In the News
Jul 15, 2020
The COVID-19 crisis has already led to more than $3.4 billion in lost revenues for the U.S. ethanol industry, according to an economic analysis released today by the Renewable Fuels Association. Based on the latest projections from the Energy Information Administration and the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, the RFA study also found that pandemic-related damages in 2020 and 2021 could reach nearly $9 billion.
The new study by RFA Chief Economist Scott Richman uses empirical data to assess the actual impact of COVID-19 on the ethanol industry to date. For the period running from March through June 2020, the study found:
- The cumulative decline in ethanol production and consumption exceeded 1.3 billion gallons.
- Nearly 500 million fewer bushels of corn were used in ethanol production during the period.
- Industry revenues from ethanol and co-products sales were reduced by over $3.4 billion due to the combination of reduced output and lower prices.
Based on EIA and FAPRI projections and assuming current market conditions do not deteriorate, total pandemic-related revenue losses for the industry could approach $7 billion in 2020 and $1.8 billion in 2021. However, if additional travel and business restrictions are adopted by states, the losses would be larger and may even surpass the $10 billion estimate from RFA’s initial forward-looking analysis released in April.
“At one point in late April, more than half of the ethanol industry’s production capacity was shut down,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “The idling of dozens of ethanol plants reverberated throughout rural America and sent ripple impacts across the farm economy. We have seen conditions improve since the low point in April, but ethanol production and consumption remain well below pre-COVID-19 levels.”
Cooper said the report provides a clearer picture of the damage done to date, and the challenges the industry will continue to face well into 2021. “The analysis again underscores the need for Congress to act expeditiously to deliver emergency relief to the renewable fuels industry,” he said. “As members of the Senate begin to craft their next COVID-19 stimulus package, we implore them to ensure the renewable fuels industry is not left behind again. We ask that they stand up for the 350,000 critical and essential workers whose jobs are supported by the ethanol industry.”
Cooper said RFA strongly supports the Renewable Fuel Reimbursement Program included in the HEROES Act passed by the House on May 15, as well as the Renewable Fuel Feedstock Reimbursement Act of 2020, introduced in the Senate May 19 by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). Both programs would provide vital emergency relief to the nation’s struggling ethanol producers and help ensure the industry is able to participate in the nationwide economic recovery from COVID-19. According to RFA, either program should be included in the next comprehensive COVID-19 stimulus bill.
Read the original story here.
Jul 14, 2020
This winter, countries around the globe introduced months of unprecedented lockdown and shelter-in-place restrictions to stop the spread of COVID-19. An economic shutdown is the worst possible way to get environmental improvement, full stop. However, only a few weeks into lockdown, many noticed fresher air, and earnest talk began of this being a serious wake-up call about the environment. Whether governments in Canada will capitalize on this moment, however, remains to be seen.
The pandemic quickly cut down car traffic and saw oil prices plummet, a combination that set off a record 5 percent drop in annual carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Environmentally impressive but not at all perfect. First, this record cut in global emissions is still less than what scientists say is needed every year this decade to avoid disastrous climate impacts for much of the world. Second, even with remarkably less traffic, air pollution did not improve. Analysis by NPR shows that while car traffic decreased by 40 percent across the U.S., ozone pollution dropped only by 15 percent or less, which is to say barely at all, compared with levels over the past five years. Part of the reason is continued air pollutants beyond those from passenger cars, like emissions from trucking, refineries, petrochemical plants and coal power. But the more important lesson is that merely driving less, in and of itself, does little to improve climate outcomes unless we find ways to make sustained improvements. Put another way, the long-term solution remains cleaner fuel, not fewer cars.
Next come automobiles. On the surface, having a car can seem unnecessary when working from home and getting more purchases delivered. However, an April survey by Capgemini Research Institute suggests otherwise. Capgemini surveyed more than 11,000 potential buyers in 11 countries that account for 62 percent of global vehicle sales. It found half of all global respondents said they plan to drive their cars more in the future and will rely less on public transportation and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft. The reason: “greater control of hygiene.” At the same time, one-third of those surveyed said they plan to buy a car in 2020, with 45 percent of those potential buyers under age 35. That’s a significant percentage, considering that 79 percent of people ages 25 to 35 currently do not own cars. Policymakers need to take note, especially when projecting post-pandemic vehicle fleets and fuel mixes.
As I write this, many jurisdictions are beginning to reopen. Consumers are emerging eager to return to a semblance of “normal”—including driving and the associated carbon and tailpipe emissions. Ethanol blended in gasoline is proven to reduce both, and those designing Canada’s Clean Fuel Standard and proposed provincial increases to E15 in Ontario and Quebec should take note. Even though the pandemic delivered an unprecedented shock, the prospect of a green recovery will ultimately be decided by the strength of our climate policies and the content of our gas tanks.
Read the original story here.
Jul 13, 2020
The Biogenic CO2 Coalition on July 10 issued a statement commending a bipartisan group of four members of Congress for pressing the U.S. EPA to address the concerns of agricultural crop producers and processors in a biogenic CO2 rulemaking.
Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill.; Collin Peterson, D-Minn.; Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa; and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., sent a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on June 29 asking the agency “to expeditiously provide regulatory clarity on thede minimisnature of biogenic carbon emissions generated from the processing of agricultural feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, oilseeds, and farm residues before the end of 2020.” The representatives also stressed that “current policy is a significant barrier to opportunities for economic growth across rural America, and a clarified and improved standard for biogenic CO2 from annual crops is needed in 2020.”
In the interim, the representatives said adding language offering background on thede minimus nature of biomass as a preamble to the EPA’s existing woody biomass rule might help reduce the amount of time needed to develop an annual crop standard.
“There is scientific research that supports the position that classifying biogenic emissions from crop-based feedstocks as carbon neutral,de minimis, or insignificant from a carbon accounting and regulatory perspective,” the representatives wrote. “In contrast, current EPA policy treats biogenic emissions the same as those from fossil fuels. This policy does not reflect the fact that biogenic CO2 from agricultural crops is part of a natural baseline carbon cycle by which agricultural crops absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, release it during fermentation or use, and repeat the cycle the next year. As you know, EPA regulates additional biogenic emissions from the baking sector that often present complications in permitting under the Clean Air Act.
“The current regulatory status quo hinders development of the domestic bioeconomy and creates a competitive advantage for competitors outside of the United States,” they continued. “According to USDA, our bioeconomy contributes approximately $459 billion in economic activity, and provides 4.6 million American jobs. It is critical that rural America has the ability to access new opportunities for growth when prospects in traditional markets are uncertain or declining. Farmers, processors, and manufacturers are ready and able to use our food and agricultural strengths to provide high-quality, competitive crop-derived consumer products and materials here and abroad.”
The Biogenic CO2 Coalition issued a statement July 10 thanking Davis, Peterson, Loebsak and Marshall for the letter. Members of the coalition include the American Farm Bureau Federation, Corn Refiners Association, Hemp Industries Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Cottonseed Products Association, National Farmers Union, National Grain and Feed Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, North American Millers’ Association, and the Plant Based Products Council.
“It’s great to see such strong support from Congress on this important issue. We need the EPA to address this regulatory barrier to help unleash jobs and investment in rural America,” said Zippy Duvall, president of the AFBF. “Farmers need certainty that the growing and processing of crops won’t be regulated the same as fossil fuels. We hope to see more members of Congress come forward to support this commonsense rulemaking.
“America’s agriculture industry greatly appreciates the strong, bipartisan support this critical issue continues to receive from Members of Congress and we encourage even more of them to make their voices heard,” said John Bode, president and CEO of the CRA. “American farmers, processors, and manufacturers are poised to make significant investments into new technology, rural development, and infrastructure. This will mean more jobs in America’s heartland, but we must be able to compete fairly against foreign competitors and this unfair regulatory barrier is preventing that from happening. We hope the EPA will listen to the bipartisan voices of our elected leaders in Congress, as well as those in the scientific community who have also called for action.”
A full copy of the letter can be downloaded from the Biogenic CO2 Coalitionwebsite.
Read the original story here.
Jul 10, 2020
Ethanol destined for industrial-use applications helped stabilise overall US ethanol exports in April and May amid a bleak period for fuel demand globally.
The world’s fuel markets were dramatically disrupted in early 2020 as governments instituted movement restrictions and released social distancing guidelines to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial end-use markets – including chemical, solvent and consumer products – were impacted to a lesser extent as the pandemic triggered substantial uptick for sanitizing and disinfecting products that also use ethanol as an ingredient.
As a result, industrial ethanol played a significant role in stabilizing the overall US ethanol export mix. At the same time, the US Grains Council (USGC) has been working with its global staff to determine the best opportunities to assist the world’s expanding needs for industrial ethanol alongside a robust fuel ethanol programme.
“As we work to expand the global use of ethanol, we are creating awareness of how the environmental, human health and economic benefits of the product apply to uses outside of the fuel market,” said Lucas Szabo, USGC manager of global ethanol market development. “We are working to foster the development of end-use applications for industrial ethanol and support current uses like sanitisers.”
Industrial-use markets typically account for 25% of total U.S. ethanol exports, bought for uses like windshield wiper fluid in South Korea and the European Union or bioplastics in India. As fuel demand began to decline in March, industrial ethanol exports started to represent a larger proportion of the export mix and help support overall US ethanol exports.
US ethanol exports for industrial uses equated to approximately 50 percent of total exports in April and May, at roughly 44 million gallons (15.7 million bushels in corn equivalent) and 33 million gallons (11.7 million bushels in corn equivalent), respectively.
The remaining half of exports continued to supply fuel markets. India, Nigeria and the Persian Gulf remained strong purchasers of U.S. ethanol for industrial use, while increases in exports to South Korea and Mexico were notable.
“The importance of industrial ethanol has been highlighted in recent months,” Szabo said. “These markets play a key role in supporting global environmental and human health initiatives in a variety of sectors beyond transportation fuel.”
Read the original story here.
Jul 8, 2020
U.S. ethanol production was up nearly 2 percent the week ending July 3, while weekly ending stocks of fuel ethanol increased by more than 2 percent, according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on July 8.
