Media
By Tim Rudnicki, Esq
Minnesota State Agencies’ opaque, top-down approach to future fuels in the transportation sector is very disappointing and dangerous. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and Department of Commerce are among several branches of State Government either participating in or using the Climate Solutions and Economic Opportunities (CSEO) project to create a new greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policy. By its own reckoning, the MPCA determined in 2013 that the combination of increased vehicle efficiency as well as biofuels helped to significantly reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Now, even with Governor Dayton’s repeated call for efforts to significantly increase the amount of biofuel available to consumers, the MPCA denies ethanol any future role in reducing GHG emissions.
What new finding led the MPCA to reverse its position on the positive role biofuels have played? More importantly, what finding led the MPCA to set a predetermined policy outcome which (1) rejects the future role of ethanol and (2) caps biofuel use at E10 rather than embrace the more significant role biofuels, such as E15 and higher blends, can play in further reducing GHG emissions in the future?
In an attempt to understand the MPCA and CSEO positions on and reasoning about biofuels, the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA) launched repeated agency information requests over a two month period of time. Eventually MBA was provided with a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains inaccurate information and assumptions about Minnesota’s petroleum replacement law, transportation fuel use and questionable lifecycle GHG calculations. MBA’s follow up information requests to agencies were met with advice from a project facilitator to participate in a webinar session which purportedly was to allow for information exchange. Instead, the webinar was limited to accepting written participant questions which were screened by the Environmental Quality Board.
The lack of transparency in the CSEO process was especially evident as the CSEO presenter attempted to over simplify and compartmentalize complex social, economic and environmental issues. One written question read to the CSEO presenter asked: by what amount can E15 reduce GHG emissions compared to E10 (regular unleaded gasoline)? Without any explanation regarding the variables in the equation, the CSEO presenter provided the answer - zero.
This lack of transparency by CSEO regarding models, variables and assumptions is at odds with the rest of the scientific community. And this flawed CSEO process threatens to derail the progress Minnesota is making as it reduces GHG emissions in the transportation sector. With respect to biofuels such as ethanol, there exists a vast body of knowledge and scientific information about the entire GHG lifecycle for ethanol including, for example, upstream and downstream emissions associated with growing renewable ingredients, biorefining and actually using biofuels, such as E15, in motor vehicles.
What are the facts? What does science tell us, rather than an opaque agency top-down process, about E15 (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline)? As reported on February 16, MBA checked with Dr. Steffen Mueller, principal research economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, about E15’s potential to reduce CO2 emissions. He informed us that a gallon of E15 saves 1.26 g of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per megajoule over regular E10 (gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol). CO2e includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Further, according to Mueller, should all 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline consumed annually be converted to E15 from E10, CO2e savings in the state would total 358,000 metric tons annually. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator, this would amount to eliminating 75,368 passenger vehicles from Minnesota’s roads annually.
To the MPCA, EQB and Energy Division in the Department of Commerce we ask, what part of the science do you question? Let’s have that conversation with scientists, not project facilitators. How many more meetings do we need to have in an attempt to more fully inform the CSEO process when the process is actually closed to the facts and science? Given the GHG emission reductions called for in Minnesota law and knowing E15 can be part of the solution by immediately reducing GHG emissions, when will Minnesota State Agencies reject the flawed CSEO process and allow the science on biofuels and GHG emission reduction to enter into the analysis?
As always, you can direct your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
A growing number of consumers are coming to expect E15 at all their favorite retail fueling stations and have concerns when they can’t find E15. Generally, those concerns are called into the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association with the callers prefacing their questions like this: I have been using E15 for the last six months because I am saving money at the pump, I know the higher octane is good for my engine, I feel good about using a renewable fuel, but what do I do if I can’t find E15?
We appreciate your inquiries. The question about “what to do when E15 is not available” signals to us that consumers really do care about the type of fuel they use in their vehicles. To the questioners, we now have two answers for you. First, if you’ve been using E15 for your 2001 or newer vehicle but can’t find it near you, ask your neighborhood retailer to carry E15. The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association can help these retailers, wherever they are in Minnesota, learn about E15 and assist them in taking the necessary steps to begin dispensing it.
