EPA Biofuels Rule Could Hurt Economy
October 28, 2015
By Kyle Nixon
The author is the general manager of the Novozymes facility in Blair, Nebraska.
At the end of November the Environmental Protection Agency is due to issue the final rule on the amount of renewable biofuels that will be blended into the nation’s fuel supply.
The initial proposal, which was issued back in May, was a step backward for the economy and a threat to future investments.
Biofuels blending volumes are set by the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which was signed into law 10 years ago. Each year the EPA is required to issue regulations that turn those volumes into a percentage of the fuel supply. As you have probably noticed at the gas pump, most of our fuel supply now contains 10 percent ethanol.
The latest EPA proposal, however, sets the blending below the levels dictated by the law. If that change is finalized, that flawed proposal will undermine significant economic success.
Ever since the RFS was passed, companies like Novozymes have been investing in renewable fuels. We are a global biotechnology company and we supply the enzymes that help prepare biomass for the biofuels industry.
Since 2005, we have invested $500 million in technology, facilities and people to move the biofuels industry forward. We spent $200 million to build our plant in Blair, which opened in 2012 and now employs more than 100 people.
I am the general manager of the Novozymes facility in Blair, and I’ve seen firsthand the economic benefits of the RFS for Nebraska. According to the trade group Fuels America, the renewable fuels industry supports more than 850,000 jobs nationally, paying $46.2 billion in wages and $14.5 billion in taxes each year.
Instead of sending money to overseas oil producers, the biofuels sector has provided financial stability for rural farming communities right here at home.
It also has produced returns for the environment. In the 10 years since it was enacted, the RFS has reduced U.S. carbon emissions by 590 million metric tons by pushing gasoline out of the fuel supply. That’s like removing 124 million cars from the road.
But the law has been so successful that the oil industry is pushing back. Afraid of losing market share, the oil industry has attacked the RFS and attempted to influence the EPA’s administration of the law. Unfortunately that strategy resulted in the recent EPA proposal that would reduce the amount of blended renewable fuels.
Novozymes invested and innovated because of the RFS. Our workforce is here, in Blair, because of the RFS. We want to invest more, but the instability of this policy is putting the brakes on a fast-growing industry. In June, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts visited our global headquarters in Denmark and heard about the challenge of investing with an unpredictable policy.
“They are looking at all their investments in light of the EPA decision,” he said. “When the EPA changes the rules, it creates uncertainty and hampers job creation.”
Novozymes believed that the EPA would follow the letter of the law. Now EPA officials are pulling the rug out from under the biofuels industry and betraying hardworking Americans and the communities that have built this industry.
The final rule is due on Nov. 30. Between now and then the EPA has a chance to stand up for American workers and farmers, follow the law, and get this policy right.
The EPA can still keep our government’s promise and drive a great economic success story.
Read original story: EPA Biofuels Rule Could Hurt Economy
New Enzyme Boosts Profits, Cuts Chemical Use at Ethanol Plants
October 27, 2015
Novozymes today announced the launch of Avantec® Amp, an advanced enzyme product that improves yield and throughput in corn ethanol production, while increasing corn oil extraction and significantly reducing the need for several harsh chemicals used in ethanol production. By switching from standard enzyme technology to Avantec Amp, a typical ethanol plant with a capacity of 110 million gallons can make up to $2.5 million a year in additional net profits.
“Avantec Amp enables yield improvements and chemical reductions that were previously impossible,” says Peter Halling, Vice President – Biofuel, at Novozymes. “It will boost our customers’ bottom line and give them flexibility to adjust their various revenue streams based on market conditions. Ultimately, it will give them a competitive advantage in a challenging market.”
Simpler and more profitable, with fewer chemicals
Avantec Amp continues the success of the original Avantec®, introduced in 2012, by adding significant new benefits. It combines multiple enzyme activities into one product, and surpasses competing enzyme solutions by squeezing more ethanol from each kernel of corn and enabling increased output from the ethanol plant, thus saving energy and water and increasing return on invested capital. It can also boost corn oil production, an increasingly important revenue stream in the industry, by freeing up oil bound in the corn germ.
