Minnesota Biodiesel Standard Will Double Next Year
August 4, 2017
By Ryan Faircloth
Minnesota's biodiesel blend standard will increase from 10 percent to 20 percent next May.
State commissioners announced the change during Minnesota Farmfest in Redwood Falls on Thursday. Supporters say the new standard will help increase the value of farmers' products, create new jobs and improve air quality.
Gov. Mark Dayton originally planned to make the announcement, but canceled his Farmfest trip due to illness.
In 2005, Minnesota was the first state in the country to mandate a 2 percent biodiesel blend (B2) in diesel fuel.
Thursday's announcement makes Minnesota the first in the nation to mandate a B20 standard, Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Dave Frederickson said.
Homegrown soybeans make up a large portion of the state's biodiesel. Minnesota's biodiesel industry contributes more than $1.7 billion each year to the economy.
The state biodiesel industry adds roughly 63 cents to the market rate of farmer soybean bushels. Frederickson said he hopes the new standard will double that.
"We're excited about the opportunity to give farmers an opportunity to see more income in their pocket, which they definitely need today," he said.
Michael Petefish, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association president, said the increased standard will also bring more jobs to the industry.
"It's estimated 5,400 jobs are involved in the production and use of biodiesel," Petefish said.
According to the American Lung Association in Minnesota, biodiesel use considerably decreases tailpipe emissions. The implementation of B20 next year is expected to cut 1 million tons of carbon dioxide and 130 tons of particulate emissions.
"It's a good move for our health and for our environment as well," said Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner John Linc Stine.
B20 will be sold at filling stations in Minnesota next summer, before dropping back down to B5 — a 5 percent biodiesel blend — in October for cold-weather reliability.
B20 will be available from April through September each year starting in 2019.
Read the original story: Minnesota Biodiesel Standard Will Double Next Year
Canada Unseats Brazil as Top Ethanol Export Destination in June
August 4, 2017
By Ann Lewis
U.S. ethanol exports totaled 92.7 million gallons (mg) in June, down 22% from May shipments, according to government data released this morning and analyzed by the Renewable fuels Association (RFA). Canada and Brazil were again the top destinations for U.S. exports, combining to receive nearly half of total exports in June, although volumes to both destinations fell sharply from May. Canada took in 24.8 mg in June (down 21% from May), while Brazil imported 20.9 mg (down 68%). Meanwhile, India jumped back into the market for the first time since March, importing 13.6 mg. U.S. ethanol exports to all destinations for the first half of the year stood at 686.8 mg, indicating a record annualized export total of 1.37 billion gallons.
Exports to Brazil hit their lowest point in nine months, equivalent to just 40% of the year-to-date average of 51.0 mg. Still, shipments to Brazil for the first half of the year (276.1 mg) are roughly on par with volumes shipped in the entirety of 2016 (279.1 mg).
Exports of undenatured fuel ethanol hit 44.2 mg in June, down 46% from May. At 17.7 mg, Brazil was the top customer for undenatured fuel product (40% of the total). Jamaica (6.8 mg) and Singapore (4.5 mg) increased their undenatured imports, while India (3.8 mg) and South Korea (3.8 mg) rounded out the top five markets. After averaging 6.2 mg of imports per month over the past 12 months, the Philippines scaled down volumes to just 0.5 mg in June.
Canada was again the top destination for denatured fuel ethanol, taking in 23.9 mg, or 58% of the total. India (9.8 mg), Brazil (3.2 mg), and South Korea (2.1 mg) accounted for the bulk of remaining exports.
Exports of denatured and undenatured ethanol for non-fuel, non-beverage purposes totaled 7.5 mg, with Nigeria (4.1 mg), South Korea (1.9 mg), and Canada (0.9 mg) accounting for the lion’s share (92%).
For the second month this year, the United States recorded fuel ethanol imports. The U.S. brought in 10.6 mg of fuel ethanol in June from Brazil, an 11% increase from May. Imports for the first half of 2017 totaled 20.2 mg–63% (7.8 mg) higher than the same period last year and indicating an annualized total of 40.4 mg.
