In the News

The Hill

Nov 21, 2014

By Laura Barron-Lopez

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said it is holding off on the final rule for standards that tell refiners how much ethanol and other biofuels must be blended into the nation’s fuel supply.

The announcement comes as the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ran out the 90-day clock to review the agency’s proposed standards, which for the first time signaled a retreat by the EPA on the amount of biofuels that must be blended.

“EPA issued a notice announcing that it will not be finalizing 2014 volume standards under the Renewable Fuel Standard program before the end of 2014,” an EPA official said on Friday.

The agency added that the proposal received a “significant number” of comments, specifically on “the proposal’s ability to ensure continued progress toward achieving the law’s renewable fuel targets.”

“Due to the delay in finalizing the standards for 2014, and given ongoing consideration of the issues presented by the commenters, the agency intends to take action on the 2014 standards rule in 2015,” the official said.

The proposal, which was first released in November of last year, pleased the oil industry, which argues more biofuels harms equipment, and cars, and causes a “blend wall” to be hit.

As the proposed rule reached the OMB earlier this year, however, White House officials and the EPA continued to signal that the numbers were going to change, and to the benefit of biofuel producers, who argued the lower levels in the initial proposal would put a damper on growth in the industry.

The EPA said on Friday that it hopes to “get back on” an annual schedule for 2014, 2015, and 2016 standards in the next year.

Industry groups on both sides were enraged by Friday’s delay.

The National Biodiesel Board, which is in favor of the standards and wants higher blend levels, scolded the administration.

"This Administration says over and over that it supports biodiesel, yet its actions with these repeated delays are undermining the industry,” said Anne Steckel, president of federal affairs for the board.

“Biodiesel producers have laid off workers and idled production. Some have shut down altogether. We are urging the Administration to finalize a 2014 rule as quickly as possible that puts this industry back on track for growth and puts our country back on track for ending our dangerous dependence on oil,” Steckel added.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) filed a notice of intent to sue the agency on Friday for not releasing a final rule. 

"The fact that EPA proposed the 2014 standards over a year ago, and now 2014 is almost over, is another reason why Congress needs to step in and repeal or significantly reform this badly broken program,” said Charles Drevna, president of AFPM.

Read the original story here : EPA Punts Renewable Fuel Mandate Decision

Minnesota Daily

Nov 18, 2014

By Logan Wroge

As Minnesota lawmakers push for the use of alternative fuel, some say progress should be quicker.

Changes to biofuel requirements and electric vehicle charging rates have led Minnesota’s efforts to increase alternative fuel consumption, but environmental advocates say more action is needed.

“A token amount of renewable energy isn’t going to cut it. We need a total transition,” said Simone Childs-Walker, a member of the student group Fossil Free Minnesota.

The Legislative Energy Commission met on Thursday to discuss alternative fuel sources.

Commission co-chair Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, said at the meeting that Minnesota’s efforts have mostly centered on ethanol in the past.

Some say fuel sources like hydrogen or clean, renewable energy for electric vehicles offer a better solution than ethanol-based products.

University of Minnesota mechanical engineering assistant professor Will Northrop spoke at the meeting about the possibility of powering automobiles with hydrogen.

A tank of hydrogen fuel will take a vehicle about as far as a traditional gas-powered engine but is better for the environment, Northrop said.

But funding the research and infrastructure to support those vehicles, such as hydrogen-capable fueling stations, is one of the biggest disadvantages to the technology, Northrop said.

“[Hydrogen vehicles] are going to require a little bit more oomph from regulators and governments, essentially, to allow the infrastructure to happen,” he said.

Other alternative energy areas have seen more progress than hydrogen.

Among other legislative initiatives, a new state law in July bumped the amount of biofuel — fuel sourced from organic matter — required in diesel fuel from 5 percent to 10 percent.

“I would be surprised to see internal-combustion engine cars burning gasoline as a primary thing in a couple of decades,” Marty said.

Childs-Walker said she thinks the Legislature could be doing more to encourage alternative fuel and reduce carbon emissions.

As the Legislature aims to increase alternative fuel, the University has taken steps in this direction as well.

The University purchased its first hybrid car in 2001 and now has 68 hybrid vehicles in its fleet, Joseph Dahip, interim assistant director of the University’s Parking and Transportation Services, said in an email.

And 414 of the roughly 900 total vehicles in the fleet can run off E85 fuel, Dahip said.

University filling stations supplied 73,603 gallons of E85 to the fleet in the most recent fiscal year, Dahip said.