In addition, Avantec Amp reduces the need for a number of chemicals used to control and accelerate production processes at ethanol plants. Urea, which is used to improve the fermentation of ethanol, can be cut by more than 70%. Surfactants and ammonia, used to extract corn oil and adjust pH levels, can also be significantly reduced. Avantec Amp is the first enzyme product to replace urea and surfactants.
“By replacing these chemicals with enzymes you get greater safety for workers and lower costs,” says Peter Halling. “When you simplify the recipe, you reduce the risk of errors associated with handling multiple different compounds and you also have less need for storage.”
Read the original release: New Enzyme Boosts Profits, Cuts Chemical Use at Ethanol Plants
Common Ground: SD Farm Groups Differ on Policy, but Support Ethanol
October 26, 2015
By Mikkel Pates
With grain prices dropping since 2013, farmers are closing the 2015 season with big crops and difficulty penciling profits.
Agweek visited with the presidents of the South Dakota Farm Bureau and the South Dakota Farmers Union, the two general farm organizations that aren’t specific to a commodity or a species of livestock. The organizations differ in emphasis, but agree on certain things. Significantly, both say ethanol will be important to the region, and will weather the financial storm.
Scott VanderWal, president of the SDFB since 2004, operates a third-generation family farm, raising soybeans and corn, with some custom cattle-feeding and custom harvesting near Volga, S.D., which is about 8 miles west of Brookings, S.D.
South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke farms with his sons on land his great-grandfather farmed near Groton, S.D., about 20 miles east of Aberdeen. Today, the Sombkes run the farm and have diversified with a hunting lodge, dog business and a soil-sampling enterprise.
Ethanol a key
VanderWal leads an organization of about 16,000 member-families, meaning a single member might represent several family members. He says the SDFB is clearly and consistently in favor of ethanol development. It is opposed to lowering ethanol volumes required in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard, as has been proposed.
Ethanol production also creates a byproduct called distiller’s grains, which benefits the state’s livestock industry as a feed option.
“We do have some livestock producers who feel the RFS is an unfair advantage, and that it drives up the cost of corn,” VanderWal says. “But we can see now that corn is back to some pretty low prices. We’re still producing ethanol at record levels, like we had been.”
He harvested a good soybean crop, and the biggest corn crop his farm has ever experienced, with a yield of nearly 190 bushels per acre.
Ethanol development and expansion is the biggest priority for the Farmers Union, an organization of about 14,000 people. With the rise and fall of corn prices in the past several years, Sombke sees ethanol as “the way to go” to help stabilize corn and other grains.
“It gives us another market for the marketing of the corn, but also the byproducts,” he says.
South Dakota has been one of the most aggressive places for developing ethanol, and is still trying to expand. The Ring-Neck Energy & Feed LLC project in Onida, S.D., about 30 miles northeast of Pierre, is the most recent effort to build a new plant. The company, formed in September 2014, is trying to gather finances to build a 70-million-gallon-per year plant that would take 25 million bushels of corn per year.
The current $3-per-bushel corn price might mean less cash for investment, but that’s when farmers need the ethanol market the most, Sombke says.
“That’s the reason I got into it 10 years ago, and why I started using higher blends of ethanol rather than just using the 10 percent, and not only in flex-fuel vehicles but in non flex-fuel vehicles, as well.”
A national industry effort seeks to raise the ethanol level in fuel from 10 to 15 percent, but Sombke thinks the future is the E30 blend. It’s the “most stable fuel you can find,” he says, regarding its evaporation volatility. He has E30 splash-blended and delivered to his farm for use in flex-fuel and standard vehicles.
Despite allegations against the ethanol blends, Sombke emphasizes there has never been “proof in a legal case” of any standard engine failing from the use of E30.
Politics, regulation
In terms of policy efforts, Sombke says SDFU is circulating a petition to acquire 27,741 valid signatures to create an independent political redistricting committee for the state. It would revise the way the state legislature changes voting district boundaries. Iowa has done it. Montana is one of 26 other states considering something similar.