Turning to distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS)–the animal feed co-product manufactured by ethanol dry mills–exports increased 20% to 889,114 metric tons (mt) in June. Mexico continued to hold the top spot at 175,433 mt, increasing 30% from the prior month, while South Korea more than doubled its imports of U.S. product to 123,179 mt. Turkey (99,644 mt), Canada (67,756 mt), and Thailand (55,941 mt) were other large markets. Export sales for the first half of 2017 are 5.54 million mt–4% above volumes at this point last year and indicating an annualized total of 11.08 million.
Read the original article: Canada Unseats Brazil as Top Ethanol Export Destination in June
Al-Corn CEO Testifies at EPA Hearing
August 8, 2017
By Hannah Yang
Al-Corn CEO Randall Doyal was among a list of speakers to testify during an Environmental Protection Agency hearing on the use of ethanol and other fuels in the country's gasoline supply.
The Aug. 1 hearing was to collect public input on proposed 2018 Renewable Volume Obligations under Renewable Fuel Standard targets — the minimum amount of renewable fuels blended into the gasoline supply.
While the EPA's proposed 15 billion gallon requirement for ethanol appeared to satisfy ethanol proponents, requirements for biodiesel and advanced cellulosic ethanol have met some opposition.
"I do want to thank EPA for maintaining the 15 billion number for conventional, corn-based ethanol," Doyal's testimony reads. "Don't allow all the negative noise to cloud your thinking like exhaust from autos used to cloud our skies and pollute our air. We have made great strides toward energy security, renewable and cleaner fuels, cleaner air and reduced carbon emissions."
Some conservative groups want to scale back or eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. But those in the biofuels industry and Midwestern agriculture interests insist the standards have to be kept, or even increased, citing consumer freedom, energy independence and job creation.
Congress adopted the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005 and expanded it in 2007. The program requires oil companies to blend increasing volumes of renewable fuels with gasoline and diesel. It would create more than 36 billion gallons of blended fuel in 2022.
While the proposed volume obligations would maintain the required volume of conventional ethanol, the volume for advanced biofuels and cellulosic ethanol were reduced, Doyal said.
"With the existing industry on the brink of generating cellulosic ethanol from corn kernel fiber simultaneously with starch-based ethanol, we are going to see significant quantities of new production available," he said. "The EPA's proposed RVO has a chilling effect on those developments."
What's cellulosic ethanol?
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from the stringy fiber of the plant, rather than from its seeds or fruit. It's a biofuel produced from grasses, wood, algae and other plants and is considered to have strong potential as a renewable fuel.
Bob Dinneen, of the Renewable Fuels Association, testified that many ethanol plants are in the process of adding bolt-on fiber conversion technology to their facilities, which could dramatically increase cellulosic ethanol production next year.
"We understand the agency's dilemma in establishing an appropriate RVO for cellulosic ethanol, but we truly believe the agency has erred on the side of pessimism with regard to the potential for significant growth in cellulosic ethanol commercialization," Dinneen said during the hearing.
Al-Corn generates about 50 million gallons of ethanol annually and is in the midst of a significant expansion and modernization of its plant in Claremont. The expansion will improve efficiencies and expand its capacity to create more than 120 million gallons of ethanol per year.
"Our project is moving along well. We can't say enough about the dynamic combination of Karges-Faulconbridge engineering with McGough construction management," Doyal said. "They are pushing our project ahead, and we hope to be operating the expanded capacity by April next year, if not sooner."
Read the originals article: Al-Corn CEO Testifies at EPA Hearing
Will the Biofuels Era Take Off at Sea-Tac?
August 3, 2017
By John Stang
Gov. Jay Inslee’s administration wants Washington to become the nation’s leader in aviation biofuels.
One big aspect of that push would be to have Sea-Tac International Airport become the first American airport to provide significant amounts of biofuels to more than one airliner’s passenger jets. But he also wants to have the state grow the bio-stuff that is transformed into biofuels. And manufacture the biofuels that jet airliners can use.
Besides the environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Northwest has the potential for 1,900 biofuel-related jobs in Washington and Oregon, plus another 700 jobs in Montana, said Ralph Cavalieri, who is head of the Richland-based Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels & Environment.
The science is there. The technology is in the ballpark. The idea of trimming greenhouse gases from jet exhaust has a solid foothold on imaginations in the airline and military worlds. Last November, Alaska Airlines flew its first cross-country jetliner trip from Seattle to Washington, D.C., using wood-based biofuel.
But the big bugaboo is economics.