Second, to all those who would like to see even greater access to and availability of E15, call your legislators and ask them to support the E15 Dispenser bill which has been introduced in both houses of Minnesota's state legislature (Senate File 1912 and House File 1904). This bill can pave the way for E15 to be made widely available throughout Minnesota.
Among the key components of the bill is to address issues currently faced by retailers interested in offering E15. As it stands, there is an information void with regards to consistent, reliable and accurate technical information regarding fuel storage and dispensing systems when it concerns E15. Moreover, in some cases, there are retailers that only need to make a few simple changes to their fuel dispenser to offer E15. The E15 Dispenser Bill will streamline the process and make it easier for retailers to carry E15.
Some 300, or 10 percent, of fuel retailers in the state will be partnered with under the first phase of the E15 Dispenser bill and once these stations begin offering E15, we will make a significant step towards reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
When E15 becomes the new regular fuel in Minnesota, annual CO2 equivalent emissions will be reduced by 358,000 metric tons (equivalent to removing 75,368 passenger vehicles form Minnesota's roads for a year). Moreover, under the E15 Dispenser bill, consumers stand to save between $7.6 million to $10.9 million at the pump as E15 is generally priced 7 to 10 cents lower than regular unleaded gasoline.
Minnesota legislators recognize that more and more of their constituents would like access to E15 because it’s a high-octane fuel (88 octane rating) that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and prices at the pump. But to ensure passage of this bill and deliver this victory to all Minnesotans, be sure to voice your support for Senate File 1912 and House File 1904. For more details, please contact me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Telephone calls and email messages to Minnesota legislators from supporters of ethanol, energy independence, consumer savings at the pump and environmental benefits are helping to move a bill at the legislature. As was reported to you in the last newsletter, some 300, or approximately 10 percent, of fuel retailers in Minnesota could be partnered with under the first phase of the E15 Dispenser bill if it is fully funded. When those fuel retailers begin offering E15 and displacing more carbon intensive finite fossil fuel, Minnesotans will make even more progress in fulfilling the Minnesota petroleum replacement law as well as statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Minnesota House File 1904 and Senate File 1912 are now in the next to last phase of the legislative process. In the next few days, a Conference Committee will be named to work out the difference in a tax bill which includes provisions and funding to help fuel retailers make E15 available to thousands more Minnesotans. Some of the benefits to Minnesotans by having E15 broadly available include reducing annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 358,000 metric tons (equivalent to removing 75,368 passenger vehicles form Minnesota's roads for a year). And under the E15 Dispenser bill pilot project, consumers stand to save between $7.6 million to $10.9 million at the pump as E15 is generally priced 7 to 10 cents lower than regular unleaded gasoline.
The House and Senate Conferees who will determine whether the E15 Dispenser bill moves forward are expected to be named within the next few days. We will continue to track and monitor the progress of the bill. Once the Conferees are named, the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association will make an announcement. You will be able to use that information to contact Conferees and remind them about your support for the provisions needed to make more E15 available to consumers across Minnesota.
We are close to a victory for Minnesotans who want more clean, renewable ethanol, greater energy independence, savings at the pump and the environmental benefits that come with Minnesota grown biofuels. For more details, please contact me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
What the U.S. EPA does, sometimes, so does the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). At present, that means keeping the blinders on with respect to the science centered on E15 and its compatibility in fuel storage and dispensing systems. Unfortunately, the failure of Agencies to keep the focus on science also means restraining E15 from having widespread access in the marketplace even though E15 is a least cost method by which to immediately reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To both the U.S. EPA and MPCA, I say, tear down those blinders and be open to empirical evidence.
Lately, at some White House briefings, the United States military has been underscoring the national security challenges presented by the continuing rise in GHG emissions and the concomitant climate change. The military, however, is also underscoring its expanding use of biofuels to provide a renewable source of energy for its operations and to decrease GHG emissions. What’s striking about this latest focus on biofuels by the U.S. military is its robust support for biofuels so as to reduce emissions of climate changing gases.