U.S. ethanol production averaged 914,000 barrels per day the week ending July 3, up from an average of 900,000 barrels per day the previous week. The week ending July 3 marks the tenth consecutive week of growth following sharp declines that began in late March and continued through April due to market impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Production was down 133,000 barrels per day when compared to the same week of 2019 and down 165,000 barrels per day when compared to the final week of February, before COVID-19 began to impact U.S. fuel markets.
Weekly ending stocks of fuel ethanol increased for the first time since mid-April, reaching 20.62 million barrels for the week ending July 3, up from 20.164 million barrels the previous week. The increase follows 10 consecutive weeks of falling U.S. weekly ending stocks of fuel ethanol following a record high of 27.689 million barrels that was set the week ending April 17. Weekly ending stocks, however, were down 2.389 million barrels when compared to the same week of last year.
Read the original story here.
Jul 7, 2020
The U.S. Energy Information Administration increased its forecasts for 2020 and 2021 ethanol production in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, which was released July 7. Forecasts for ethanol consumption were also revised up.
The EIA currently predicts ethanol production will average approximately 900,000 barrels per day in 2020, up from the 850,000-barrel-per-day prediction made in the agency’sJune STEO. The EIA has also increased its forecast for 2021 ethanol production to an average of 1 million barrels per day, up from its June prediction of 860,000 barrels per day. Production averaged approximately 1.03 million barrels per day in 2019.
On a quarterly basis, the EIA currently expects ethanol production to average 920,000 barrels per day in the third quarter of 2020, increasing to 960,000 barrels per day during the fourth quarter of the year. Data released by the agency shows ethanol production averaged 1.02 million barrels per day during the first quarter of this year, but fell to 710,000 barrels per day during the second quarter. Moving into 2021, the EIA predicts ethanol production to average 980,000 barrels per day during the first quarter, 1 million barrels per day during the second quarter, 1.01 million barrels per day during the third quarter and 1.02 million barrels per day during the fourth quarter.
The EIA currently expects the U.S. to blend 836,000 barrels per day of ethanol this year, up from the June prediction of approximately 800,000 barrels per day. The agency also increased its prediction for 2021 blending to 919,000 barrels per day, up from approximately 880,000 barrels per day predicted in June. Ethanol blending averaged 948,000 barrels per day in 2019. This level of consumption would result in the ethanol share of total gasoline averaging 10.1 percent in 2020 and 2021, compared to 10.2 percent in 2019 and 10.1 percent in 2018. The EIA said this stable ethanol share assumes that growth in higher-level ethanol blends is limited by a combination of lower gasoline prices reducing incentives for increased ethanol blending and limited consumer demand for ethanol blends beyond E10.
The EIA’smost recent weekly ethanol datashows production reached 900,000 barrels per day the week ending, June 26, up from 893,000 barrels per day the previous week. Ethanol stocks fell to 20.164 million barrels the week ending June 26, down from 21.034 million barrels the previous week.
The agency’s most recent monthly data shows the U.S. imported 255,000 barrels of ethanol in March, all from Brazil. The U.S. exported 2.457 million barrels of ethanol in April, primarily to Brazil, India, and Mexico.
Read the original story here.
Jul 2, 2020
A bipartisan group of 32 members of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 2 sent aletterto President Trump calling on his administration to deny the 52 gap year small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions that have been filed by oil companies in an effort to circumvent the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Jan. 24 ruling.
As part of that ruling, the court determined that the EPA cannot extend exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard to any small refinery whose earlier, temporary exemptions had lapsed. Wynnewood Refining and HollyFrontier challenged the ruling in March by seeking a rehearing en banc. The court, however, rejected those petitions on April 7. The EPA has not yet announced how it plans to implement the court’s ruling.
“We are concerned that these ‘gap year’ waivers are an attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling at the expense of the biofuel producers, farmers, and rural communities we represent,” the members of Congress wrote. “As you know, the RFS provides hundreds of thousands of jobs across rural America, supports corn and soybean markets, and lowers fuel prices. These “gap year” SRE requests jeopardize the integrity of the RFS and, if granted, will devastate our rural economies.
“We respectfully request that you ensure the EPA immediately deny these 52 ‘gap year refinery exemptions as they are inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit Court ruling, and Congressional intent of the RFS. Petitioning for retroactive exemptions undermines the Court’s decision, and the legal obligation that petitions be filed ‘in a timely manner.’ Considering this ruling, there is no reasonable scenario in which an existing refinery can claim it is entitled to an exemption that it did not previously seek or receive,” they continued.
The letter notes that, if approved, the 52 gap year SRE petitions would equate to 2 billion gallons of lost biofuel demand. “Setting this dangerous precedent would ultimately devastate the rural economy,”the members of Congress wrote. “Additionally, the EPA has 80 pending SREs in total which must be considered in a manner that is consistent with the Tenth Circuit Court’s decision.”