Who will pay for a potential $1 billion biofuel plant in Washington? How do you convince Northwest farmers that it would be smart to grow crops for biofuels instead of crops for food? How do you get biofuels cheap enough to legitimately compete economically with petroleum-based jet fuels?
“The problem is multi-faceted,” said Brian Bonlender, director of the Washington Department of Commerce at a recent aviation biofuels conference in Seattle.
A 2016 U.S. Department of Energy report concluded that it’s possible for biofuels — derived from plants or wood wastes such as leftover slash of downed trees — to eventually replace 30 percent of the United States’ 2005 petroleum consumption.
Over the next 33 years, the airline industry and the federal government are aiming to cut commercial aviation carbon emissions by roughly half. Currently, jet airliners produce about 2 percent of the Earth’s greenhouse gases, which could increase to 5 percent, said a July report on Sea-Tac’s biofuels potential from the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Carbon War Room and Swedish aviation biofuels supplier SkyNRG.
When biofuel is used, it is blended with regular jet fuel. The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative — a national coalition of airlines, biofuel producers and government agencies, hopes that within three years — it can produce 1.7 percent of the jet fuel used nationally.
So far, only two commercial airports — in Los Angeles and Oslo, Norway — have set up permanent jet biofuel blending operations. In Los Angeles, only United Airlines uses the biofuels, which is supplied by AltAir of Seattle.
AltAir had originally produced biofuel for aviation in Hoquiam but that production moved to what was an unused refinery near Los Angeles. Building a refinery from scratch anywhere close to Sea-Tac would be extremely expensive, perhaps $1 billion to $1.4 billion, according to experts. “We don’t have a mothballed refinery close to the Seattle airport,” said Carol Sim, environmental affairs director at Alaska Airlines.
And this is where all the economic hurdles show up.
In 2015, biofuels were two to three times as expensive as petroleum-based fuels, which is a huge practical factor against using biofuels for jets, said Charlotte Hardenbol, senior business development director for SkyNRG. That is actually a big improvement over just a half-dozen years, but she said, “The airline industry is a very thin-margin industry.”
“The price premium of (aviation biofuels) is expected to continue to decrease, driven by scaling effects and increased conversion efficiencies, eventually nearing price parity with conventional jet fuel,” said the SkyNRG-Carbon War Room report.
Another wrinkle is that biofuels do not have the federal government subsidies and tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry, according to Peter Moulton, state Commerce’s bioenergy coordinator. “We’ve heavily subsidized the petroleum industry,” Moulton said in a late 2016 interview.
Ross Macfarlane, one of Seattle-based Climate Solutions’ leaders on this topic, contended Washington has another hurdle — the lack of an overall state government policy to boost the production of biofuels within the state. For example, he pointed to Washington not having low-carbon fuel standards, which would encourage research into low-carbon fuels such as biofuels. California, Oregon and British Columbia already have low-carbon fuel standards.
However, if enough byproducts markets are identified from the technology developed to process aviation biofuels, the extra revenue would make biofuel refineries more economical for investors, said Cavalieri, who is also Washington State University’s associate vice president for alternative energy.
The purpose of the report from the SkyNRG-Carbon War Room was to identify ways for Sea-Tac to be able to provide jet fuel that is 1 percent biofuel to all of its jets. The target date for reaching a 1 percent mix is still up in the air, as is any Sea-Tac timetable for achieving a greater percentage of biofuel.
The report noted that taxpayer-supported agencies — such as Sea-Tac’s operator, the Port of Seattle — cannot directly buy biofuels for private airlines. However, the report suggested a number of ways that public agencies could indirectly help private corporations buy, produce and store biofuels. For instance, to support environmental improvements through a biofuels program, a fee could be imposed on parking or vehicles entering the airport, or the airport might lease land or roof space for solar production.
The report noted that the development of local processing of aviation biofuels is a “major hurdle,” but it suggested the port could play a big role in overcoming concerns about the citing of fuel production facilities.
Read the original story: Will the Biofuels Era Take Off at Sea-Tac?
A Better Fuel Mix Can Be 'Made in America'
August 3, 2017
By Rick Santorum
Shortly before announcing “Made in America” week, the White House approved new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) targets for the volume of American-made biofuels that will flow into the nation’s fuel mix next year.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, probably summed up the collective reaction of most observers when he called the proposal a “mixed bag.”
