Here is the letter in full:

The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA) is providing comments on those aspects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule which relate to total renewable fuels and conventional renewable fuel.

In the following pages you will find comments on various aspects of this rulemaking as well as appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, analysis and suggestions for changes that need to be made. Our comments address these matters:

• Overview Describing MBA and Biofuel Production in Minnesota and

• Point-by-point comments and suggestions regarding certain provisions of the EPA proposed rule set forth in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 111, June 10, 2015 (FR).

1. Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association and Biofuel Production in Minnesota

The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA) is a nonprofit, membership based, trade association. MBA represents biofuel producers having production plant operations within Minnesota. As the biofuel industry advocate in Minnesota, MBA is intimately involved with various technical and regulatory matters associated with biofuel production. Furthermore, MBA is intimately involved with the fuel supply chain factors associated with making additional volumes of biofuels, such as E15 and higher ethanol blends, available to fuel retailers and ultimately consumers who drive Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) and all other light duty motor vehicles manufactured after the year 2000.

Over the course of the last two years, MBA has conducted targeted outreach to more than 2,000 fuel retailers in Minnesota. This outreach has enabled MBA to facilitate the conversion of E10 fuel retailers to fuel retailers of E15 and to amass a significant amount of market intelligence as well as technical details related to fuel storage and dispensing systems and equipment. Based on the collective knowledge and experience of the MBA Board consisting of biofuel producers, our Technical Teams and Marketing expert, we offer some point-by-point comments and suggestions with respect to the EPA proposed rule at issue here.

Our point-by-point comments identify key issues. We then offer suggestions and solutions by which to address challenges. Finally, we provide some rationale for the suggestion and solution whereby its implementation will enable the EPA to more fully accomplish the aim of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): greater energy independence, development of homegrown renewable energy and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

2. Point-by-point comments and suggestions regarding certain provisions of the EPA proposed rule set forth in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 111, June 10, 2015 (FR).

a. Issue: FR at 33101 - “... Increased use of renewable fuels means less use of fossil fuels, which results in lower GHG emissions over time as advanced biofuel production and use becomes more commonplace.”

i. Suggestion/Solution: We concur in part because (a) the RFS does ramp up the requirement for a greater volume of advanced biofuel compared to conventional renewable biofuel and (b) based on scientific studies, renewable biofuels, conventional and advanced, do indeed reduce lifecycle GHG emissions; however, we disagree with the implicit message which is that we must wait until greater amounts of advanced biofuel are available to further reduce GHG emissions. Instead, we suggest the EPA consider the RFSlanguage which sets the volume amounts as “minimum” amounts and that the EPA more fully embrace the role the increased use of at least 15 billion gallons annually of conventional renewable biofuel can immediately play in helping to reduce GHG emissions. This action would be fully consistent with the letter and spirit of the RFS, President Obama’s energy policy, reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding the role biofuels play in reducing GHG emissions and Minnesota’s GHG emission reduction statute (See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 216H.02) and biofuel laws (Minn. Stat. 239.7911).

ii. Rationale: According to Dr. Michael Wang (lead reseracher), “Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use” (December 2012), the lifecycle GHG emissions (including the full range of energy inputs for crops, refining and combustion of fuel in a vehicle) for conventional renewable biofuel is on average 44%, and up to 57%, less compared to petroleum gasoline. In other words, light duty 2001 and newer vehicles powered by E15 as the new regular unleaded fuel, as well as FFVs, hold the potential to immediately further reduce GHG emissions while advanced biofuels production ramps up. The challenges posed by climate change demand immediate action; therefore, the use of conventional renewable biofuel should be maximized to the levels set forth in the RFS requirement including at least 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel annually.

In real world contemporaneous terms, using E15 as the new “regular unleaded fuel” would have this effect:

Making E15 (gasoline with 15 percent ethanol) the new regular unleaded fuel in Minnesota would eliminate 358,000 tons of CO2 annually, according to a technical analysis by the University of Illinois at Chicago.

In response to a query by the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, Dr Steffen Mueller, principal research economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said a gallon of E15 saves 1.26 g of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per megajoule over regular E10 (gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol). CO2e includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

Annual gasoline consumption in Minnesota averages 2.4 billion gallons. Should all 2.4 billion gallons be converted to E15 from E10, CO2e savings in the state would total 358,000 metric tons annually, Mueller said.

Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator, this would amount to eliminating 75,368 passenger vehicles from Minnesota’s roads annually.

The reduction in CO2e in Minnesota from using E15 is on top of the amount of CO2e already eliminated by using E10. By comparing E15 to gasoline that contains no ethanol, the CO2e savings would total 1.07 million metric tons annually in Minnesota, Mueller said.