The letter is signed by Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill.; Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn.; Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa; Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; Jim Hagedorn, R-Minn.; Abby Finkenauer, D-Iowa; Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.; Darin LaHood, R-Ill.; Adrian Smith, R-Neb.; Cindy Axne, D-Iowa; Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo.; Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Steve King, R-Iowa; James Comer, R-Ky.; Jacki Walorski, R-Ind.; Steve Watkins, R-Kan.; James Baird, R-Ind.; Sam Graves, R-Mo.; Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb.; Mike Bost, R-Ill.; Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.; Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.; Rick Crawford, R-Ark.; Ron Kind, D-Wisc.; Tom Emmer, R-Minn.; Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.; Ron Estes, R-Kan.; Mike Kelly, R-Pa.; Angie Craig, D-Minn.; Lauren Underwood, D-Ill.; and David Cicilline, D-R.I.
The Renewable Fuels Association has spoken out to thank the 32 members of Congress for calling on Trump to reject gap year SREs. “The Trump Administration has now heard from Members of the House, Senators and Governors on this important issue for rural America,” said Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA. “Even the Environmental Protection Agency itself has noted there are significant ‘issues’ with these waivers, and we urge a speedy denial of these attempts by the oil industry to circumvent federal law and the recent court decision limiting waivers to extensions of ones previously received.”
Growth Energy also welcomed the letter. “Rural communities are done playing regulatory games with the oil industry,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “We’ve seen too many plants shut down, too many jobs lost, and too many farmers deprived of vital markets at a time when we should be rebuilding the agricultural supply chain. These gap-year exemption requests are a brazen attempt to circumvent a court decision restoring integrity to the nation’s biofuel blending targets. They should be rejected without delay. We’re deeply grateful to our House champions who are rallying alongside governors and Senate leaders to demand this administration to do the right thing.”
Read the original story here.
Jun 26, 2020
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, announced she will block the nomination of Doug Benevento to serve as deputy administrator of the U.S. EPA until the agency discloses exactly how it plans to deal with gap year small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions under the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The EPA on June 18 released data showing small refineries have filed 52 gap year SRE petitions in an effort to circumvent the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal’s Jan. 24 ruling that struck down three SREs. As part of that ruling, the court determined that the EPA cannot extend exemptions to any small refinery whose earlier, temporary exemptions had lapsed.
Wynnewood Refining and HollyFrontier challenged the ruling in March by seeking a rehearing en banc. The court, however, rejected those petitions on April 7. The EPA has not yet announced how it plans to implement the court’s ruling.
The 52 gap year SRE petitions filed with the EPA to date represent an effort by several impacted refineries to establish a continuous chain of exemptions allowing those refineries to continue to be eligible for future SREs. Ernst is among a group of 16 senators that has urged the EPA to deny gap year SRE petitions.
President Trump nominated Benevento to fill the post of deputy administrator of the EPA in February. He currently serves as associate deputy administrator of the agency. He was questioned on the EPA’s SRE policy during a March 11 hearing held by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ernst is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which provides oversight of the EPA. Without her vote, Benevento will not be brought before the committee and therefore the path forward for his nomination no longer exists.
“Until EPA tells us exactly what they plan to do with the ‘gap year’ waivers, Mr. Benevento does not have my vote,” Ernst said. “Iowa’s hardworking ethanol and biodiesel producers are sick of being yanked around by Andrew Wheeler and the EPA. Our producers need certainty; until we get that, no EPA nominee is getting my vote.”
Information released by Ernst’s office explains this is not the first time the senator has held up and EPA nominee. She also held up the nominee to lead the EPA’s air office until the former administrator, Scott Pruitt, committed in writing that he would not seek to reduce the biofuel requirements.
Read the original story here.
More...
Jun 29, 2020
Today, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz sent a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler asking that he reject 52 applications for retroactive small refinery exemptions (SREs) from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for past compliance years. Governor Noem and Governor Walz are the chair and vice chair of the Governors’ Biofuels Coalition. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts, former Coalition chairs, also joined the letter.
“We are concerned that EPA is considering exemptions for prior years that were specifically submitted to evade the court of appeal’s decision by allowing refineries with lapsed SREs to establish a continuous chain of exemptions. Approving prior-year SREs in this manner ignores the court’s decision and congressional intent and will severely impact farmers and rural communities that support the biofuels industry,” the governors wrote.
Since 2017, EPA has granted 85 SREs, undermining farmers and biofuel producers throughout the nation. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that EPA could not legally award exemptions to refiners that did not receive waivers in previous years and had failed to demonstrate hardship in any way related to the RFS. If all 52 applications are approved, the market will lose more than two billion gallons of biofuel blending requirements.
“Even before the coronavirus pandemic,” the governors wrote, “the misuse of small refinery waivers under the RFS caused a significant number of plants to partially or fully shut down. The resulting job losses, decreases in commodity purchases and prices, and shortages of co-products affect rural America every day. Your approval of these SRE ‘gap filings’ would only worsen unprecedented economic challenges facing the renewable fuels industry and rural communities.”
“We strongly urge you to reject these applications and work with us to uphold the spirit and intent of the RFS by ensuring a role for biofuels in the nation’s energy future,” the governors concluded.
Read the original story here.
Jun 25, 2020
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) led a bipartisan letter with Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject petitions for Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for past compliance years. In the letter, the senators warn that granting these petitions would worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and demand that the EPA apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.