While the military’s focus on the GHG benefits of biofuels might come as a surprise to some, the GHG benefits of biofuels have been well studied and documented for more than a decade. To make the GHG benefits of ethanol a bit more parochial, if all the spark ignition engine transportation fuel (Regular gasoline with 10% ethanol) used in Minnesota were E15 rather than E10, we could cut annual GHG emissions by an additional 358,000 metric tons.
Another, but perhaps less practical, way to achieve the same reduction in GHG emissions is to pull slightly over 75,300 vehicles off Minnesota roadways for a year. Still another way to look at the GHG benefit E15 can provide is to recognize it would take at least 98, two megawatt wind turbines a year to displace the same amount of GHG emissions that E15 can displace in 2001 and newer motor vehicles on the road right here, right now.
So what are we waiting for? Why is the U.S. EPA and MPCA fixated on perpetuating the fictitious blend wall by restraining consumer access to E15 and maintaining the status quo for carbon intensive, finite fossil fuels? After sitting through hours of meetings with the MPCA, one reason for delay is because some agency staff think and feel that E10 is an illegal fuel and that E15 will start seeping out of all the underground storage tanks, pipes and dispensers. Perhaps those are good thoughts and feelings to have and from which to begin ascertaining the facts, but we need to ask, again, are those thoughts and feelings based on science, the evidence?
To better understand the science and evidence, we can turn to a new National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report released in May 2015, entitled E15 and Infrastructure (the “Report”). Here are some key findings in the Report:
"It is often stated that tanks cannot be used to store E15, but this assumption is incorrect as the majority of installed tanks can store blends above E10. For many decades, underground storage tank (UST) manufacturers approved their tanks for blends up to E100…"
"…there are UL (Underwriters Laboratories) testing standards available now for all gasoline–ethanol blends from 0% to 85% ethanol… Certain equipment types are typically UL listed—these include tanks, pipes, dispenser, hanging hardware, submersible turbine pumps, and shear valves."
"A review was conducted with each manufacturer to determine compatibility with ethanol blends. There is an extensive list of E15 and E15+ compatible equipment available in the appendices."
With respect to E10, the Report examined literature from the past 15 years to find out if “…there were any negative impacts during the multi-year deployment of E10 nationwide” and, based on extensive research, determined that “No incidents of E10 causing releases (also referred to as leaks) from UST systems were identified. None of the reviewed literature noted any association between E10 and any specific UST release. The EPA OUST’s Performance Measures’ data on UST releases were reviewed, and as E10 was deployed nationwide, the trend was fewer UST releases.”
Once again, the Agencies have put the burden of proof on E10 and E15. And E10 and E15 have met that burden and demonstrated, once again, they are effective and compatible with most of the fueling infrastructure. To the Agencies, now you have more evidence to support the facilitation of widespread access to E15. Now is the time to allow E15 to thrive in the marketplace so consumers can save at the pump, we can displace more carbon intensive petroleum and we can further drive down GHG emissions by using more homegrown, renewable biofuels.
As always, you can direct your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
For those who take up reading the Federal Register from time-to-time, you might have noticed the 53 pages from June 10, 2015, dealing with the Renewable Fuel Standard and the proposed Renewable Volume Obligations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in short, provides a host of excuses for not keeping on track with the volume requirements set forth in the Renewable Fuel Standard which is the law of the land. Rather than working with stakeholders to fully implement the law, the EPA, by their own words, capitulate to the petroleum industry.
Consider this from the EPA: “...we have seen analysis concluding that the ambitious statutory targets in the Clean Air Act exceed real world conditions.” And the EPA, in its Regulatory Announcement, goes on to cite, for instance, its consideration of factors such as the market and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the EPA is blinded by the blend wall, this notion that the market can only handle 10% ethanol at the most.
Last Thursday, June 25th, at least 200 people descended upon Kansas City, Kansas to help the EPA see the real “real world conditions.” What if the EPA had considered the latest study showing that virtually all the fuel storage and dispensing equipment is compatible with E15, which has been the new regular fuel since 2012? That’s at least 15 billion gallons of ethanol. What if the EPA had acknowledged that some states, like Minnesota, are relying on stability in the interpretation and application of the law as it invests in making more renewable biofuels available to Minnesotans?