This, according to the EPA’s greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator, is the same as removing 225,895 vehicles from Minnesota’s roads annually.

Argonne National Laboratory is managed by the UChicago Argonne LLC for the U.S Department of Energy. MBA, http://mnbiofuels.org/component/k2/item/1088-e15-woul

d-reduce-358-000-tons-of-co2-emissions-annually-in-minnesota?highlight=WyJtdWVsbGVyIiwibXVlbGxlcidzIl0=

(Current, July 23, 2015).

b. Issue: FR at 33101: “Over the past few years, we have seen analysis concluding that the ambitious statutory targets in the Clean Air Act exceed real world conditions.”

i. Suggestion/Solution: The EPA should use, and work in concert with, the results of current engineering and scientific studies as well as the EPA Underground Storage Tank Division to coordinate information and act upon the most recent data and information which supports the proposition that E15 can be rapidly deployed into the marketplace as the “new” unleaded regular fuel. While perhaps not as glamorous as was the call in the 1960's to send a human to the moon, using a similar type of call to action based on climate change challenges and the benefits immediately available from conventional renewable biofuel could, right here, right now, help to introduce at least 18.5 billion gallons annually of ethanol into the marketplace as E15 and thereby drive down GHG emissions.

Similarly, the EPA need only look to the mid-1970's when it aligned the fuel with engines such that unleaded fuel was mandatory for all vehicles with catalytic converters so as to achieve various aims of the Clean Air Act. The EPA should glean from these experiences the methods by which to effectively achieve multiple regulatory objectives in short order; i.e., full implementation of the RFS while reducing GHG emissions. In other words, the actual real world conditions today are such that it is possible to exceed the minimum volumes for conventional renewable biofuel as established by Congress in the RFS.

ii. Rationale: It is well established that conventional renewable biofuel reduces GHG emissions. Further, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has found that virtually all of the existing fueling infrastructure is already compatible with E15. Given the alignment of these two important factors (GHG reducing biofuel and fueling infrastructure), there is no rational basis for reducing the Renewable Volume Obligations for 2016.

Excerpts from the relevant NREL study:

It is often stated that tanks cannot be used to store E15, but this assumption is incorrect as the majority of installed tanks can store blends above E10. For many decades, underground storage tank (UST) manufacturers approved their tanks for blends up to E100, for example, all steel tanks and doublewalled fiberglass tanks since the year 1990. Manufacturers of pipe thread sealants (pipe dope) used in UST systems have stated that their products have been compatible with ethanol blends up to E20 for many years. For those tanks with low ethanol blend certifications, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Underground Storage Tanks

(OUST) issued Guidance – Compatibility of UST Systems with Biofuels Blends in 2011 to enable alternative compliance with federal code as UST systems are in use for decades. This guidance allowed tank manufacturers to issue letters stating the compatibility of their tanks with specific ethanol blends. All existing tank manufacturers have issued such letters, and the majority of installed tanks are compatible with E15.

Additionally, all existing pipe manufacturers have Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing for E100.

“E15 and Infrastructure” Study by National Renewably Energy Laboratory, by Kristy Moriarty of NREL and Janet Yanowitz from Ecoengineering Inc., Prepared May 2015. Issue: FR at 33104

- “Practical and legal constraints on the supply of ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them... driven in part by lower gasoline consumption than was expected in 2007 when the target statutory volumes were established.”

i. Suggestion/Solution: EPA must decouple the notion of specific volume requirements set forth in the RFS from the total national gasoline consumption for the next several years. Congress was explicit in its call for increasing amounts of renewable biofuel to displace finite, carbon intensive fossil fuel. Thus, the focus of the EPA ought to be directed toward the automobile manufactures and other stakeholders who do, or can, play a greater role in using and making higher volumes of biofuels available in the marketplace.

ii. Rationale: Since nearly nine out of 10 light duty vehicles on the road today can use up to 15% ethanol, the new standard with respect to assessing potential volume consumption of biofuels ought to be E15. This type of paradigm shift (from E10 to E15) is less challenging than was the transition from leaded to unleaded fuel for catalyst equipped vehicles in 1975 since E15 is a substantially similar fuel compared to the ubiquitous E10. Per the NREL studies cited in our comments at 2.b.ii, virtually all storage and dispensing equipment is already compatible with E15. Thus, based on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) metrics provided by the EPA (FR at 33126), the 137 billion gallons projected to be consumed in 2016 could be comprised of at least 18.5 billion gallons of biofuel. Given the climate change challenges associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, the volume of which, based on EIA projections in consumption of transportation fuel, will grow in the short-term, and given the current availability of less carbon intensive biofuels, it is only prudent that the EPA adhere to the minimum 15 billion gallon biofuel requirement for 2015 and 2016.