“We urge you to reject these petitions outright and respond in writing to our questions about recent use of SREs under the RFS. These petitions should not even be entertained because they are inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit decision, Congressional intent, the EPA’s own guidance, and – most importantly – the interests of farmers and rural communities who rely on the biofuel industry,” the senators wrote.
“The approval of SREs for past compliance years at this moment would only worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports. EPA must deny these petitions and apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.”
Klobuchar, Ernst, Duckworth and Grassley were joined by Senators Tina Smith (D-MN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), John Thune (R-SD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Deb Fischer (R-NE).
In January 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA that EPA had exceeded its authority in granting SREs under the Renewable Fuel Standard to three refineries in 2016 and 2017, and that moving forward, EPA may only issue SREs to refineries that have continuously received exemptions for every compliance year since 2011. Recently, the EPA confirmed that they have received 52 new petitions for retroactive SREs that, if granted, would bring oil refiners into compliance with the Court ruling by allowing them to establish a continuous string of exemptions.
For years, Klobuchar has been a leader in the fight to strengthen the RFS to support American jobs and decrease dependence on foreign oil. Klobuchar has led several letters urging the Administration to cease issuing small refinery waivers and reject changes to the RFS that would upend stability and predictability for small businesses and rural communities.
In December 2019, Klobuchar led a public comment letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler expressing concern over the proposed supplemental rule establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) 2020 Renewable Volume Obligations and 2021 Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes. The senators argued that the proposed rule—which determines how much biofuel is required to be blended into our transportation fuel supply on an annual basis—fails to adequately account for the waivers, including those given to big oil companies. In October 2019, Klobuchar sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue asking the agency to document the impact of small refinery waivers on farm income, commodity prices, and renewable fuel usage.
The full text of today’s letter to Andrew Wheeler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, can be found HERE and below:
Dear Administrator Wheeler:
We write with frustration and significant concern about recent reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering granting over 50 petitions for Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for past compliance years. We urge you to reject these petitions outright and respond in writing to our questions about recent use of SREs under the RFS. Granting these petitions would worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports while violating EPA’s own policy on this issue.
On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made a ruling in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA that struck down three small refinery exemptions granted by your agency. In ruling that EPA exceeded its statutory authority, the court determined that the waivers for those refineries had lapsed and that there was no waiver available to extend.
It is for this reason that we are especially alarmed to hear that EPA is considering over 50 petitions for retroactive SREs that are intended to circumvent the Tenth Circuit decision by allowing refineries with lapsed SREs to establish a continuous chain of exemptions. These are refineries who either did not submit petitions or were not granted waivers in past years, meaning they were not experiencing “true economic hardship” to comply at the time. These petitions should not even be entertained because they are inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit decision, Congressional intent, the EPA’s own guidance, and – most importantly – the interests of farmers and rural communities who rely on the biofuel industry.
As you know, Congress passed SREs under the RFS program with the intention of mitigating and eliminating economic harm to small refinery operations. On the EPA’s website, in a document titled “Small Entity Compliance Guide for Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” an eligible small refinery shall have “no more than 1,500 employees corporate-wide” defined as “for all subsidiary companies, all parent companies.”[1] This guidance also states that companies should apply for small refinery status by July 1, 2010 to be eligible for SREs. That means that under EPA’s own guidance, the majority of SREs EPA has granted would be ineligible for the program.
You previously testified in January 2019 to the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) that the decision to grant Chevron and Exxon small refinery exemptions under the RFS was made at the refinery level and not at the corporate level. In light of EPA’s guidance and your contradictory statements we hope you will provide complete answers in writing to the following questions:
- Were you aware that your own Agency had determined that Chevron and Exxon were ineligible for SREs when you appeared before EPW in January 2019?
- Do you commit to applying the 10th Circuit decision nationwide now that it has unanimously rejected a petition for a rehearing and abandoning the agency’s misuse of the RFS waiver program once and for all?
- A number of organizations associated with the oil industry have asked you to change the 2020 RFS volumes or waive them for the rest of the year, using the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) as the pretext for doing so despite the fact that the drop in gasoline demand has devastated the biofuels industry. Are you aware that the structure of the RFS already ensures that RVOs are effectively automatically adjusted proportionally based on actual sales of gasoline?
Even before COVID-19, the misuse of small refinery waivers under the RFS had led many biofuel plants to shut down partially or altogether. The further loss of biofuel demand and sales during COVID-19 has resulted in further harm to the industry, with over 100 biofuel processing plants now idled or closed. This has resulted in reductions to the rural workforce, decreases in commodity purchases and prices, and shortages of co-products critical to the agricultural supply chain. Meanwhile, the Administration has taken steps to help the oil industry through purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The approval of SREs for past compliance years at this moment would only worsen the unprecedented economic challenges facing the biofuels industry and the rural communities that it supports. EPA must deny these petitions and apply the 10th Circuit decision nationally.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
Read the original press release here.
Jun 24, 2020
Testimony offered during a June 24 hearing held by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to consider the recently introduced Growing Climate Solutions Act explains how the bill could benefit the biofuel and bioproducts industries.