Gerrymandering political districts to suit partisan motives is a problem for rural voters, Sombke says. A recent district change put 1,500 people from Aberdeen into a district that sprawls 100 miles away into Spink, Clark and Hamlin counties.
“The legislators are picking the voters, not the voters picking the legislators,” Sombke says.
As for its policy initiatives, the SDFB is anxious to help follow through on a state wetland mitigation bank it helped develop in the last Legislature, VanderWal says.
Under the wetland mitigation bank plan, a farmer wanting to eliminate a wetland in the middle of a field can buy credits toward creating a new one, and the person expanding or creating a wetland can take a payment toward that purpose. The state is still in the process of getting the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service to approve the details.
VanderWal says frustration surrounds NRCS backlogs in making wetland determinations.
In a related wetland issue, SDFB supports litigation efforts to oppose the expansion of EPA authority over wetlands in the Waters of the U.S. rule. VanderWal says if WOTUS can’t be stopped legally, the groups will work through Congress to defund or overturn the rule. South Dakota joined a North Dakota effort that created an injunction on the rule in 13 states, which has since been expanded nationwide.
Dairy differences
The 2015 North Dakota Legislature passed exemptions to the state’s anti-corporate farming law to closer reflect legislation in South Dakota that allowed growth in its dairy industry.
To compare, South Dakota voters in November 1998 approved Amendment E, an anti-corporate farming law, but it was ruled unconstitutional in 2003. Sombke says the SDFU supports dairy development, but he agrees with North Dakota Farmers Union colleagues who have opposed an anticorporate exemptions in North Dakota.
“I don’t think (overturning the law) changed anything for the better or worse,” Sombke says of the South Dakota law. “I do know corporations try to build because of [a lack of anti-corporate law in South Dakota], but we’re still largely family-owned, not corporate-owned.”
VanderWal says his organization is in support of “responsible livestock development and expansion. With land prices and the cost of capital now for starting to farm, it’s virtually impossible for a young person who isn’t inheriting a farm to get started.”
South Dakota needs more dairy cows with the opening of the Bel Brands cheese plant in Brookings. The expansion of the dairy industry has been a good thing, VanderWal says.
“Lots of people have new (dairy-related) jobs around Brookings,” he says. “It’s economic development.”
VanderWal says South Dakota’s program to help counties identify areas well-suited for livestock production is significant from environmental and social perspectives.
The climate
Sombke says South Dakota’s main advantage over North Dakota is climate.
“There’s a big difference between here and Fargo in the coldness of the weather and the climate for livestock,” says Sombke, who lives 35 miles from the North Dakota border. “That’s the biggest reason there’s no development (in North Dakota), not the corporate farming law. That’s just what the North Dakota Farmers Union says, as it is leading an effort to overturn the new exception.”
Sombke says the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources should gather more diverse opinions on the environmental impacts of large dairies and feedlots. He says the large livestock enterprises can have bigger negative effects on the environment.
VanderWal says the bottom line is that livestock development is still the most available avenue for young people to get into agriculture.
“You can still put up buildings or a feedlot, and start contract-producing livestock,” he says.
Most of the dairies that have moved here from other countries and states initially only wanted the 50 acres or so to place their buildings, and would buy feed products from surrounding farmers. Now, some are starting to buy their own farmland and put up their own feed.
That’s important, because it means they’re making money.
And both organizations can agree that’s crucial.
While the two groups have historically been split along political lines, the South Dakota Farm Bureau and Farmers Union do agree on some issues.
Ethanol’s influence on their state’s economy and farmers is at the top of that list.
Read the original story: Common Ground: SD Farm Groups Differ on Policy, but Support Ethanol
Colum: To Win Iowa, You Must Support Ethanol, And That's Good
October 25, 2015
By Patty Judge
Like so many other issues today, what was once a source of bipartisan compromise and agreement has become laden with divisive rhetoric and the influence of special interests. So it goes with the Renewable Fuel Standard, a 2007 law establishing a widely lauded goal of increasing the amount of renewable resources in our gasoline to fight climate change, revitalize rural communities and put the U.S. on a path to energy independence.
In less than a decade, what was once seen as a symbol of good government and the synthesis of agriculture, energy and environmental priorities has become a political punching bag.