The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association did its part to help the EPA get a better grasp of the real world. Perhaps the EPA will seriously consider the input from, and collective wisdom of, all those who testified last week and reach a new conclusion: drop the proposal to deviate from the Renewable Volume Obligations in law because they are just right and it’s the law.
Testimony on the Renewable Fuel Standard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hearing - RFS Proposal
Kansas City, Kansas
June 25, 2015
Delivered by Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Executive Director
Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association
We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror. – Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II, Scene 1, 11.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Renewable Volume Obligations come nearly 412 years after Shakespeare wrote those words in “Measure for Measure”. Here is the connection to the situation we face today.
Congress, after much deliberation, crafted the Renewable Fuel Standard. It has been the law of the land for eight years. It was established with the unequivocal purpose of moving us, as a Nation, away from finite, carbon intensive fossil fuel petroleum and onto a changing, incremental pathway toward greater use of biofuels made from renewable ingredients.
The EPA’s consistent refusal to fully adhere to and implement the black letter Renewable Volume Obligations has given the Renewable Fuel Standard one shape, the shape of a bogus, fictitious blend wall which has become the petroleum industry’s perch rather than its terror.
While the EPA cites lack of infrastructure as an excuse to backslide on the Renewable Volume Obligations, the Agency ignores reality and sends a conflicting message to stakeholders in the fuel supply chain. The EPA, however, can get it right this time: adhere to the law and reckon with the infrastructure facts in the field.
According to findings from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory most existing fuel storage and dispensing infrastructure can already handle up to a 15% blend of ethanol and 85% petroleum gasoline. Nearly nine out of 10 light duty vehicles on the highway can use the additional 5% ethanol in E15, or what has been the new regular fuel since 2012. But here we are today. The EPA has the opportunity to get it right and we all have the opportunity to replicate effective models to get the job done.
Using the results of independent studies and with the expectation that the EPA will uphold the Renewable Volume Obligations, Minnesota Legislators worked to craft a bill to introduce an additional 160 million gallons of ethanol into the fuel supply chain. Governor Dayton recently signed the bill into law to assist a limited number of retailers in making appropriate low-cost adjustments to their fuel dispensing equipment so they can offer E15 to their customers.
This action, especially if replicated across the United States, will help to meet or exceed the Renewable Volume Obligations and provide significant environmental benefits. Dr. Mueller with the University of Illinois at Chicago determined that the additional 5% ethanol in the Minnesota fuel supply alone will further reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 358,000 metric tons annually. That’s equivalent to taking approximately 75,368 vehicles off the roadways for a year.
To sustain this progress, to the EPA we say: change your custom and practice, don’t roll back the Renewable Volume Obligations this time. Instead, maintain and enforce the Renewable Volume Obligations in the law. EPA’s adherence to the law will give all of us the certainty we need in Minnesota and across this Nation to continue making the necessary local policy and equipment adjustments to fulfill the letter and intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
As always, you can direct your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Tim Rudnicki, Esq
The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association, just as did many individuals and organizations, submitted comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week. In preparing to submit comments, we reviewed the EPA proposed rule found in the Federal Register (FR), Volume 80, No. 111, starting at page 33100. While this might not come as a surprise to anyone reading this column, the EPA, in its proposed rule, did use the phrase “blendwall” and "E10 blendwall" on more than one occasion. What is surprising, however, is the EPA's continued backward looking assessment of total consumption capacity for renewable biofuel.
For instance, the EPA entirely dismisses the role E15 is playing, and will grow to play, in exceeding the Congressional volume targets set forth in the Renewable Fuel Standard (FR at 33126). The EPA, instead, fixates on the old regular E10 and stops its calculations there. From a Minnesota perspective the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports indicate we are at the 12.2% level of ethanol use. Rather than looking in its rear view mirror where it will only see E10, the EPA ought to look outside and just up ahead.