The Growing Climate Solutions Act was introduced on June 4 by Sens. Mike Braun, R-Ind.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
The legislation aims to break down barriers for farmers and foresters interested in participating in carbon markets so they can be rewarded for climate-smart practices. To do this, it would create a certification program at USDA to help solve technical entry barriers that prevent farmer and forest landowner participation in carbon credit markets. That program, the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program, would enable the USDA to provide transparency, legitimacy and information endorsement of third-party verifiers and technical service providers that help private landowners generate carbon credits through a variety of agriculture- and forestry-related practices. The USDA certification program would aim to ensure that these assistance providers have agriculture and forestry experience. The agency would also administer a new website that would serve as a one-stop-shop of information and resources for producers and foresters who are interested in participating in carbon markets.
During the hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said the Growing Climate Solutions Act has the potential to improve sustainability throughout the agricultural supply chain by bringing greater value to renewable fuels. She asked Jason Weller, vice president of Truterra LLC, the sustainability business at Land O-Lakes Inc., to explain how providing access to carbon markets for farmers could help drive emissions reductions across the supply chain, including the positive effects on biofuels and biobased products.
Weller said the system of practices anticipated in the legislation to help farmers generate greenhouse gas (GHG) credits would also be the same system and suite of practices ultimately needed by producers of biobased products and biobased energy, including biofuels, who want to participate in state-level low carbon fuel standards. Weller explained that the energy supply chain, including farmers, need to have necessary data to demonstrate GHG savings in order to generate credits under those programs and participate in the low carbon fuels marketplaces. Weller also noted that the credits would help farmers adopt the suite of technologies, conservation practices and new machinery needed to create the GHG reductions that the marketplace is looking for.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., asked witnesses at the hearing to speak to the importance of having accurate up-to-date GHG modeling from the U.S. EPA, especially how it might further support green farming or create trade opportunities.
Brent Bible, a corn and soybean farmer and advisor to the Environmental Defense Fund, said it is vitally important to have that data, whether it comes from the USDA or EPA. He also discussed the damaging impact of the EPA’s misuse of small refinery exemptions (SREs).
Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it is vitally important to have models that the industry can trust and depend on. He also noted the importance of having accurate data that demonstrates the benefits of programs being utilized on farms.
Thune also addressed the EPA’s inaction on corn fiber-to-ethanol registrations under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, called the EPA the primary barrier to a lot of additional success that could be achieved regarding the reduction of GHG in ethanol technology, particularly on the cellulosic side.
Growth Energy and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization on June 24 issued statements in support of the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
“The importance of today’s discussion cannot be understated,” BIO said in its statement. “Climate change is a threat to agriculture and society. However, innovative, biology-based tools will enable agriculture to adapt and be part of the solution. BIO is a strong supporter of the Growing Climate Solutions Act for the significant positive impact the legislation will have for American farmers, sustainable fuel producers, and biobased manufacturers.
“Through the power of biotechnology, greater amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil and converted into value-added products providing additional revenue streams for farmers while addressing climate change and encouraging sustainable practices,” BIO continued. “It is time for the United States to work towards a more resilient 21st-century bioeconomy, and this bill is an important step towards that future.
Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, submitted comments for the hearing record stressing that producers and farmer suppliers to the ethanol industry provide significant benefits to the U.S. environment. “With many states and localities increasingly exploring public policy options to lower carbon emissions, the use of biofuels can immediately contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reduce harmful air toxics, and provide affordable solutions to consumers and lawmakers alike,” Skor wrote. “These benefits are significantly attributed to innovations in agricultural practices like reduced tillage, use of cover crops, and continued ethanol plant innovation.”
“Programs such as the Renewable Fuel Standard as well as the continued expansion of higher biofuel blends like E15 and E85 can advance environmental progress and provide meaningful markets for American agriculture well into the future,” Skor continued. “We hope as your committee continues to explore agriculture’s role in climate policy you will continue to recognize and promote the role of biofuels for our nation’s farmers and consumers now and into the future. Thank you and we look forward to working with you on these important initiatives.”
Additional information, including a video replay of the hearing, is available on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry website.
Read the original story here.
Jun 22, 2020
Summary
Ethanol producers' share prices have largely recovered to the levels at which they traded shortly before coronavirus-related lockdown orders went into effect in the U.S.
Ethanol production margins have made a full recovery and are approaching 3-year highs.
Ethanol demand has rebounded, but the recovery has been incomplete as gasoline demand has remained below its normal weekly volumes.
Investors should not expect ethanol producers' share prices to return to the levels seen when production margins were last this high until gasoline demand has fully recovered.
The share prices of U.S. ethanol producers Aemetis (AMTX), The Andersons(ANDE), Green Plains, Inc. (GPRE), Pacific Ethanol (PEIX), and REX American Resources (REX) have largely recovered from the coronavirus-induced swoons that they underwent in March and April. One producer, Pacific Ethanol, has even recorded a sizable gain over the period, although its share price had been battered by the company's poor financial position well before the pandemic severely disrupted U.S. ethanol demand.
The sector's recovery has been driven by a strong rebound in ethanol production margins that has occurred since late April. This rebound has in turn been the result of a 34% gain by the price of ethanol from April's lows compared to 7% increases by the prices of corn and natural gas, two important inputs, over the same period. Production margins as measured by Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development set a multi-year low in April but have since moved back into positive territory, most recently pushing above the capital cost threshold (not that the construction of new capacity is likely).