Renewable fuel is contentious inside the Beltway these days for one simple reason: oil industry influence. Being the only alternative liquid transportation fuel eating up precious market share at the pump, the fossil fuel industry will stop at nothing to maintain their monopoly. Of course, biofuels aren’t the only alternatives facing this kind of lopsided fight; wind and solar are only just now breaking the chokehold of the utility industry’s legacy players after more than three decades of struggle. We shouldn’t have to wait that long for renewable fuel.
One could argue it’s needed now more than ever. Climate change impacts have become more profound and urgent, rural communities are shedding jobs, and although oil prices are low today, they will continue to be unpredictable and it is only a matter of time before they rise again, subjecting the American pocketbook to geopolitical turmoil.
Nowhere is this more keenly understood than in Iowa, a corn state that prides itself on both agricultural innovation and developing alternatives to fossil fuels. And luckily, the Iowa caucuses provide an important mechanism to pull politicians away from the Washington bubble, out of earshot of the fossil fuel industry. After all, in Iowa, people matter more than big donors do. Once engrossed in true retail politics in diners and town halls, candidates can take a more rational look at the issue and talk to the thousands of men and women impacted by their decisions.
Outside Washington, especially in the rural communities buoyed by biofuels’ economic value, the tone is very different — one might say approaching unanimous. A newly released poll from America’s Renewable Future and DuPont suggests Iowa caucus-goers from both parties — 61 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats — would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate that supports the Renewable Fuel Standard and renewable fuels.
In fact, the Renewable Fuel Standard — which requires a certain amount of fuel produced each year to be made from renewable sources — is a clear winner for Iowa caucus-goers for a number of reasons: three-quarters of Republicans and 7 out of 8 Democrats surveyed cited greenhouse gas emissions reductions over gasoline as a reason to support the RFS. About nine out of ten voters in both parties approve of the strong job and wage benefits the RFS ensures for Iowa. And 86 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats support the RFS for the hundreds of thousands of American jobs it supports across the United States as a whole.
It doesn’t take a political whiz kid to understand this phenomenon. The simple fact is that the renewable fuel industry supports some of Iowans’ biggest priorities: jobs, agriculture and a sustainable future.
As it happens, these benefits are set to expand tremendously with cellulosic ethanol, showcased at the end of October when DuPont opens the world’s largest cellulosic ethanol facility in central Iowa. Rather than processing corn kernels, the facility will create 30 million gallons of liquid renewable fuel from crop waste collected from within a 30-mile radius of the plant. This “biorefinery” reflects the forward thinking and entrepreneurship of Iowans and squarely puts the state in the bull’s-eye of the global advanced renewable fuel industry. It exemplifies both a pinnacle in human scientific achievement and the roll-up-your-sleeves hard work ethic of Iowa growers.
This facility will create 85 permanent jobs and 150 seasonal jobs for the collection, transport and storage of biomass. Second, it represents an entirely new revenue stream for the 500 farmers providing the cobs, stalks and leaves for feedstock. This biorefinery has also created a microcosm of technological and agricultural partnerships — from the companies developing custom farm equipment for feedstock collection to the government-academic collaboration to cultivate sustainable harvesting practices — that will only continue to grow and bear fruit in the coming years.
Finally — and most importantly — this represents a tremendous milestone in creating clean, renewable and homegrown fuel to power U.S. vehicles. (Of course it doesn’t hurt that we can export this technology to any agricultural economy in the world that also seeks to develop its own localized source of energy.)
Reasonable people in Iowa and across the country certainly don’t see a downside to the job creation, agricultural revitalization and energy independence renewable fuel provides. In fact, that’s a list of benefits members of both parties can certainly agree upon. Come election time, candidates would do well to remember just how important renewable fuels are to Iowans, and to so many Americans, who care about our environment, our economy and our energy security.
Read the original story: Colum: To Win Iowa, You Must Support Ethanol, And That's Good
Peterson Leads Bipartisan Letter in Support of Strong Final RFS Rule
Representative Collin Peterson
October 21, 2015
Press Release
Congressman Collin C. Peterson today announced 17 bipartisan members of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy in opposition to the agency’s proposed Renewable Volume Obligation numbers for 2014, 2015 and 2016.