Did the EPA see, to the side and ahead, the recent report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)? Findings from NREL indicate that virtually all the existing components currently used to store and dispense fuel is compatible with and capable of handling E15, the new regular unleaded fuel. Or did the EPA notice that nearly nine out of 10 vehicles on the highway can use E15? With data provided by the EPA and doing some math, it seems the national E15 annual consumption capacity is close to at least 18.5 billion gallons for each of the next few years.
Interestingly, the EPA segments biofuel consumption capacity by FFVs and everything else. At page 33128, the EPA states: "With regard to E85, according to EIA there will be about 16 million FFVs in the in-use fleet in 2016 with a total consumption capacity of about 14 billion gallons of E 85." The EPA then goes on to discuss market access issues for FFVs, considers potential consumption if at least 5% of FFVs had access to E85 and notes that the "vast majority of vehicles are within reasonable range of more than one retail station on typical trips." Aggregating FFVs and, for example, all the 2001 and newer light duty vehicles which can use E15, the annual total consumption capacity is 32.5 billion gallons.
Does aggregation provide the EPA with another perspective by which to come to the conclusion that it ought to enforce the RFS as written by Congress? Perhaps the totality of the many thoughtful comments that were submitted to the EPA will provide the Agency with the type of public comments which the Agency can use to conclude it ought to comply with and enforce the Renewable Fuel Standard.
What do you think about aggregation or other parts of the EPA proposed rule? As always, you can direct your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Tim Rudnicki, Esq
In the June newsletter we shared with you the good news about the E15 Dispenser Law. Minnesota Legislators and Governor Mark Dayton understand the way biofuels, such as ethanol, help Minnesotans, strengthen our energy security and economy and improve our environmental quality. They also understand that Minnesotans will only be able to realize these benefits if those who seek a lower priced, higher octane fuel for their 2001 or newer vehicles actually have access to E15.
The outcome of the legislative process is a law which is aimed at helping retailers, with 15 or fewer stations, maximize the potential of their existing fuel dispensing systems so they can offer E15. This law has a very clear focus and narrow scope. At this time, Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association is working with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and other stakeholders to take the elements of the law and put them into a program format which will be meaningful to and useful for the men and women who make the decisions about their product offerings and actually operate the fuel dispensers.
Based on the feedback we have received from fuel retailers throughout the metro area and across Minnesota, we expect high demand for the E15 program. We will keep you posted on its progress and availability.
On a related environmental matter, a number of you have inquired about the carbon reduction associated with adding another 5% ethanol to regular E10. Our first report on this issue was based on information provided by Steffen Mueller, Principal Research Economist with the University of Illinois at Chicago. In brief, adding 5% more ethanol to regular gasoline sold in Minnesota will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by another 358,000 metric tons annually. Put another way, this carbon offset is equivalent to removing approximately 75,368 vehicles from Minnesota’s highways for a year. Using the same U.S. EPA GHG equivalency calculator, the additional carbon offset from E15 is like running 98 wind turbines each rated at an output of two megawatts. To realize these environmental benefits, however, we must make more E15 available in the marketplace. And the E15 program will be a great step forward.
As always, you can direct your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
The recent release of the Clean Power Plan has started to spawn community gatherings and agency presentations. Stakeholders are being called upon to help inform a regulatory process which will produce a custom Minnesota plan aimed at further reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, already some agency officials and community leaders are redefining what constitutes renewable energy.
In the most recent gathering I attended solar gardens was the focal point. Why not? Photovoltaic systems can be used to capture solar energy and convert it into electricity that can be used to, for example, light and power our homes, schools and places of work.
Another renewable that received some attention was wind energy conversion systems. Sure, wind turbines connected to generators capture another form of solar energy and convert it into electricity which we use throughout our communities.
And where are biofuels in the presentation? Most of us use biofuels, such as ethanol, to power the vehicles which move us from place-to-place. As we know, plants capture and use solar energy which can be converted into ethanol.
One might have concluded from the one-way communication event that it was geared toward an urban audience who could only relate to community solar gardens rather than farmers and farming. But then, during what was supposed to be the lighter comedic part of the program, the underlying reason for excluding biofuels became evident: ethanol was characterized as big industry, evil and on par with the dirty, carbon intensive tar sands.