Two factors have had an outsized impact on the ethanol sector's improvement. The first has been the partial recovery of U.S. gasoline demand. While the fuel's consumption remains approximately 20% lower than is normally seen in June, it has increased by 50% from April's lows. Ethanol demand is closely tied to gasoline demand since almost all of the former is blended with the latter prior to retail, and the collapse of gasoline demand that occurred earlier this year was the primary cause of the ethanol sector's poor production margins. Improved gasoline demand has therefore translated to higher ethanol demand.
That said, ethanol demand has recently rebounded by more than would be expected just based on the recent gasoline demand trend. Weekly ethanol blending volumes by the refining and wholesale/retail segments are only 15% lower than the normal volume for this time of year, having increased by almost 60% from April's lows. As I wrote earlier this month, Renewable Identification Number [RIN] prices have surged since early April, increasing the incentive to blend ethanol under the revised Renewable Fuel Standard [RFS2] biofuels blending mandate. It is possible that the superior recovery of ethanol demand is attributable to this development.
More directly, ethanol production margins have benefited from the continued strength of ethanol's price premium relative to the price of gasoline. While this has declined from the extreme ratio that was reached in March and April as rapid demand disruption occurred, it remains well above the long-term average. A strong ethanol price premium often reflects a dynamic in which ethanol demand is stronger than gasoline demand, as appears to be the situation now.
Ethanol prices have also benefited from a less-advantageous development, though: the large decline in ethanol reserves that has occurred since early April. Normally such a decline would be a good sign since it would mean that demand was outpacing the ethanol sector's ability to supply ethanol. In the present case, though, the decline to stocks has been the direct result of the mass shuttering of U.S. ethanol production capacity that occurred in March and April. While much of the capacity that had been idled has returned to production, the country's current production volumes remain 20% or more below the historical summer levels.
The primary factor for investors in the ethanol sector to watch this summer, then, is gasoline demand. A full recovery as the summer driving season commences would allow ethanol production margins to remain strong even as production returns to normal levels. On the other hand, an incomplete recovery would threaten to cause a repeat of Q4 2019, when rising margins became self-defeating by inducing oversupply by producers. (The exception is if E15 demand experiences exponential growth, but there is little evidence that this is happening yet.)
Two secondary factors for investors to keep an eye on are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] upcoming RFS2 rulemaking and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Following multiple legal defeats in the federal courts, the EPA is supposed to require the full biofuel blending required by statute in 2021. Merchant refiners have embarked on a last-ditch effort to have this volume effectively reduced, however, injecting a fresh source of uncertainty into the outlook.
Likewise, resurging coronavirus rates in many southern U.S. states following the re-openings of their economies have both dashed earlier hopes that the virus would struggle in warm weather and worsened the outlook for the pandemic in H2 2020. While some energy analysts have argued that the reopening would ultimately see higher-than-normal summer gasoline (and, by extension, ethanol) demand this year as travelers opted for cars over airliners, this is unlikely to happen if infection fears cause travelers instead to opt for "staycations" over driving vacations. The prevailing gasoline demand weakness certainly raises the prospect that the latter scenario will occur.
Any investor asking when ethanol producers' share prices are likely to return to their January 2020 highs, as opposed to their pre-coronavirus levels, must consider the supply scenario. Production margins have recovered to their earlier highs, it is true, but production volumes remain lower than they were at that time (let alone than their historical summer levels). Producers' earnings and, by extension, share prices are unlikely to set new highs in 2020 until the demand situation has improved to the point at which margins can remain strong following a full rebound of supply. Much will depend on how drivers respond this summer to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the original story here.
Jun 21, 2020
In Washington, D.C., ethanol production rose 0.5%, or 4,000 barrels per day (b/d), to 841,000 b/d—equivalent to 35.32 million gallons daily and a twelve-week high, according to EIA data analyzed by the Renewable Fuels Association. However, production remains tempered due to COVID-19 disruptions, coming in 22.2% below the same week in 2019.
The four-week average ethanol production rate increased 6.0% to 792,000 b/d, equivalent to an annualized rate of 12.14 billion gallons.
Ethanol stocks declined 2.1% to 21.3 million barrels, the lowest reserves this year and 1.2% below year-ago volumes. Inventories tightened in the East Coast (PADD 1) and Midwest (PADD 2) but increased across the other regions.
The volume of gasoline supplied to the U.S. market, a measure of implied demand, softened by 0.4% to 7.870 million b/d (120.65 bg annualized). Gasoline demand was 20.7% lower than a year ago.
Refiner/blender net inputs of ethanol perked up, moving 3.1% higher to 789,000 b/d, equivalent to 12.10 bg annualized but 16.2% below the year-earlier level.
There were no imports of ethanol recorded for the fourteenth consecutive week. (Weekly export data for ethanol is not reported simultaneously; the latest export data is as of April 2020.)
Read the original story here.