Fossil Free Minnesota would still like to see more change. The group is asking the University to divest its assets in the fossil fuel industry, Childs-Walker said.

Marty said he would like to see more emphasis on fuel produced in Minnesota, increasing employment
opportunities for the state.

“You’re buying your power from somebody producing electric power through wind generation in Minnesota,” Marty said. “That’s Minnesota jobs for Minnesota businesses.”

Although gas prices have been dropping, many agree that alternative fuel is critical to the state’s future.

“Gas is not going to be cheap forever,” Northrop said.

Read the original story here : Advocates : Minnesota Needs More Alternative Fuel

AgWeek

By Rep. Tim Walz

Nov 17, 2014

WASHINGTON — Imagine a future where America controls its own energy destiny — a future in which we stop spending $1 billion per day on foreign oil and start investing those funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and help pay down the debt, all while creating well-paying American jobs and growing our economy at home.

While this might seem like a faraway dream, there are measures already in place that will help wean us off foreign oil. The Renewable Fuel Standard is one such measure, and we must oppose attempts to reduce or eliminate this job-creating initiative that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The RFS, first introduced in 2005 and reauthorized in 2007, could be the most significant program ever established toward achieving energy independence. It garnered overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, as well as the signature of President George W. Bush, a former oilman from Texas. The RFS has helped employers create thousands of jobs and jump-started local economies throughout the country.

In the ethanol industry alone, the RFS contributed to nearly 400,000 American jobs, bringing in more than $44 billion in economic activity. Today there are at least 212 ethanol biorefineries across the country and new biofuel production facilities are in the works that will create even more jobs.

The economic benefits of the RFS are significant; even more noteworthy is that we have managed to achieve these benefits, while at the same time lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of sending our hard-earned dollars out of the country to buy fossil fuels, we are drawing investments from countries across the globe interested in supporting a renewable economic success story. In fact, since the creation of the RFS in 2005, America’s dependence on foreign oil has dropped by about 50 percent.

Opponents of the RFS would like you to believe the program was crafted by narrow special interests, designed to increase food prices and corrode your car engine. These claims are false, and I would like to set the record straight.

Opposition to the RFS is led by the same interests that have a bottom line impacted by decreased fossil fuel consumption. The opposition likes to argue that the RFS is responsible for increases in livestock feed prices, corn prices and food prices. This is a blatantly false claim. Regardless of the fact that only 17.5 percent of the corn crop actually goes toward creating biofuels, a 2013 World Bank study found that the main cause of increased global food prices is rising energy costs, not the use of corn to produce ethanol. Furthermore, only the starch of the corn is required for biofuel production and, once it is acquired, the protein, fiber and oil of the corn are all returned and made into animal feed supply.

Lastly, the price of corn is dropping, not rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting the average 2014 to '15 price of corn at $3.50 per bushel, a 21 percent drop from 2013 to '14 and a 49 percent drop from 2012 to '13. So while the cost of corn drops exponentially, opponents of the RFS still blame the standard for increasing the cost of corn. It makes no sense.

Another claim that you will hear from the opposition is that ethanol, as a result of the RFS volume requirements, is a danger to your car’s engine. Again, this is patently false. Ethanol in cars is not a new development. In fact, it’s been around for more than 100 years. In 1908 Henry Ford designed the Model-T to run on ethanol. Since 2010 virtually all fuel pumped in the U.S. is 10 percent ethanol (E-10), and cars have been running just fine.

But don’t just take my word for it, take that of automotive professionals. NASCAR switched to E-15 (15 percent ethanol-blended fuel) almost five years ago. Its drivers have driven millions of miles in the most punishing automotive conditions since that time. Rather than breakdowns, they have reported performance increases; 20 percent fewer emissions with a 9 to 12 horse-power increase. In fact, Dale Earnhardt Jr. called the transition “seamless.”

The RFS is working to create jobs, reinvigorate local economies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to be sure to keep it that way. That is why I oppose any short-sighted attempts to reduce or eliminate this important, all-American energy promoting program.

Read the original story here : Fuel Standard Good For US Economy

WASHINGTON — Imagine a future where America controls its own energy destiny — a future in which we stop spending $1 billion per day on foreign oil and start investing those funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and help pay down the debt, all while creating well-paying American jobs and growing our economy at home.

While this might seem like a faraway dream, there are measures already in place that will help wean us off foreign oil. The Renewable Fuel Standard is one such measure, and we must oppose attempts to reduce or eliminate this job-creating initiative that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The RFS, first introduced in 2005 and reauthorized in 2007, could be the most significant program ever established toward achieving energy independence. It garnered overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, as well as the signature of President George W. Bush, a former oilman from Texas. The RFS has helped employers create thousands of jobs and jump-started local economies throughout the country.