“The RFS is a crucial part of our domestic production of renewable fuels which works to boost our agricultural economies here at home and cut our nation’s dependence on foreign oil,” Peterson said. “I am disappointed in the cuts the EPA proposed for the RFS this spring and I hope the agency recognizes the disastrous effects this could have on rural America.”
The letter asks the EPA to follow Congressional intent of the RFS law and avoid triggering a provision which allows the agency to reset volumes that are lagging behind due to EPA’s continued delay of RFS implementation.
Full text of the letter is below:
Dear Administrator McCarthy:
As members of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus, we write to express our concern regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule on renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for 2014 and subsequent years under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). We urge you to make significant changes to this proposed rule, use criteria found in statute for determining domestic biofuel volumes, and follow Congressional intent when it passed the RFS.
The RFS is a key piece of our nation’s energy policy and it is working. The RFS has driven billions of dollars of investment in the biofuel sector in the United States and has created and supported hundreds-of-thousands of U.S. jobs, while also enhancing our nation’s energy security and delivering reliable renewable energy to market. Setting aggressive biofuel volume requirements is essential to continuing growth in our homegrown energy sector.
Unfortunately, the EPA’s proposed rule is inconsistent with the intent of the law. The proposed rule adopts a zero-growth approach and proposes limiting the annual blending targets based on available infrastructure—a criteria that is not included in the EPA’s clearly defined statutory waiver authority and was expressly rejected by Congress during the conference committee of the 2005 Energy Act (P.L. 109-58).
We are also concerned that the EPA’s continued delay and misinterpretation of the RFS could provide yet another avenue to shortchange the future of the biofuel industry. The RFS includes a “reset” provision that takes effect after 2016 if the EPA has reduced any of the mandated amounts by at least 20% for two consecutive years or by at least 50% for a single year. Should the EPA undermine the biofuel industry with insufficient volume requirements in the final rule, and use those very targets as the justification for a reset, it would add insult to injury for an industry already hamstrung by uncertainty. Instead we urge the EPA to set forth a strong methodology that reflects the original Congressional intent and is consistent with the long-term energy production goals of the RFS. Certainty in the biofuel market will unfreeze capital investments that have been waiting on the sidelines for far too long.
The decisions your agency makes in the coming weeks and months about the volumes for 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as a decision on the biomass-diesel volume for 2017, will set the trajectory for the biofuel industry for decades to come. We again urge you to make significant changes to the final rule and follow clear Congressional intent in existing statute.
Sincerely,
Read the original story: Peterson Leads Bipartisan Letter in Support of Strong Final RFS Rule
AESI Claims False Attacks on RFS
October 22, 2015
By Americans for Energy Security and Innovation
Americans for Energy Security and Innovation (AESI) released the following statement on a deceptive attack by Smarter Fuel Future on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). A new ad released by Smart Fuel Future—an organization that openly represents the oil industry—uses outdated, false claims that the RFS increases greenhouse gas emissions and raises the price of food:
“The Renewable Fuel Standard is America’s most successful energy policy, and recent scientific studies have proven that it has helped to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to studies used by the United States Department of Energy, using corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent compared to regular gasoline while advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol can achieve reductions in greenhouse gases of 86 percent or higher.
“Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has analyzed how the RFS will impact our economy and determined that it will have no significant impact on food prices.
“The myths about the RFS in this ad are false and this ad is nothing more than a dishonest attempt by a big oil front group to undermine the success of this worthy policy. Instead of citing actual facts, RFS critics are forced to peddle the same phony claims that have been repeatedly debunked by the scientific community.”