d. Issue: FR at 33104 - “We are proposing to exercise our authority to reduce volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel only to the extent necessary to remove the inadequacy and supply.”

i. Suggestion/Solution: EPA should focus on the existing available supply of biofuels so as to use and comply with the RFS. Based on industry data compiled by BBI International, the total amount of annual production capacity for biofuels in the United States, excluding advanced biofuels, is currently at least 15.08 billion gallons.

ii. Rationale: Following this course of action, that is, utilizing the existing production capacity of biofuel producers within the United States, enables the EPA to comply with the RFS and to more rapidly decrease greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of transportation fuel.

e. Issue: FR at 33105 - “Thus the determination of the maximum achievable volumes is one that we believe necessarily involves considerable exercise of judgment. To this end, we are proposing “maximum achievable” volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in this package that reflect our judgment as to where the boundary between adequate domestic supply and inadequate domestic supply might fall, particularly for 2015 and 2016."

i. Suggestion/Solution: Indeed, the EPA is proposing adjustments to the Renewable Volume Obligations and has elected to follow this path which is unnecessarily forcing the purported need to exercise EPA’s judgment in the matter. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are clear. In the matter involving conventional renewable biofuel, there is no need for the EPA to exercise any judgment with respect to the RVO because the production capacity is available, infrastructure can handle E15 and the full implementation of the RFS for 2015 and 2016 with respect to conventional biofuels will provide the certainty the industry seeks as it expands the production of advanced biofuels and it will assist in efforts to further reduce GHG emissions.

ii. Rationale: See our comments at 2.d.i regarding capacity and 2.b.ii regarding infrastructure.

f. Issue: FR at 33106 - "The total volume of renewable fuel in the form of ethanol that could realistically be supplied to vehicles as either E10 or higher ethanol blends given various constraints was not a limiting factor in the standard-setting process in prior years. Furthermore, the availability of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels was determined to be sufficient to overcome the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. However, for 2014 in later years, neither of these two factors remains true, and as a result are proposing reductions for these categories of renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016 using the waiver authorities…"

i. Suggestion/Solution: Decouple issues involving advanced biofuel gallons from the total volume of renewable fuel and maximize the current opportunity to use conventional renewable biofuels to immediately drive down GHG emissions in the transportation sector and meet or exceed the renewable volume obligations set forth in the RFS.

ii. Rationale: Although some additional time may be required for further ramp up and production of greater volumes of advanced biofuels, this evolution in the industry should not prevent the immediate and maximum use of conventional renewable biofuels to address the challenge of climate change and to comply with the RFS. Furthermore, EPAs compliance with and full enforcement of the RFS can provide the type of certainty and consistency that the biofuel industry can use as it continues to innovate. Thus far, the biofuel industry has made significant investments in production capability to comply with the RFS. Given the nature of the biofuel industry and the complex milieu in which it operates, any inappropriate use of the waiver authority by the EPA would only undermine the progress that has been and could otherwise continue to be made to meet and exceed the provisions of the RFS.

g. Issue: FR at 33108 - "… We believe that the market is capable of responding to ambitious standards by expanding infrastructure and modifying fuel pricing to provide incentives for the production and use of renewable fuels. While we do not believe that the statutory volumes can be reached within the next several years, the market is capable of attaining volumes significantly higher than in the past."

i. Suggestion/Solution: Enforce the RFS. While production of advance biofuels continues to ramp up, the EPA should not stand in the way of fully maximizing and using the current production capacity with respect to conventional renewable biofuels. Furthermore, with respect to the matter of infrastructure, as noted in section 2.b.ii. above, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), virtually all the current fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure is already compatible with and capable of handling E15. Thus, in short, the only real barriers to making E15 as ubiquitous as E10 is not infrastructure but other factors such as the uncertainty the EPA creates by not enforcing the provisions of the RFS. Other barriers which need to be further addressed is having greater access to an adequate supply of competitively priced blend stock and eliminating the Reid Vapor Pressure.

ii. Rationale: Minnesota, for instance, is pursuing multiple pathways to providing motorists with more fuel choice, with biofuels, at the pump. One pathway toward this goal involves some rather significant capital investment for, in some cases at particular fuel retail sites, the installation of new underground storage tanks and/or dispensers. In many other fuel retail locations, however, only minor modifications, such as calibration of the dispenser or changing out some seals and hanging hardware may be required for existing dispensers so as to enable fuel retailers to make E15 readily available to consumers.