In the ethanol industry alone, the RFS contributed to nearly 400,000 American jobs, bringing in more than $44 billion in economic activity. Today there are at least 212 ethanol biorefineries across the country and new biofuel production facilities are in the works that will create even more jobs.

The economic benefits of the RFS are significant; even more noteworthy is that we have managed to achieve these benefits, while at the same time lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of sending our hard-earned dollars out of the country to buy fossil fuels, we are drawing investments from countries across the globe interested in supporting a renewable economic success story. In fact, since the creation of the RFS in 2005, America’s dependence on foreign oil has dropped by about 50 percent.

Opponents of the RFS would like you to believe the program was crafted by narrow special interests, designed to increase food prices and corrode your car engine. These claims are false, and I would like to set the record straight.

Opposition to the RFS is led by the same interests that have a bottom line impacted by decreased fossil fuel consumption. The opposition likes to argue that the RFS is responsible for increases in livestock feed prices, corn prices and food prices. This is a blatantly false claim. Regardless of the fact that only 17.5 percent of the corn crop actually goes toward creating biofuels, a 2013 World Bank study found that the main cause of increased global food prices is rising energy costs, not the use of corn to produce ethanol. Furthermore, only the starch of the corn is required for biofuel production and, once it is acquired, the protein, fiber and oil of the corn are all returned and made into animal feed supply.

Lastly, the price of corn is dropping, not rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting the average 2014 to '15 price of corn at $3.50 per bushel, a 21 percent drop from 2013 to '14 and a 49 percent drop from 2012 to '13. So while the cost of corn drops exponentially, opponents of the RFS still blame the standard for increasing the cost of corn. It makes no sense.

Another claim that you will hear from the opposition is that ethanol, as a result of the RFS volume requirements, is a danger to your car’s engine. Again, this is patently false. Ethanol in cars is not a new development. In fact, it’s been around for more than 100 years. In 1908 Henry Ford designed the Model-T to run on ethanol. Since 2010 virtually all fuel pumped in the U.S. is 10 percent ethanol (E-10), and cars have been running just fine.

But don’t just take my word for it, take that of automotive professionals. NASCAR switched to E-15 (15 percent ethanol-blended fuel) almost five years ago. Its drivers have driven millions of miles in the most punishing automotive conditions since that time. Rather than breakdowns, they have reported performance increases; 20 percent fewer emissions with a 9 to 12 horse-power increase. In fact, Dale Earnhardt Jr. called the transition “seamless.”

The RFS is working to create jobs, reinvigorate local economies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to be sure to keep it that way. That is why I oppose any short-sighted attempts to reduce or eliminate this important, all-American energy promoting program.

- See more at: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24438/#sthash.gvNAUCLt.dpuf

WASHINGTON — Imagine a future where America controls its own energy destiny — a future in which we stop spending $1 billion per day on foreign oil and start investing those funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and help pay down the debt, all while creating well-paying American jobs and growing our economy at home.

While this might seem like a faraway dream, there are measures already in place that will help wean us off foreign oil. The Renewable Fuel Standard is one such measure, and we must oppose attempts to reduce or eliminate this job-creating initiative that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The RFS, first introduced in 2005 and reauthorized in 2007, could be the most significant program ever established toward achieving energy independence. It garnered overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, as well as the signature of President George W. Bush, a former oilman from Texas. The RFS has helped employers create thousands of jobs and jump-started local economies throughout the country.

In the ethanol industry alone, the RFS contributed to nearly 400,000 American jobs, bringing in more than $44 billion in economic activity. Today there are at least 212 ethanol biorefineries across the country and new biofuel production facilities are in the works that will create even more jobs.

The economic benefits of the RFS are significant; even more noteworthy is that we have managed to achieve these benefits, while at the same time lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of sending our hard-earned dollars out of the country to buy fossil fuels, we are drawing investments from countries across the globe interested in supporting a renewable economic success story. In fact, since the creation of the RFS in 2005, America’s dependence on foreign oil has dropped by about 50 percent.

Opponents of the RFS would like you to believe the program was crafted by narrow special interests, designed to increase food prices and corrode your car engine. These claims are false, and I would like to set the record straight.