This type of misinformation, even when veiled as comedy, carries the risk of undermining efforts for us as a community and state to make further progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Interestingly, the very benefits the urban community leaders seek from solar gardens are those offered by ethanol:
- Locally produced (biofuels are made from renewable ingredients grown in Minnesota),
- More local control over energy supply (twenty-one biofuel producers are located in Minnesota),
- Economic development (in 2014 Minnesota’s ethanol producers generated $7.6 billion in gross sales for Minnesota businesses and supported 18,630 full time jobs. This in turn generated $1.74 billion in household income in Minnesota as well as $132 million to state and local government tax rolls. And the need for biofuels is growing.)
- Cleaner air (ethanol reduces toxic tailpipe emissions) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (E10 already displaces approximately 750,000 metric tons annually and greater availability of E15 can increase that number to 1.07 million metric tons). Check out this short video for more details.
While some might like to redefine renewable so as to exclude biofuels, federal and state law is clear that biofuels are to be counted among the renewables.
The Renewable Fuel Standard, for instance, states:
Renewable fuel is “fuel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.” Whether ethanol is produced from renewable corn starch, stover or other biomass, it is indeed a renewable. The law makes this clear. And it should be self-evident that growing plant material is renewable. After all, where do the raw ingredients come from to make the things that we use in our daily lives or that power our vehicles? One source of supply are those ingredients which are grown.
We at the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association will continue to do our part to inform community leaders and agency officials about the increasing role that biofuels, such as ethanol, can play in boosting the economy, enhancing energy security, saving consumers money at the fuel dispenser and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We also ask that you help us. I invite you to share this video with your colleagues and community leaders. Let’s continue the dialogue and remind people that biofuels are indeed renewable and that renewable biofuels hold the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right here, right now.
As always, I look forward to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. from you.
More...
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus dared to challenge the accepted notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Using his powers of observation, without a telescope (it was another 50 years after his death when Galileo would have a telescope and validate the Copernican model), and relying upon his knowledge of mathematics, Copernicus postulated that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is at the center of our universe (solar system). Who, today, given the scientific evidence we have, would suggest the earth is at the center of our universe?
We humans, whether we work for federal agencies or biofuel producers, sometimes try our best to interpret the world around us with the tools available to us. The issue is whether we do the analysis with our gut or intellect, capitulate to our bias or use scientific findings and analysis. This short excerpt from a NASA teaching module provides some perspective about a preconceived notion and the role of science:
The earth was considered the center of the universe because the leading theory about this at the time came from the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy in about 140 A.D. In this theory, the earth was at the center of the universe, and the sun, the moon, the planets and stars orbited the earth.
The center of the universe remained at the center of the earth, in the view of the majority of the scientific community, until the 1500s. Occasionally there were those who suggested otherwise, the most famous of which is Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek scientist well-ahead of his time, but he, unfortunately, was not taken very seriously for very long.
The successful challenge to the earth-centered universe was begun by the Polish Astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. In his book De Revolutionibus, he argued that the Sun was at the center of the solar system (and hence universe), and that the planets - including the earth - revolved around the sun. This heliocentric theory provided a conceptually simpler explanation for certain peculiar `retrograde' motions of the planets than the Ptolemaic geocentric theory but encountered stiff resistance from those who felt it was heretical to move humanity so far from the center of the universe. http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/cs_lplan.html
Keep in mind that it was only in the 1930s when humanity gained the understanding, thanks to Hubble, that the universe is actually expanding. So, we keep on learning. But what do we do with this knowledge, whether it’s about the universe or biofuels?
With respect to biofuels and the RFS, the EPA has at least two solid arguments for aggressively enforcing the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs). First, plain and simple: it’s the law. The RFS is unequivocal about the number of gallons of renewable biofuels which are to displace finite, carbon intensive petroleum. The public policy purpose is clear - displace petroleum with renewable biofuels to improve environmental quality, reduce dependence on oil and keep more energy dollars at home.
