE. The last of the data will be released in publications within the next year, West says. Up next is the Optima initiative, which will focus on developing new, co-optimized fuels and engines to maximize performance and carbon efficiency. While the high-octane fuel study focused specifically on ethanol, Optima will look at fuels like ethanol as well as other high-octane fuels, Thiess says.
Significant Findings
The high-octane fuel study found that E25 and E40—when used to fuel a vehicle optimized for the blend—could achieve volumetric fuel-economy parity with E10. In other words, each additional gallon of ethanol added would displace a full gallon of gasoline and fuel economy would be the same as one of today's vehicles using E10. Vehicle efficiency would also increase, at 5 percent for E25 and 10 percent for E40.
Of course, fuel economy varies according to multiple factors, such as how fast the vehicle is driven and engine design. “Not everybody is going to see all of this across the board every time,” Theiss says. “Your mileage may vary.”
An ANL report concluded that, compared to E10, when 40 percent corn ethanol was used for blending, total greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 18 percent. If corn stover were the feedstock, E40 achieved a 32 percent GHG emission reduction.
NREL was involved in the high-octane fuel study in several capacities, says Robert McCormick, principal engineer and platform lead in fuels performance R&D. For example, a market analysis concluded that high-octane vehicles could make up 43 to 79 percent of light-duty vehicle stock by 2035. Another thing NREL completed was an infrastructure assessment. “There are no technical issues in deploying equipment for higher ethanol blends, only cost considerations and station knowledge of their equipment,” he says.
That's what's exciting to Thiess about the high-octane fuel study. “In this, we're finding we have a lot of ands,” he says. “We can get better fuel economy. And. When ethanol is traditionally priced a little less than gasoline, we can get a fuel that is a little bit less because we are using less petroleum and more ethanol. And. We're showing that we'd get pretty nice greenhouse gas emission reductions. And. We're showing that the vehicle manufacturers would be favorably inclined to build those vehicles. And. We're showing that the biofuel infrastructure could pretty much be adapted to handle it. And. We're showing that there's a lot of feedstock out there that could be used to make it. So, there's a lot of ands, and not the major ors, where we have to make very big trade-off decisions right up front. Now, that's not to say that it's not a difficult thing. It is very difficult to introduce any new fuel. And this would be no exception. But there are a lot of benefits that stack on top of each other.”
Making It Happen
In order to make high-octane fuels and vehicles a reality, quite a few players, including the U.S. EPA and the auto industry, have to get on board. “For manufacturers to build cars that are dedicated for this fuel, I think a number of things have to happen,” West says. “It has to be widely available. They have to believe the consumer is going to buy it all the time, or they aren't going to get the fuel economy benefit that they are getting in the certification test. In order for the consumer to buy it all the time, it has to be on a cost-parity basis with E10.”
But that doesn't mean that the fuel can't be sold until that happens. In fact, E30 is already being sold at some blender pumps across the nation and work to increase the infrastructure for higher ethanol blends is ongoing. And, most flex-fuel vehicles on the road today can already use midlevel ethanol blends and actually see a performance benefit doing so. Thiess sees the FFV fleet as a bridge across the chicken and egg dilemma in establishing a new midlevel ethanol blend and new vehicles optimized for that fuel.
Read the original story: E25, E40 for the Masses
Jan 28, 2016
By Tom Bryan
U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) was given an opportunity to clarify his position on ethanol and the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard during a high-profile Fox News GOP debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday night. Here’s what Cruz said when Fox News' Chris Wallace asked him why Iowa voters should support him.
“I’m glad to discuss my views on ethanol and energy," Cruz said. "I think God has blessed this country with enormous natural resources, and we should be developing all of the above. We should be developing coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear, wind and solar, and ethanol and biofuels. But I don’t believe that Washington should be picking winners and losers. And I think there should be no mandates and no subsidies whatsoever.”
Cruz went on to say that he has introduced a comprehensive tax plan that eliminates all federal subsidies.
“So there are no subsidies for oil and gas, no subsidies for anyone," he said. "Now, it is true that there are a bunch of lobbyists, and a bunch of Democrats in this state, spending millions of dollars trying to convince the people of Iowa that I somehow oppose ethanol. That’s not true. I have introduced legislation that would phase out the ethanol mandate over five years, but that is in the context of having no mandates whatsoever for anyone. But there is a much more important regulation for ethanol, and that’s the EPA’s blend wall, which makes it illegal to sell mid-level blends of ethanol in gasoline. I will tear down the EPA’s blend wall, which will enable ethanol to expand its market share by up to 60 percent … all without any government mandates whatsoever, through the marketplace.”
Read the original story here : Cruz Reiterates Firm Opposition To RFS, Other Mandates
More...
Globe Gazette Des Moines Bureau
January 25, 2016
By James Q Lynch and Rod Boshart
Another day, another round in the Ted Cruz-Terry Branstad battle over ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Standard.
The Iowa Republican governor stood by his comment that he wants to see the Texas senator defeated in Iowa’s GOP precinct caucuses Feb. 1 because of Cruz’s opposition to the RFS. It was created by Congress in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing dependence on imported oil. It requires transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.
“They asked me a point-blank question, I gave them a one-word answer,” Branstad said when asked Monday about his comment last week that Cruz should be defeated. “I gave an honest answer to a point-blank question, and you know me, that’s the kind of person that I am.”
Branstad said he’s the kind of person who will “fight for and stand up for things that are important to my state, and certainly farm income and jobs are among those.”
However, Cruz wasn’t backing off his position that ethanol should not enjoy a mandate that, he said, makes Iowa and Iowa corn farmers dependent on Washington.
“The lobbyists very much want Iowa to stay focused on the RFS,” Cruz told more than 100 people who crowded into the Fireside Pub & Steakhouse in Manchester. “If every year Iowa has to go back to the Washington politicians and say ‘keep this Band-Aid in place,’ it means the lobbyists will be paid each and every year. It means the politicians get paid each and every year.”
Branstad pointed out that since the EPA reduced the volume of renewable fuel that must be included in transportation fuel it’s been farmers who aren’t getting paid. The price of corn has dropped below the cost of production, he said.
“That has hurt not only farm income but it’s caused layoffs by John Deere and Kinze Manufacturing and others,” Branstad said at his weekly news conference.
“It’s interesting,” Branstad said. “I’m being attacked by Hillary Clinton and now I’m being attacked by a lobbyist group that’s supporting Ted Cruz.
“But listen, I’ve been attacked and I’ve been attacked regularly by a lot of people, but that doesn’t bother me, because I recognize that my responsibility is to the people of Iowa and to be an advocate and a supporter of things that are important to them,” the governor said.
Cruz said he doesn’t have it in for Branstad or ethanol, but believes that Washington shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in energy or any other marketplace.
“My view on energy is that God has blessed this nation with abundant resources and we should pursue all of them,” he said.
Branstad agrees there’s room in the marketplace for other energy sources.
“I’m proud to stand up and support all of those jobs at the ethanol plants, the biodiesel plants, the people who are working to make wind turbines and blades and towers, and the farmers who are getting income from selling their corn to ethanol plants and buying (dried distiller’s grain) to feed their cattle,” he said. “This is important to our state’s economy and I want to make sure that the voters of Iowa are knowledgeable and well-informed on all of the candidates and that they get out and vote in those caucuses because it’s important to our economy.”
Read the original story: Cruz, Branstad Continue Ethanol Feud
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
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
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
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
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
January 10, 2016
By Jose A. DelReal
OTTUMWA, IOWA – 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
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