Opposition to the RFS is led by the same interests that have a bottom line impacted by decreased fossil fuel consumption. The opposition likes to argue that the RFS is responsible for increases in livestock feed prices, corn prices and food prices. This is a blatantly false claim. Regardless of the fact that only 17.5 percent of the corn crop actually goes toward creating biofuels, a 2013 World Bank study found that the main cause of increased global food prices is rising energy costs, not the use of corn to produce ethanol. Furthermore, only the starch of the corn is required for biofuel production and, once it is acquired, the protein, fiber and oil of the corn are all returned and made into animal feed supply.

Lastly, the price of corn is dropping, not rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting the average 2014 to '15 price of corn at $3.50 per bushel, a 21 percent drop from 2013 to '14 and a 49 percent drop from 2012 to '13. So while the cost of corn drops exponentially, opponents of the RFS still blame the standard for increasing the cost of corn. It makes no sense.

Another claim that you will hear from the opposition is that ethanol, as a result of the RFS volume requirements, is a danger to your car’s engine. Again, this is patently false. Ethanol in cars is not a new development. In fact, it’s been around for more than 100 years. In 1908 Henry Ford designed the Model-T to run on ethanol. Since 2010 virtually all fuel pumped in the U.S. is 10 percent ethanol (E-10), and cars have been running just fine.

But don’t just take my word for it, take that of automotive professionals. NASCAR switched to E-15 (15 percent ethanol-blended fuel) almost five years ago. Its drivers have driven millions of miles in the most punishing automotive conditions since that time. Rather than breakdowns, they have reported performance increases; 20 percent fewer emissions with a 9 to 12 horse-power increase. In fact, Dale Earnhardt Jr. called the transition “seamless.”

The RFS is working to create jobs, reinvigorate local economies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to be sure to keep it that way. That is why I oppose any short-sighted attempts to reduce or eliminate this important, all-American energy promoting program.

- See more at: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24438/#sthash.gvNAUCLt.dpuf

WASHINGTON — Imagine a future where America controls its own energy destiny — a future in which we stop spending $1 billion per day on foreign oil and start investing those funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and help pay down the debt, all while creating well-paying American jobs and growing our economy at home.

While this might seem like a faraway dream, there are measures already in place that will help wean us off foreign oil. The Renewable Fuel Standard is one such measure, and we must oppose attempts to reduce or eliminate this job-creating initiative that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The RFS, first introduced in 2005 and reauthorized in 2007, could be the most significant program ever established toward achieving energy independence. It garnered overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, as well as the signature of President George W. Bush, a former oilman from Texas. The RFS has helped employers create thousands of jobs and jump-started local economies throughout the country.

In the ethanol industry alone, the RFS contributed to nearly 400,000 American jobs, bringing in more than $44 billion in economic activity. Today there are at least 212 ethanol biorefineries across the country and new biofuel production facilities are in the works that will create even more jobs.

The economic benefits of the RFS are significant; even more noteworthy is that we have managed to achieve these benefits, while at the same time lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of sending our hard-earned dollars out of the country to buy fossil fuels, we are drawing investments from countries across the globe interested in supporting a renewable economic success story. In fact, since the creation of the RFS in 2005, America’s dependence on foreign oil has dropped by about 50 percent.

Opponents of the RFS would like you to believe the program was crafted by narrow special interests, designed to increase food prices and corrode your car engine. These claims are false, and I would like to set the record straight.

Opposition to the RFS is led by the same interests that have a bottom line impacted by decreased fossil fuel consumption. The opposition likes to argue that the RFS is responsible for increases in livestock feed prices, corn prices and food prices. This is a blatantly false claim. Regardless of the fact that only 17.5 percent of the corn crop actually goes toward creating biofuels, a 2013 World Bank study found that the main cause of increased global food prices is rising energy costs, not the use of corn to produce ethanol. Furthermore, only the starch of the corn is required for biofuel production and, once it is acquired, the protein, fiber and oil of the corn are all returned and made into animal feed supply.

Lastly, the price of corn is dropping, not rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting the average 2014 to '15 price of corn at $3.50 per bushel, a 21 percent drop from 2013 to '14 and a 49 percent drop from 2012 to '13. So while the cost of corn drops exponentially, opponents of the RFS still blame the standard for increasing the cost of corn. It makes no sense.

Another claim that you will hear from the opposition is that ethanol, as a result of the RFS volume requirements, is a danger to your car’s engine. Again, this is patently false. Ethanol in cars is not a new development. In fact, it’s been around for more than 100 years. In 1908 Henry Ford designed the Model-T to run on ethanol. Since 2010 virtually all fuel pumped in the U.S. is 10 percent ethanol (E-10), and cars have been running just fine.