Myth V. Fact: Correcting false attacks on the Renewable Fuel Standard
MYTH: “Ethanol Nearly Doubles Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (“Inconvenient Fact,” Smarter Fuel Future, 10/15/15)
FACT: The oil industry ads rely on a 2008 study authored by Tim Searchinger to make this claim. First, Tim Searchinger has a long history of criticizing the RFS as a representative of groups funded by the oil industry. (Biofuels Journal, October 16, 2015). Second, it is not a well-regarded analysis by experts in the field, in part because it models a scenario in which 30 billion gallons of corn ethanol are used (the RFS caps corn ethanol at 15 billion gallons). Third, the overwhelming majority of more recent scientific analysis confirms the carbon benefits of corn ethanol, including work done by U.S. EPA, the California Air resources Board, the Department of Energy, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at least a dozen universities. (DOE Argonne Lab, Dec. 2012; University of Chicago, School of Integrative Biology, 9/14/15; “New Study: Biofuel Use Saved 589.3 Million Tons of Carbon Emissions Over the Past Decade,” BIO, Press Release, 8/24/15). In fact, corn ethanol has generated more than 60% of the credits to date in the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard. (CARB presentation, 9/25/2014)
MYTH: “Ethanol Nearly Doubles Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (“Inconvenient Fact,” Smarter Fuel Future, 10/15/15)
FACT: The oil industry ads rely on a 2011 study from the National Academy of Sciences to make this claim. The report conflicts with far more extensive modeling conducted by U.S. EPA and the California Air Board conducted as part of its regulatory process. In fact, using more ethanol in gasoline actually reduces emissions. The ethanol blend E15 decreases the risk of cancer by 6.6 percent, by displacing toxic emissions from regular gasoline. “Sixty-seven and half percent of the cancer risk is due to lower 1-3 butadiene, and 75 percent of vehicles showed a reduction in this pollutant. Twenty-nine percent of the cancer risk is due to lower benzene emissions, and 88 percent of vehicles showed a reduction in this pollutant. Acetaldehyde emissions increased with higher ethanol blend levels. Changes in acetaldehyde result in a predicted 0.3 percent increase in cancer risk while the risk from other listed carcinogens drops by 6.9 percent, resulting in a net decrease of 6.6 percent.” (Stefan Unnasch and Ashley Henderson, “Change in Air Quality Impacts Associated with the Use of E15 Blends Instead of E10,” Life Cycle Associates & Americans United for Change, July 2014). Finally, the NAS study cited by the oil industry is controversial, as one of its authors disclosed that the committee used inappropriate models and outdated data. (“We didn’t always use the available data, the current data.” Reuters, 10/4/2011)
Read the original story: AESI Claims False Attacks on RFS
Poll Shows Strong Support for RFS, Ethanol in Iowa
October 21, 2015
By Holly Jessen
A new survey shows that, once informed about the renewable fuels standard (RFS), 79 percent of Republican and 90 percent of Democrat caucus-goers from Iowa think the RFS is good for the nation. In addition, 76 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate that supports the RFS.
“This isn’t a Republican thing or a Democrat thing, it’s an America thing” said Eric Branstad, Iowa state director of America’s Renewable Future, during a conference call Oct. 21, when the group jointly released the poll results with DuPont. America’s Renewable Future is a non-profit based in Iowa with the goal of protecting the RFS during the presidential election. DuPont will hold a grand opening celebration at its 30 MMgy cellulosic ethanol facility in Nevada, Iowa, Oct. 30.
Seventy-one percent of voters from both political parties reported having positive associations with corn ethanol, according to the poll results. Survey takers (78 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats) also indicated that they most often chose gas with ethanol or a biofuel mixture of some kind.
The survey was conducted by Selzer & Company, which in late September, contacted about 400 Democratic and 400 Republican Iowa voters likely to attend the February presidential caucuses. The voters were asked some general questions about energy and renewable fuels and then more specific questions about ethanol and the RFS, was described with this sentence. “The Renewable Fuel Standard requires that a certain percentage of renewable fuels like ethanol be blended into the gasoline supply.”
Jan Koninckx, DuPont’s global business director of biofuels, said during the call that cellulosic ethanol is on the verge of transforming and reforming the transportation fuel market, he said. It’s going from a centralized model, with large production facilities utilizing fossil fuel supply chains around the world, to more regional production of clean and renewable fuel. “In short, we are not surprised about these results, but we are happy to see this confirmation,” he said.