h. Issue: FR at 33109 - "In addition to ongoing efforts to evaluate new pathways for advanced biofuel production, we are aware that other actions can also play a role in improving incentives provided by the RFS program to overcome challenges that limit the potential for increased volumes of renewable fuels. Such action could potentially include amendments to program regulations that would help an able and potentially accelerate growth in renewable fuel volumes over time."

i. Suggestion/Solution: The EPA should certainly continue efforts to evaluate new pathways for advanced biofuel production. In addition to the production side of the equation, however, the EPA should also consider factors within the fuel supply chain. For instance, the EPA could address the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) factor so as to enable the legal sale of E15 throughout the entire year rather than for merely a nine-month period from September 16 through June 15. The EPA already has the administrative authority to immediately resolve the RVP barrier to E15.

ii. Rationale: E15 is a substantially similar fuel with respect to E10. Furthermore, the science regarding the RVP indicates that E15 actually has a slightly lower RVP then regular gasoline. In other words, with respect to RVP, there is no rational basis upon which the EPA should prevent E15 from being on par with E10. Removing the misplaced restriction on the sale of E15 during the summer months will make it easier for fuel retailers to handle the product since they have greater continuity in the fuel product line being offered to consumers. Additionally, by making E15 available during the high mileage driving season, there will be greater opportunity to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector by using increased volumes of renewable biofuels.

The analysis demonstrates that the RVP impact of 15% ethanol is indistinguishable from that of 10% ethanol in gasoline for all volatility seasons and base hydrocarbon vapor pressures. (Emphasis added).

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), Discussion Document, March 26, 2012

i. Issue: FR at 33109 - "… our proposed approach to determining the volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2015 and 2016 is one of determining the maximum achievable supply by acknowledging constraints on supply to consumers resulting from the E10 blend wall, limitations in production and import capabilities, and the ability of the markets to respond to the standards we set."

i. Suggestion/Solution: As noted in our comments, Section 2.d.i., with respect to conventional renewable biofuels, the production supply issue is addressed. The import capabilities is not a relevant factor since the current U.S. based ethanol industry can already supply, and exceed, the required amount of ethanol consistent with the RFS and it is ramping up to supply an even larger volume of advanced biofuel - new EPA pathways will further accelerate this production. The notion of an E10 blendwall, however, must be eliminated from EPA nomenclature and baseline calculations because it is focused on the past rather than the present and into the future.

ii. Rationale: Rather than use E10 as the basis for the “blendwall” (footnote 7, FR at 33102) and segment the transportation fuel market between FFVs and non-FFVs, the EPA should aggregate the total fuel consumption capacity. Thus, according to EIA, as cited by the EPA (FR at 33128), the FFV fleet alone has a total consumption capacity of approximately 14 billion gallons. And the non-FFVs which can use E15 have a total consumption capacity of at least 18.5 billion gallons. Therefore the total consumption capacity is at least 32.5 billion gallons annually.

j. Issue: FR at 33109 - "The decrease in total gasoline consumption in recent years which resulted in a corresponding and proportional decrease in the maximum amount of ethanol that can be consumed if all gasoline was E10, the limited number geographic distribution of retail stations that offer higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, the number of FFVs that of access to 85, as well as other market factors, combine to place significant restrictions on the volume of ethanol that can be supplied to vehicles at the present time."

i. Suggestion/Solution: EPA must reckon with the fact that virtually all fuel stations are capable of offering E 15. Once again, the notion that somehow E10 is the highest bar to reach or barrier to more biofuels is misplaced. Nearly nine out of 10 light duty vehicles on the road today can use E15. E15 should be viewed as and considered to be the new regular unleaded fuel.

ii. Rationale: See our comments at Section 2.i.ii above.

k. Issue: FR at 33117 - "… [O]ur objective in exercising the general waiver authority is to set the volume requirements at the boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an "inadequate domestic supply.""

i. Suggestion/Solution: The EPA should focus on full implementation of the RFS with respect to the renewable volume obligations.

ii. Rationale: Given the investments that have already been made in biofuel production operations, it is imperative that the EPA provide consistency and certainty with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the RFS.