But don’t just take my word for it, take that of automotive professionals. NASCAR switched to E-15 (15 percent ethanol-blended fuel) almost five years ago. Its drivers have driven millions of miles in the most punishing automotive conditions since that time. Rather than breakdowns, they have reported performance increases; 20 percent fewer emissions with a 9 to 12 horse-power increase. In fact, Dale Earnhardt Jr. called the transition “seamless.”

The RFS is working to create jobs, reinvigorate local economies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to be sure to keep it that way. That is why I oppose any short-sighted attempts to reduce or eliminate this important, all-American energy promoting program.

- See more at: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24438/#sthash.gvNAUCLt.dpuf

National Association Of Convenience Stores

Nov 13, 2014

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – There are opportunities to grow the E85 market — but only if E85 prices remain significantly below those of regular grade gasoline and the automobile industry continues to produce flex-fuel vehicles at historic rates, according to a new report released yesterday by the Fuels Institute.

Depending upon the likelihood of various scenarios, E85 sales will, at a minimum, double by 2023 — but could experience a 20-fold increase in sales over the same time period, according to the 40-page report, “E85: A Market Performance Analysis and Forecast.”

The report was commissioned to examine the current performance of E85 in the market and the prospects for its expansion. Researchers evaluated the performance of more than 300 stores that sell E85 and developed forecasts taking into account a variety of factors that could ultimately affect sales. Factoring in past retail sales data, consumer trends, vehicles sales and a variety of possible scenarios, the Fuels Institute projects that E85 sales will increase from 196 million gallons in 2013 to between 400 million and 4.4 billion gallons in 2023.

“This report is essential reading for federal regulators who are considering strategies to meet the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard and for fuel marketers seeking options to diversify their product offer,” said Fuels Institute Executive Director John Eichberger. “It presents an objective analysis of the overall market for E85, including actual retail sales data, and represents a collective effort to identify opportunities and challenges facing this alternative fuel — without taking a position of advocacy.”

Biofuels have experienced remarkable growth over the past 12 years, from 1.75 billion gallons sold in 2001 to 14.54 billion gallons sold in 2013. The vast majority of this growth is from ethanol, particularly E10 fuel that is ubiquitous in most of the country. However, additional E10 sales are constrained by the size of the gasoline market, which has declined since 2007. Therefore, future biofuels sales growth will be highly dependent upon increasing the sale of higher grades of ethanol like E85, a blend of gasoline with 51% to 83% ethanol.

The growth of E85, also known as flex fuel, is heavily dependent upon increasing both the number of fueling stations providing E85 and the number of flex-fuel vehicles on the road. The report found that there is room for growth on both fronts.

One of the factors currently restricting E85 consumption is its relatively limited availability at retail. Only 2% of retail fueling locations offer E85 and 60% of these are located in just 10 states. In examining both vehicle registrations and station counts, the report found that there are 5,289 flex-fuel vehicles per E85 station, compared to just 1,466 light-duty vehicles per retail fueling station, indicating great potential for E85 retailers. 

“Increasing the E85 station count would improve the potential for additional E85 sales and introduce additional competition to the market. But several other factors — including the relative price of E85 compared to unleaded gasoline and the number of vehicles on the road that can operate on E85 — must also be evaluated to determine the potential E85 market, especially because flex-fuel vehicles can operate on either E85 or gasoline,” said Eichberger.

The price that E85 is sold relative to gasoline will play a significant role in flex fuel’s growth. Because E85 contains approximately 23% less energy per gallon than regular grade gasoline, consumer demand will be heavily dependent upon E85’s price discount relative to gasoline. The report found that consumers seem to be much more concerned about absolute price differential than the percent differential, with 60 cents per gallon being the optimum price differential to encourage flex fuel vehicle consumers to shift their purchases from unleaded to E85.

Further growth could be possible if the automobile industry continues to increase flex-fuel vehicle production at current rates, thereby generating increased potential demand.

Currently, flex fuel vehicles represent 6% of all light-duty vehicle registrations in the United States. The growth in flex-fuel vehicle production was significantly aided by credits given to automakers for producing these vehicles. However, under the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, this credit is set to expire. It remains to be seen if the automobile manufacturers continue producing flex-fuel vehicles at the current rate in the absence of this credit. It is likely that consumers will have to demonstrate their demand for flex-fuel vehicles to convince manfacturers to sustain or increase production levels.

“We developed this report in direct response to requests from multiple congressional committees to provide a comprehensive source for information about the market for E85. This objective analysis of E85 in the market and the range of its market potential is essential to provide guidance regarding the potential for E85 to meet the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard,” said Eichberger.