Brooke Coleman, founder and executive director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council, talked about how extraordinarily effective the RFS has been, as a policy. The U.S. biofuels industry now has a total fuel production equivalent to that of an OPEC country, such as Ecuador. “We also find ourselves at a crossroads, and the crossroad is, there is a new rule coming by Nov 30 of this year,” he said. “That rule, as decided by the Obama administration and U.S. EPA, will either get us back on track with regards to the RFS and drive innovation and drive feedstock diversity, or it will continue to hit the pause button on the RFS and force companies like DuPont and others to invest into a marketplace that will demand cellulosic ethanol above oil, not be what the RFS intended and Congress intended.”
The current EPA proposal not only cuts blending numbers but changes in how the program works. “The point of the RFS, the reason the RFS is necessary, is to require oil companies to buy low carbon, more innovative gasoline and diesel alternatives, is because we don’t have a competitive marketplace and the oil companies won’t do it without policy,” he said, adding that the last thing any market needs is a change in law in the middle of the program.
Read the original story: Poll Shows Strong Support for RFS, Ethanol in Iowa
Lack of Strong RFS Policy Could Put Michigan Jobs at Risk
October 21, 2015
Jeff Sandborn, a Portland farmer and member of the board of the National Corn Growers Association, highlighted a new nationwide study demonstrating the economic impact of ethanol production, noting that ethanol is tied to more than 22,000 Michigan jobs. The study was released by the National Corn Growers Association and National Farmers Union and highlights the need for a strong Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as net farm income and other agricultural economic indicators decline to their lowest level in years.
"It's an uncertain time in farm country, and today's report highlights the fact that without a strong Renewable Fuel Standard, we're needlessly putting good Michigan jobs on the line," said Sandborn. "Here in Michigan, more than 22,000 jobs are tied to ethanol production – something the EPA has to consider before giving in to big oil companies and reducing the RFS. Many of those jobs are in our rural communities, either on the farm or related to Michigan's agriculture sector.
Sandborn noted the consensus by nonpartisan analysts that the lack of a long-term commitment to biofuels through the Renewable Fuels Standard is increasing uncertainty in the agricultural economy. Current net farm income, projected at $58.3 billion for 2015, is down by more than 50 percent compared with the record $123.7 billion level in 2013 and is the lowest since 2006.
"Much of the economic growth we've seen in agriculture over the past several years has resulted from increased opportunities for corn farmers, and the RFS played a big role in those opportunities," Sandborn said. "At a time when corn prices are declining to multi-year lows and the agricultural economy is headed for a downturn, reducing America's commitment to biofuels would be a major blow for Michigan agriculture."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed rolling back the RFS and reducing the amount of ethanol blended into the fuel supply. Hundreds of thousands of Americans opposed the reduction during a recent comment period. The EPA now has until November to make a final decision.
"As the EPA makes a final decision, the choice is clear – we can cave to big oil at the expense of rural Michigan workers and families, or we can renew America's commitment to a clean-burning fuel that saves money, creates jobs and reduces our reliance on foreign oil," Sandborn said.
Read the original story: Lack of Strong RFS Policy Could Put Michigan Jobs at Risk
Counter-Offensive to Defend RFS Continues
October 19, 2015
By Susanne Retka Schill
The ethanol industry’s counter-offensive to attacks on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) continues to pick up steam, leading up to November’s expected announcement on the renewable volume obligations.
After Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association jumped on a University of Tennessee report critical of corn ethanol last week, the agency working with the Fuels America Coalition, Smoot Tewes Group, sent out a memo to those that may be covering the Brookings Institute Panel or the U.S. EPA inspector general’s research on the lifecycle impacts of the RFS. The group questioned the objectivity of the Brookings Institute which received $430,000 from ExxonMobil in 2014 and its director of environmental and energy economics, Ted Gayer, who has long-held ties to the oil industry.