Biofuel producers are prepared to meet and exceed the volume targets; however, they need some certainty as is provided in the RFS. Furthermore, any backsliding with respect to the renewable volume obligations sends a mixed signal to the marketplace. If all parties, including those that produce, distribute and sell biofuels, have a clear understanding that they will be accountable for reaching the volume requirements, all relevant planning and investments can be channeled in a manner to achieve the greatest outcome. But that means the EPA must fully implement the RFS, as is, so the ongoing ramp up for advanced biofuels can continue through 2022.

l. Issue: FR at 33121 - "Current indications are that growth in all of these areas [referring to the number of FFVs in the fleet and the number of retail stations offering E15 and E85] will continue, and the capability exists for growth to accelerate. However, growth is very unlikely to reach a level that would enable the statutory volume targets to be met in the near term. As a result, we believe that there will continue to be constraints on the total volume of renewable fuel that can be consumed in 2015 and 2016."

i. Suggestion/Solution: Extrapolate from the forward looking Minnesota model with respect to plans to achieve 18% biofuel use by 2017.

ii. Rationale: Minnesota, according to the EIA, 2013, is at approximately 12.2% ethanol use for spark ignition engines which includes E10, higher blends up to E85 for FFVs and E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles. One approach to facilitating the further implementation of E15 as the new regular unleaded fuel is to include it with existing and new blender pumps which also have the capability to offer higher blends such as E30 and E85.

Another approach, which was recently endorsed by the Minnesota Legislature and Governor Mark Dayton and became law, is to maximize the use of the existing fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure so as to more rapidly make E15 broadly available in the marketplace. Note, most fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure can already handle up to E15. Thus, in Minnesota, stakeholders are building upon a tiered approach.

A vast number of light duty motor vehicles are expected to be fueled with E15 through the existing infrastructure while additional investments are made to expand the availability of higher blends of biofuels for FFVs and future engines which are expected to require, for instance, at least E30. Thus far, for 2015, Minnesota biofuel producers have worked with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to put together a potential $3 million grant package which will include funding to help some fuel retailers tackle simple, low-cost modifications to their fuel dispensers so they can offer E15 as the new regular unleaded fuel.

m. Issue: FR at 33123 - "As a program designed not only to increase the nation's energy security position but also contribute to efforts to reduce impacts of climate change, we believe that a focus on growth in advance biofuel is appropriate. However, we also acknowledge that the volume of non-advanced biofuel production and use that has been achieved to date falls short of the volumes that Congress envisioned. Therefore we believe it is appropriate to provide for the continued growth of conventional renewable fuels at this time as well."

i. Suggestion/Solution: The EPA should abandon its attempt to find the boundaries between adequate and inadequate supplies of biofuels and demand for biofuels and instead enforce and fully implement the RFS. While growth in advanced biofuels can continue to be a priority, the time is now to un-nest the biofuels and focus where there is the greatest opportunity to reduce GHG emissions now. In a tiered approach to increasing the volume of biofuels in the marketplace, E15 is the first tier which can be fully developed to attain the greatest environmental benefits in the least amount of time. But the EPA must yield to, comply with and enforce the RFS.

ii. Rationale: Based upon the EIA short to medium term projections for transportation fuel requirements, by simply complying with the RFS, E15 will have the greatest opportunity to serve the aims of the RFS as it can be used by the greatest number of vehicles currently on the roadways. In short, we can exceed the Congressional requirements for the use of conventional renewable biofuels which is set for at least 15 billion gallons. Compliance with RFS with respect to conventional renewable biofuels is the first step, and the most direct approach by which to achieve the nation's energy security position as well as to significantly reduce the impacts of climate change by ensuring the maximum amount of clean, renewable biofuels have the opportunity to perform in the marketplace.

n. Issue: FR at 31126 - "Efforts to increase the use of ethanol beyond the blendwall is primarily a function of the volume of E85 that is consumed, since volumes of E15 are likely to continue to be small in 2016."

i. Suggestion/Solution: Consider that virtually all fueling stations can now offer E15 to their customers. E15 is the new unleaded regular fuel. On a parallel track, actions are being taken to expand the number of locations where higher blends, like E85, can be purchased.

ii. Rationale: See our comments at Section 2.h.ii. above.

o. Issue: FR at 33129 - Referring to EPA's perceived need to identify the interface between inadequate domestic supply and an adequate, “Given the complexities of the fuel market, this is a very challenging task, one that necessarily involves considerable judgment."

i. Suggestion/Solution: Simply enforce the Renewable Fuel Standard while making some allowance for the ongoing ramp up in the production of advanced biofuels. Furthermore, seek ways to adjust for the inclusion of a greater amount of conventional renewable fuel to achieve a more rapid reduction in GHG emissions.

ii. Rationale: The Renewable Fuel Standard is unequivocal. Compliance with the RFS will by its very nature stimulate the type of creativity and potential actions which the EPA outlines as potential actions stakeholders, such as vehicle manufacturers, fuel retailers and other essential parties in the fuel supply chain can take to attain and fulfill the provisions of the RFS.

Thank you for considering our comments. I am available to address any questions you might have about these comments.

Respectfully submitted,

Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq.

Executive Director