Read Fuel Institute's full report here : E85 : A Market Performance Analysis And Forecast

 

Ethanol Producer Magazine

Nov 12, 2014

By Erin Voegele

A group of agriculture organizations recently issued a letter to President Obama asking him to intervene in the U.S. EPA’s proposed cuts to the 2014 renewable fuel standard (RFS) volume obligations. The final 2014 RFS rule is expected to be released soon.

Within the letter, the agriculture organizations stress that the blending targets and methodology included in the proposed rule are already causing significant harm to the biofuel sector. “These impacts are reverberating throughout the U.S. agriculture economy, and we expect this trend to continue if the targets and the methodology in the rule are not corrected,” the groups wrote.

The letter also explains that the establishment of the RFS program sent a signal to rural America that agricultural producers are partners in the country’s efforts to enhance our energy security. According to the letter, that signal indicated that if the agriculture industry could innovate and identify new feedstocks for low-carbon cellulosic and advanced biofuels, enhance sustainability, and increase yields, those low-carbon fuels would be sold in the marketplace. While the American agriculture industry has responded to that signal, the letter notes the EPA’s 2014 RFS proposal diverges from the course that Congress laid out for the program.

Farmers doubled the yield of U.S. corn crops between 1980 and 2009 with only a 3 percent increase in acres. However, the contribution of farmers isn’t limited to corn production. “We’ve worked with advanced biofuel producers to identify new sources of feedstocks,” said the groups in the letter. “Using newly designed equipment, we’re harvesting corn stover from existing fields to feed low carbon cellulosic ethanol facilities. Across the country, farmers are finding new crops to drive our energy independence with investments in sorghum, barley, wheat, woody biomass, and other dedicated energy crops that will diversify our feedstock supply.”

The letter also stresses that the innovation pipeline is helping to drive an economic renaissance in rural America. “There are four commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants opening in 2014 alone, creating hundreds of new jobs in rural America,” wrote the groups in the letter. “Until the proposed rule was released, the cellulosic sector was poised for expansion. Yet, with the release of the EPA’s proposal, investments are now moving overseas as first movers like Abengoa attribute their decision to locate their next cellulosic facility in Brazil rather than the United States to the EPA’s proposed rule.”

The letter also addresses the impact on farm income, noting the net farm income forecast for 2013 was $131.3 billion. That number has fallen 14 percent, to its lowest level since 2010. “The EPA’s proposed policy decision is driving one of key economic engines—the biofuel sector—overseas,” said the letter. “We have invested in response to the signals in the RFS and are poised to deliver the very low carbon fuels you have sought for so long. Instead of reaping the economic benefits of this investment with a build-out of a domestic biofuel industry, the methodology proposed by EPA is offshoring the industry—and our market. This is a decision we cannot afford in America’s heartland. We urge you to ensure the EPA modifies this damaging rule.”

The letter was signed by the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Sorghum Producers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and Agricultural Retailers Association. A full copy of the letter can be downloaded from the NCGA website. 

The EPA is now nearly a year behind its statutory deadline for issuing the final 2014 RFS volume obligations. Under the RFS program, the EPA is technically required to issue final volume obligations for a particular year by Nov. 30 of the preceding year. For the 2014 RFS, that deadline would have been Nov. 30, 2013. The EPA published its proposed rule for the 2014 RFS in mid-November last year. The comment period on the proposed rule closed Jan. 28. On Aug. 22, the EPA delivered the final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. That process is currently ongoing. The EPA’s Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker currently indicates the final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register in November.

Read the original story here : Ags Group Advocate For The RFS In Letter To Obama

Ethanol Producer Magazine

Nov 10, 2014

By Holly Jessen

After writing many articles about corn-ethanol producers working to improve energy efficiency, reduce water use and implement new technologies to make their plants run better and more profitably, there’s no doubt in my mind that I’m covering an industry that’s always moving forward. Not everybody realizes this.

To some people, the two words corn and ethanol put together brings up some pretty strong negative connotations. The attitude seems to be, yes, sure, the cellulosic ethanol industry is working toward some great things but won’t it be nice when we can just get rid of those awful corn ethanol plants? I’ve written about this before but it’s worth repeating. The second generation advanced ethanol industry is coming about because of work done by the first generation gran-based ethanol industry and it’s not an either/or equation. Both types of ethanol production facilities can and will coexist in the future. Here are a few examples of exciting things going on at corn-ethanol plants that we covered at our website recently.  

Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes Inc., a 60 MMgy corn and milo ethanol plant in California, recently revealed its plans to capture and sell CO2. In real estate it’s all about location, location, location but in the ethanol industry coproduct diversification is a key to profitability. Clearly location comes into play in the ethanol industry too but here we have a destination ethanol plant making it work with new coproducts as part of the mix.

In late October, ICM Inc. announced that it had reached an agreement with Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC for engineering and design work at the 110 MMgy ethanol plant in Annawan, Illinois. Patriot’s board members will use that information to evaluate two of ICM’s patent-pending technologies, one for fiber separation and a second for cellulosic ethanol production from corn fiber, considering a possible construction start in 2015, according to an ICM press release. While it’s not finalized yet that the facility will for sure produce cellulosic ethanol from corn fiber, it’s certainly an exciting step forward! 

It feels a little bit like back in the early corn oil days. First just a few innovative ethanol plants started adding corn oil extraction technology.  Then we hit a tipping point where more plants jumped on the corn oil bandwagon. Today, only a small percentage of ethanol plants don’t count corn oil as a coproduct. Maybe someday we’ll be in the same place with cellulosic ethanol production from corn fiber.

The last innovation I’ll highlight is Green Plains Renewable Energy’s work in the area of algae production. During the company’s third quarter earnings call in late October, Todd Becker, president and CEO, said Green Plains had recently completed some fish feed trials that had good results. He added that while algae can be used to produce many possible products, the company is focused on making sure it can be done profitably. Green Plains is definitely an example of a corn-ethanol production company that hasn’t been simply satisfied with the status quo.

I know there are many other examples of innovative work going on in the first generation industry but these are three that came up recently in news posted to our website. So today I’m taking the opportunity to pat Aemetis, Patriot Renewable Fuels and Green Plains on the back. We at Ethanol Producer Magazine are excited to continue covering these, and other projects, as they take the corn-ethanol industry closer and closer to what Feike Sijbesma, Royal DSM’s CEO and board chairman, refered to as the biorenewable age, at the grand opening ceremony of Poet-DSM's cellulosic ethanol plant co-located with a corn-ethanol plant.

Read the original story here : Innovation, improvement in the corn-ethanol industry

Agriculture.com

Nov 5, 2014

By Daniel Looker

Bruce Braley the Iowa Democrat who lost his bid to be a U.S. Senator Tuesday, famously told a group of lawyers in Texas that if Republicans gained control of the Senate, the next chair of the Judiciary committee would be “a farmer from Iowa,” Senator Chuck Grassley. The video clip of that comment, played often in attack ads, may have doomed his chances of winning against Iowa’s new Republican Senator-elect, Joni Ernst.

Maybe Braley should have pointed out that the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is likely to be Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is a strong critic of the renewable fuel standard. Last year Inhofe called for “Repealing Obama’s Ethanol Mandate.”

So, does the shift in power in the Senate mean that corn-based ethanol will be weakened?

Those who lead the nation’s three leading ethanol groups don’t think so, but they’re hardly complacent, either.

“I don’t think it has that much impact at all,” Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington said of the election results Wednesday. “The mathematics of ethanol hasn’t changed.”

“They’ll still need 60 votes on the floor of the Senate to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard,” he told Agriculture.com. That’s the number needed to break a filibuster that would block any legislation to repeal the RFS. The Democrats, who control the Senate until next year, don’t have 60 votes. And, even after Tuesday’s wave election, Republicans won’t have a 60-vote majority in 2015.

Dinneen points out that new senators from Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota are all supporters of ethanol, as are GOP veterans from the Midwest, Senators John Thune of South Dakota and Grassley from Iowa.

“These folks will come to town and support the Grassleys and John Thunes of the world,” Dinneen said.

Dinneen added that the first RFS passed in an energy bill in 2005 was under a Republican President, George W. Bush, and Republican Congress. The 2007 energy bill, which created a larger mandate for biofuels in its RFS, passed when Bush was still in office and after Democrats had taken control of the Senate. 

Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, agrees that ethanol’s support is bipartisan.

“I’m going back to the principal that has been true for ethanol forever, that ethanol has been a bipartisan issue,” Jennings said Wednesday. “We expect that this remaining bipartisan support will keep big oil from reducing or eliminating the RFS.” 

That doesn’t mean ethanol groups won’t be busy. Under Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, committees have held hearings that featured oil industry critics of the RFS and members from both parties backed bills to weaken the RFS that ultimately went nowhere.

Both Dinneen and Jennings expect Inhofe to hold hearings attacking the RFS. 