As promised, President Trump stood by his commitment to rural communities. He rejected the annual call by oil companies to roll back conventional biofuels, often made from U.S. corn, sorghum or other farm crops. The move was greeted warmly across the heartland, where a global crop surplus has pushed down farm incomes for four years running, threatening to stall the entire rural economy.
American ethanol now replaces more than 500 million barrels of imported oil annually and shields drivers from price manipulation by hostile forces within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Ethanol also reduces carbon emissions by 43 percent, according to the latest research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There’s no shortage of detractors in the petroleum business, but the facts are clear, and homegrown biofuels now supply a full 10 percent of America’s motor fuel, making a major contribution to U.S. energy security.
Unfortunately, those EPA officials who manage non-conventional biofuels seemed to have missed the memo. If finalized, the EPA plan would cut advanced biofuels by 73 million gallons and provide for zero growth in biodiesel.
The loss of 73 million gallons may not seem like much, especially when you consider that we export more than a billion gallons of U.S. ethanol each year. But there’s more to the story. By law, the Renewable Energy Standard (RFS) calls on the EPA to foster growth in domestic bio-energy production. Ignoring that law sends a signal to investors that the U.S. is no longer fertile ground for innovation in renewable fuel.
What the EPA needs to understand is that conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are part of a single, unbroken supply chain that is lifting up rural America. Cellulosic ethanol doesn’t come from a lab in Seattle. It comes from places like Story County, Ia., where Sonny Perdue gave his first major policy speech as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The crowd cheered when he announced that “renewable energy, ethanol, is here to stay and we’re going to work for new technologies to be more efficient.”
Chemically speaking, ethanol is ethanol, whether it’s made from wood chips or corn starch. The cellulosic stuff is just made from cheaper, more abundant plant matter like cobs, stalks, and husks. It’s harder to break down into fuel, but U.S. innovators are already producing commercial volumes.
That’s because first-generation ethanol producers established successful partnerships with farm communities, created efficient supply chains, and invested in the infrastructure to convert agricultural feedstocks into high-value fuel. Some of these companies are now opening new biorefineries, while others are attaching cutting-edge equipment to older facilities that will produce more fuel from every existing harvest. In each case, those making second-generation biofuels possible are the same folks who make first-generation biofuels successful.
With time, there’s no reason all 198 biorefineries across the heartland can’t see similar investments, adding to the hundreds of thousands of jobs supported by biofuel production. Meanwhile, the protein and fat in each kernel is already sent right back into the food chain as low-cost animal feed.
In short, cellulosic ethanol represents the next great American promise of the 11-year-old RFS. Conventional targets have been met. Traditional production will grow, especially if we continue to open foreign markets to U.S. exports. But future growth envisioned under the RFS falls exclusively under the column of advanced biofuels.
These fuels can actually sequester carbon over their full life cycle, significantly reducing emissions, according to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory. They also supply a fresh revenue stream to rural communities, bringing high-tech jobs into the heartland.
By slashing targets for advanced fuel, the EPA is essentially telling rural America that growth is not an option. That’s not what this administration stands for. President Trump knows that homegrown fuels represent a vital opportunity to create jobs in the heartland while keeping our air clean and promoting U.S. energy dominance. There’s no good reason to hold back that progress. Before finalizing the proposed rule in November, the EPA needs to get on board and tell investors that the U.S. is going to remain a biofuel leader now and well into the future.
RICK SANTORUM is co-chair of Americans for Energy Security and Innovation and a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.
Read the original article: A Better Fuel Mix Can Be 'Made in America'
Feist Automotive Minnoco
Minneapolis,Minnesota
United States 55422
Northdale Oil South
Bemidji, MN 56601
Bemidji,Minnesota
United States 56601
Northdale Oil North
Bemidji, MN 56601
Bemidji,Minnesota
United States 56601
Govs. Ricketts, Reynolds Testify at EPA Hearing, Urge Greater Federal Support for Advanced Biofuels
August 2, 2017
By Joseph Morton
The Trump administration got an earful Tuesday from critics and supporters of federal rules that mandate the use of ethanol and other fuels in the nation’s gasoline supply.
On one side of the long-running argument are conservative groups, along with the oil and gas industry, pushing for the Renewable Fuel Standard to be significantly dialed back or even eliminated.