Jun 18, 2020
In response to rising public outcry for greater transparency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today disclosed that 52 new petitions have been received from small refineries seeking retroactive exemptions from their Renewable Fuel Standard requirements in 2011-2018. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, refiners are filing these “gap year” waiver petitions as part of a cynical scheme to circumvent the recent Tenth Circuit Court decision. In its January decision, the court overturned three exemptions and set a precedent for significantly curtailing the waivers going forward.
“Just when we thought we’d seen everything, the refiners have come up with another new scam to undermine the RFS. This ‘gap year’ waiver ploy is as surreal as it is appalling, and certainly the courts would frown upon EPA flouting another unequivocal decision,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “It is beyond absurd that refiners who didn’t even ask for an exemption or claim hardship in the past are now asking for waivers dating all the way back to 2011. EPA should swiftly deny these waiver requests and immediately adopt the Tenth Circuit decision nationwide. The agency should stop trying to rewrite history and start trying to follow the law.”
In ruling on a petition filed by the Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, and American Coalition for Ethanol, a panel of Tenth Circuit Court judges unanimously found on January 24 that EPA had exceeded its authority in granting certain exemptions. The court ruled that EPA may only consider granting waivers to refiners who have received continuous extensions of their exemptions each compliance year. The judges also said EPA may only grant waivers to refiners who demonstrate the RFS itself is the cause of “hardship,” not some other factor, and noted that EPA’s own analysis shows that refiners pass compliance costs on to their customers. EPA’s own data show that no more than seven small refineries could have possibly received continuous extensions of their exemptions. Yet, EPA has recently granted as many as 35 exemptions in a single year.
Now, in a brazen attempt to get around the court decision, refiners are requesting exemptions for past years so that they may claim they are eligible for future waivers because their exemption was “continuously extended” by EPA. RFA first exposed the “gap year” plot in a letter to Administrator Wheeler on May 22, and called on EPA to reject the secretive waiver requests outright. The Tenth Circuit petitioners—RFA, NCGA, NFU and ACE—and other groups sent another letter to EPA later, requesting specific information about the “gap year” petitions.
Refiners are apparently attempting to justify the “gap year” waivers by suggesting the statute allows them to file a petition “at any time.” However, the Tenth Circuit said the phrase “at any time” does not open the door for EPA to grant a petition regardless of when it is received. The court stated that “even if a small refinery can submit a hardship petition at any time, it does not follow that every single petition can be granted.” The court noted the absurdity of a broader interpretation of “at any time,” explaining that “[b]y that logic, the EPA could grant a 2019 petition seeking a small refinery exemption for calendar year 2009 – more than a decade after the fact.”
Approving “gap year” waiver petitions would also contradict EPA’s long-held position that “…petitions be submitted as soon as possible to enable the EPA to conduct its evaluation and issue a decision prior to the…compliance deadline…”
Cooper said granting the “gap year” waivers “would be akin to a principal changing a high school senior’s freshman biology grade from an ‘F’ to an ‘A’ four years later so the student can get into college. It’s cheating—plain and simple. Farmers and biofuel producers in states throughout the Heartland are likely to view the granting of any ‘gap year’ waivers as the last straw in an increasingly tenuous relationship with the administration.”
He also noted a recent comment by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who said “If the EPA ends up accepting these petitions, not only will they lose again in court, they will risk President Trump’s support in Iowa and other Midwestern states.”
Read the original story here.
Jun 18, 2020
Members of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus held a virtual town hall Wednesday to discuss the challenges currently facing the ethanol industry and what can be done to help.
Participating in the meeting were caucus members including Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Dave Loebsack (D-IA), and Rodney Davis (R-IL) as well as ethanol and agricultural group leaders.
House Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson says while the Senate has yet to vote on the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, he will not vote for any bill that provides no aid for biofuels producers – and he is still hopeful USDA could yet find dollars for producers in the previous legislation.
Read the original story here.
Jun 16, 2020
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet taken action on petitions by refiners seeking retroactive biofuel blending waivers, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa said on Tuesday.
The Iowa senator called on the EPA to reject such petitions in a weekly call with reporters.
Grassley said the petitions were an attempt to skirt a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this year that said waivers from the nation’s biofuel blending laws granted to small refineries after 2010 had to take the form of an “extension.”
The decision, if applied broadly, would likely put an end to the Trump Administration’s practice of granting large numbers of exemptions to blending mandates.
However, a Department of Energy official said last month the department would review retroactive blending waivers. If granted, such waivers could be considered compliant with the court’s ruling.
His comments sparked outrage from biofuel advocates, who claim waivers undermine demand for ethanol and other biofuels. The oil industry refutes that claim.
Grassley said the petitions should be immediately dismissed, and the fact that they haven’t was a big concern of corn farmers and the industry in general. Iowa is the largest ethanol-producing state in the country.
“If the EPA ends up accepting these petitions, not only will they lose again in court, they will risk President Trump’s support in Iowa and other Midwestern states,” he said.
Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, refineries must blend billions of gallons of biofuels into their fuel pool or buy credits from those who do. Small refineries have been able to get waivers from the EPA, after their applications are reviewed by the Department of Energy.
The 10th circuit court’s decision made it unclear whether the large number of waivers issued in recent years could go ahead.
“Small refinery petitions received are sent to DOE for further analysis and we will await their recommendations,” an EPA spokesperson said.
Read the original story here.