Like many issues in agriculture, support or opposition to the RFS is regional, with critics coming from oil states like Oklahoma, or Texas and Virginia, where cattle feeders and poultry producers have blamed the mandate for creating high prices for corn – when prices were high.

Jennings believes that the development of cellulosic ethanol could expand that regional support for biofuels.

“Hopefully, what we can do is expand that playing field so that other members of the country join that bipartisan caucus” that supports ethanol, he said.

Another factor that could moderate efforts to repeal the RFS is that the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell will be under pressure to pass legislation, Dinneen said. That includes other measures desired by the oil industry, such as the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf, and ending the U.S. ban on domestic crude oil exports. McConnell has a better chance of doing that if he leaves out an issue as divisive as repeal of the RFS, Dinneen said. 

Jennings pointed out that the views of some of the successful candidates for the Senate “have offered a range of responses when it comes to the RFS.”

Ernst, for example, told The Des Moines Register last spring that philosophically she opposes mandates and government subsidies, but her campaign responded to criticism from Braley by pointing out that Ernst, as a member of the Iowa Senate, voted to support the RFS. (The Iowa legislature doesn’t control the RFS, of course, but was part of a strong Midwest campaign against an EPA proposal to weaken the ethanol mandate in the RFS.) Ernst has pledged to continue to “passionately defend the RFS in the U.S. Senate.”

Jennings said citizens need to make sure campaign promises are kept.

“Now is the time we have to hold newly-elected officials accountable for the promises made on the campaign trail,” he said.”In other words, I don’t think anyone should be complacent.”

Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, another ethanol group, agrees that “biofuels policy is bipartisan and always has been.”

But he also looks for more pressure on ethanol in the Senate – not from new Republicans from midwestern states, but some of the new senators from other regions who got backing from the oil industry.

“Oil doesn’t invest all this money in these campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts,” Buis said. 

The change in leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to ethanol foe Inhofe is dramatic. Its chair under the Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, said “that as long as she held this gavel, there will be no changes to the RFS,” Buis recalled.

In the new Senate, “we expect there to be attempts [to weaken the RFS]. Whether any succeed, I highly doubt it,” Buis said.

Ethanol’s strongest support may be in the Corn Belt, but Buis pointed out that “we have supporters on both coasts as well as the Midwest.”

“We don’t think we had any net losses in the Senate – if they had a vote on the RFS,” Buis said of the tally of supporters.

Read the original story here : Will Ethanol Ride The GOP Wave?

Domestic Fuel

Nov 4, 2014

By John Davis

A new paper from automotive engineers shows how the federal government has a bias toward Big Oil. Officials from the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) praised a new Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper authored by experts from Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, and AVL Powertrain Engineering Inc. that concludes that emissions from higher ethanol blends are cleaner than gasoline, and the approach used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate exhaust emissions, the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model, is biased in favor of oil.

“We applaud these Ford, General Motors, and AVL Powertrain engineers for exposing that EPA’s MOVES model is biased in favor of a result oil companies prefer and ignores the way gasoline is blended with ethanol in the real-world,” said [ACE Executive Vice President Brian] Jennings. “This is just the latest example of how Big Oil is twisting EPA’s arm to limit ethanol use. First, it appears EPA is about to completely rewrite the Renewable Fuel Standard to help oil companies avoid their legal responsibility to blend fuels, like E15 and E85, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now, EPA is relying on a biased approach for estimating tailpipe emissions, remarkably making gasoline appear cleaner than ethanol.”

Theoretically, there are two ways to blend ethanol with gasoline to formulate fuel. The universal approach used to make nearly all U.S. gasoline (which is E10) is to mix additional ethanol or “splash blend” ethanol to a clearly-defined and consistent gasoline blendstock. The second approach, which EPA is following in the MOVES model, assumes oil companies will take advantage of the higher octane and oxygen content of ethanol and create an even lower-quality gasoline blendstock containing additional pollutants, resulting in a finished ethanol-gasoline blend that is dirtier than E10. That process, identified by the erroneously benign term “match blending,” allows oil companies to use carcinogenic hydrocarbons, so that no matter how much ethanol is added to the final product, the “allowable” base petroleum blendstock results in more tailpipe pollution.

The SAE paper says “the degradation of emissions which can result (from match-blending) is primarily due to the added hydrocarbons, but has often been incorrectly attributed to the ethanol.”

ACE also says the report shows that “blending ethanol at up to 30 percent by volume with an E10 blendstock should generally require only minimal changes in composition to meet ASTM D4814,” the standard specification for automotive engine fuel.

Read the original story here : Ethanol Coalition : Auto Engineers Expose EPA's Oil Bias