Those in the biofuels industry and Midwestern agricultural interests, meanwhile, insist that the standards must be preserved and even ratcheted up in the name of consumer freedom, energy independence and job creation.
“The RFS is critical to supporting our agricultural economy while also reducing our dependence on foreign oil and providing consumers with choices at the pump,” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, testified.
The Environmental Protection Agency held Tuesday’s hearing to gather public input on its proposed RFS targets — the minimum level of renewables to be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply — set to be finalized later this year.
Its proposed 15 billion gallon requirement for conventional, typically corn-based ethanol generally satisfied ethanol proponents, but requirements for biodiesel and advanced cellulosic ethanol have been met with dismay in some quarters.
Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, representing the nation’s top two ethanol-producing states, joined Ernst in testifying about the benefits of a robust Renewable Fuel Standard.
In particular, they said concerns that biodiesel capacity can’t keep up with higher requirements are unfounded.
“The biofuels industry has proven that when you set the bar high, the industry can make the jump,” Ricketts said.
Opponents testified Tuesday that the renewable fuels being promoted actually harm the environment, are often inefficient and divert agricultural resources away from feeding people and into filling gas tanks.
Ricketts and Reynolds both pushed back on the criticisms.
“Our farmers have demonstrated that you can in fact feed and fuel the world,” Reynolds said.
President Donald Trump’s choice of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA had sparked concern in the Midwest given the Oklahoman’s oil and gas background.
But speaking to reporters after they testified, both governors praised administration officials for making timely decisions and being accessible. Both were included in an energy roundtable at the White House, for example.
Still, they said they will keep up the fight in support of renewable fuels.
“You have to always be out there advocating for it,” Ricketts said. “You can never take it for granted.”
Beyond the RFS, Ernst praised the work of Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., in pushing legislation that would allow higher ethanol blends such as E15 to be sold year-round. But Ernst acknowledged that the proposal has stalled in committee for the time being.
“We are in a holding pattern right now,” Ernst said. “We are trying to push friends and allies to join us in this effort.”
Ernst said she hopes the administration takes to heart supporters’ statements at Tuesday’s hearing, and she recalled Trump’s backing of ethanol on the campaign trail.
“He stated quite clearly all throughout the campaign that he was supportive of these types of energy sources,” Ernst said. “He made that commitment to Iowa. We need to see him double down on that with the EPA as well.”
Read the original story: Govs. Ricketts, Reynolds Testify at EPA Hearing, Urge Greater Federal Support for Advanced Biofuels
Court Decision Released on Case Against 2015 RFS
July 28, 2017
By Lisa Gibson
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released a decision July 28 addressing the case brought against the U.S. EPA over the 2015 Renewable Fuel Standard Final Rule, which set renewables regulations for 2014 through 2017. The court agreed with the petitioners that the EPA erred in how it interpreted the “inadequate domestic supply” waiver provision.
Petitioners include the Renewable Fuels Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Sorghum Producers, collectively referred to in the case as Americans for Clean Energy. The case was argued April 24.
Some of the petitioners’ challenges to the RFS contend that EPA set the renewable fuel requirements too high, while others argue EPA set the renewable fuel requirements too low. All but the waiver challenge were rejected by the court.
The court decision states:
“We hold that the ‘inadequate domestic supply’ provision authorizes EPA to consider supply-side factors affecting the volume of renewable fuel that is available to refiners, blenders, and importers to meet the statutory volume requirements. It does not allow EPA to consider the volume of renewable fuel that is available to ultimate consumers or the demand-side constraints that affect the consumption of renewable fuel by consumers. We therefore grant Americans for Clean Energy’s petition for review of the 2015 Final Rule, vacate EPA’s decision to reduce the total renewable fuel volume requirements for 2016 through use of its ‘inadequate domestic supply’ waiver authority, and remand the rule to EPA for further consideration in light of our decision. We otherwise deny the petitions for review.”
Bob Dinneen, RFA president and CEO, said in a July 28 statement, “We are still reviewing the decision, but the fact the court has affirmed our position that EPA abused its general waiver authority by including factors such as demand and infrastructure in a waiver intended to be based solely on available supply is a great victory for consumers and the RFS program.”
Read the original article: Court Decision Released on Case Against 2015 RFS