Another argument the EPA has to aggressively enforce the RVOs is found in science. While there are many knee-jerk reactions to the term biofuels, the science is clear: ethanol from biomass such as corn starch is 44% up to 57% fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory has done an extensive analysis of the upstream and downstream GHG emissions associated with ethanol from a variety of renewable feedstocks.
In addition to the legal, policy and scientific arguments for the use of more biofuels, there is an important local and regional economic factor. The Minnesota biofuel producers I know actually live near their biofuel production plants. Many who work in the plants live nearby and use their income to support themselves and their families. All the consumer, economic, energy independence and environmental benefits are really straightforward - biofuel producers use locally grown renewable ingredients and a biological process just like that used to brew beer. Biofuels mean real energy independence and economic growth because the fuel is homegrown and more energy dollars stay in Minnesota.
Perhaps in Copernicus’ time it was difficult for the establishment to change its views. Over the last 400 years we have learned much more about our place in the world and the universe. And we have learned a great deal more about the science surrounding biofuels and the economic and environmental benefits. We are not asking the EPA to wrestle with an issue as profound as the heliocentric theory. We simply ask that the EPA comply with the RFS and acknowledge the scientific findings about the way biofuels, such as ethanol, can right here, right now, reduce GHG emissions. EPA, for the well-being of current and future generations, let renewable biofuels displace petroleum - comply with and enforce the RFS.
As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
One law which touches the lives of virtually every person in the United States is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS touches those who fuel their vehicles with renewable ethanol and those who have built and continue to sustain the biofuel industry as well as all of us who benefit from the reduced carbon emissions due to the use of renewable biofuels like ethanol. In the next few days we will know whether the EPA plans to uphold the RFS. At the least, the EPA should uphold the RFS because it is the law and for a host of social, economic, energy security and environmental reasons.
In Minnesota alone the biofuel industry supports approximately 18,600 jobs. These jobs are filled by women and men who support their households. In practical terms, biofuels help real Minnesotans pay the bills and, for example, send their young adults on to higher education and generally do those things which accompany a higher quality of life made possible by biofuels such as ethanol.
On an even more macro level, biofuels in Minnesota contributes about $1.74 billion in annual household income. And along with that are the $132 million paid in taxes. In addition to the social and economic benefits provided by the ethanol producers in Minnesota there are the tangible environmental benefits.
Annually, renewable ethanol is displacing 712,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota. For Minnesota, the use of E15 in place of E10 would serve to displace another 358,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The additional GHG emission reduction potential has the same carbon reduction value of removing 76,000 vehicles from the highways in Minnesota.
The RFS is also about consumer value and energy security. Just a few days ago E85 was selling for 62 cents less than regular and E15 has consistently been approximately 10 cents less than regular. And every gallon of renewable biofuel produced in Minnesota is one less gallon of fuel we need to import from the tar sands and overseas.
To uphold the RFS because it is the law should be self evident to the EPA. If the EPA requires additional reasons to justify doing that which is required under the law, consider the full scope of energy security, consumer, economic and environmental benefits the RFS has provided and the many more it has yet to provide under full implementation of the law. All of us are counting on the EPA to do what is right and expect the agency will do so.
As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By Timothy J Rudnicki, Esq
Despite EPA’s proclamation that it considered many public comments regarding the proposal to lower the Renewable Volume Obligation numbers, the Agency somehow missed the most important comment: enforce the law.
Based on the final rule, it seems the EPA also missed a few other critical public policy and environmental factors. In the 202 page final rule, the EPA reminds us “The fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the CAA is clear: to increase the use of renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022 in order to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase energy security.”
And the executive summary to the final rule goes on to state “Renewable fuels represent an opportunity for the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels towards a set of lower GHG transportation fuels, and a chance for a still-developing low GHG technology sector to grow. These lower GHG renewable fuels include corn starch ethanol....”
In short, the EPA affirms that ethanol, whether conventional or advanced, is a lower GHG transportation fuel. The obvious conclusion which should follow from the EPA restatement of the RFS purpose and the unequivocal statutory volumes is straightforward: (A) enforce the volume numbers to send a message of certainty to biofuel producers so they can continue to grow the sector and (B) push the petroleum industry to give consumers more biofuel options so as to reduce GHG emissions now.