The media advisory also cited a news release statement from Jeremy Funk, communications director for the pro-renewable fuels group, Americans United for Change. Funk questioned the neutrality of two panelists in the Brooking Institute’s webinar: “We hope Mr. [Chris] Knittel and Mr. [Timothy] Searchinger will be transparent about their financial ties to Big Oil and not present themselves as objective critics of the RFS.” Funk noted “there is mountains of academic research showing that ethanol use significantly cuts down carbon emissions compared to gasoline made from dirty fossil fuels, whether it be from the Argonne National Laboratory, Purdue University, the University of Nebraska, Michigan State University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory/Duke University, the University of Illinois-Chicago and others.”
On the same day, the RFA released a statement critical of another oil industry-backed effort—an advertising campaign being launched by Smarter Fuel Future calling for the repeal of the RFS. “The oil industry thinks it’s being slick by engaging in a consistent and relentless misinformation campaign that is based on false assumptions, straw dogs, and half-truths,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “There is nothing that Big Oil is spouting with this latest wave of scare tactics that we haven’t seen before. Once again the petroleum industry is making patently false assumptions about the relationship between food and fuel. In 2014, a record corn crop sent prices to four-year lows, and more grain was available globally for food and feed use than ever before. In fact, less than 3 percent of the global grain supply that year was used for ethanol.
“The Big Oil misinformation campaign also makes spurious claims about ethanol’s impact on the environment. Lifecycle analyses by the Department of Energy and others, including the University of Illinois, the International Energy Agency, and Life Cycle Associates have shown that, since the final RFS rule was implemented, grain ethanol produced today reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared to fossil fuels — even when hypothetical land use emissions are taken into account. Ethanol production from last year reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40 million metric tons — the equivalent of removing 8.4 million cars from the road. These facts show that investment in biofuels in general and ethanol in particular is critical if we are serious as a nation about creating a future where our energy is cleaner, more secure, and more affordable.
“Congress and the administration should pay little heed to Big Oil’s latest smoke and mirrors campaign. Instead of repealing the RFS, the administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, needs to break down the supposed ‘blend wall’ and implement the RFS the way Congress intended,” Dineen’s statement concluded.
Read the original story: Counter-Offensive to Defend RFS Continues
DuPont Employees Write Letter to Tommey, Defend RFS
October 16, 2015
By Holly Jensen
Forty DuPont employees signed a letter sent recently to Sen. Pat Tommey, R-Penn., making it clear they oppose his efforts to modify the renewable fuel standard (RFS) in any way. Tommey was unsuccessful at recent efforts to add an amendment to a bill about crude oil export, which would have eliminated the RFS corn-ethanol blending targets.
“As Pennsylvania residents, registered voters and DuPont biofuels employees that support science driven innovation to solve some of the world’s most serious challenges, we absolutely oppose your efforts to repeal the corn ethanol mandate in the RFS and any other legislative initiatives to repeal or modify the RFS,” the letter said. It was signed by DuPont’s James Collins, executive vice president, William Feehery president, and Jan Koninckx global business director of biorefineries, and 37 other DuPont employees.
The letter went on to say that proposals to modify the RFS undercut the existing biofuels industry as well as prevent investments in advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. “These new technologies are not dependent on additional sources of food-based feedstocks and will significantly reduce the environmental footprint of the U.S. transportation sector,” the letter said.
The company works within the entire supply chain for biofuels, from seed corn, crop protection and enzymes for first and second generation ethanol. In late October, DuPont will hold a grand opening celebration at its 30 MMgy cellulosic ethanol plant in Nevada, Iowa. The company’s joint venture with BP is Butamax, a project to develop biobutanol.
The letter touched on job creation, economic development and state and federal tax contributions, by the U.S. ethanol industry, pointing to an economic impact report releases by Fuels America.
“The existing biofuels industry has had a significant impact on an improved agriculture economy and ethanol is less expensive than gasoline, reducing gas prices,” the letter said.
Investments in the industry comes with many benefits, DuPont said, such as jobs, reduced environmental impact and positive impacts to the economy and national security, due to decreased reliance on foreign oil. “To realize these benefits, rather than gift these investments to China and Brazil, businesses and investors need stable and predictable policies,” the letter said. “We implore you to reconsider your stance on the RFS and work with us to create the right incentives for the biofuels industry to move beyond current technologies.”
Read the original story: DuPont Employees Write Letter to Tommey, Defend RFS