The final volume numbers, without doing a RIN analysis, look like 10% of the actual and projected overall growth for gasoline consumption. While some debate whether the EPA actually did push through the mythical blendwall, we should not loose sight of the fact the actual consumption capacity for biofuels (E85 for Flex Fuel Vehicles, E10 and E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles) with the current fuel dispensing infrastructure is well above 27 billion gallons. In other words, the 15 billion gallon number for conventional biofuels is indeed feasible. For details on the consumption capacity issue, see the EPA reference to the Energy Information Administration in the Federal Register at 33128.
The intent of the RFS is indeed to stimulate and drive change, a move toward greater use of renewable biofuels. In a Nation that has been dominated by petroleum and consumers’ limited access to biofuels for many decades, the RFS provides some modicum of certainty for those who are responsible for making biofuel production investment decisions and giving consumers greater access to renewable biofuels.
Unfortunately, the EPA missed the obvious. The Agency failed to comply with and enforce the black letter law and has thereby put off greater systemic change for another day. Given the clear purpose, intent and demonstrated effectiveness of the RFS thus far, the EPA decision also sends the wrong message to conferees at the Paris Climate Convention as well as investors, the environmental community, those diligently working to tamp down GHG emissions and the petroleum industry.
Digging into the numbers a bit further, we find the RFS set unequivocal volumes for renewable biofuels (conventional and advanced) to be used starting in 2006 and extending out to the year 2022. The total renewable fuel level set in law for 2014 is 18.15 billion gallons which includes at least 14.4 billion gallons as conventional biofuel. Since 2014 is history and RINs have been generated, EPA set the number at 13.61 billion gallons.
While 2015 is not yet history, according to the EIA the overall consumption of gasoline is up. The RFS explicitly calls for 20.5 billion gallons of biofuel to be used with at least 15 billion gallons as conventional. Instead, the EPA set the conventional number at 14.05 billion gallons, essentially mirroring 10% of the overall increase in gasoline consumption. If gasoline consumption were to drop below projections, would the EPA enforce the final rule or find some reason to adjust the number down to once again accommodate the petroleum industry?
Finally, for 2016, the RFS states the number of gallons of renewable fuel to be used is 22.25 billion with at least 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel. In place of the statutory provision, the EPA used its version of the biofuel future by setting the number at 14.5 billion gallons.
When one considers the history and legislative intent behind the RFS, the EPA’s final rule flies in the face of the law and sets another dangerous precedent. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act (RFS1) put key stakeholders on notice that renewable biofuels were to have more space in the transportation fuel market. Then, in 2007, RFS2 provided a second explicit notice and clear requirements along with methods by which affected parties could comply with the statute. Biofuel producers responded by committing financial and logistic investments to make the production capacity available. On the other hand, the petroleum industry clung to the habits of the past buying RINs rather than facilitating greater consumer access to E15 and higher blends.
It will take some more time to fully assess the immediate implications of the EPA’s backsliding. Meanwhile, a few preliminary observations can be made at this time. The EPA missed the obvious purpose, intent and statutory provisions in the law. Consequently, the EPA missed the opportunity to send a signal to the petroleum industry: consumers can indeed expect more biofuel options at the fuel dispensers and the industry must comply with the law.
Finally, the EPA missed a rare opportunity to stick to the law, as the RFS was written by Congress years ago, for President Obama to present to the Paris Climate Conference. The RFS should still be held up as one of the most constructive and effective models for what can be done to reduce GHG emissions from the millions of vehicles that are, and will be, part of the rolling stock for many years to come.
Despite the EPA decision, we will continue to stand strong together and find ways to push past the EPA’s failure to fully enforce the RFS. We will find creative ways to deploy the USDA Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership and the Minnesota E15 Dispenser grant programs to help fuel retailers give consumers greater access to more biofuel options. Through these actions we will build increased energy security, continue to boost the economy and further reduce GHG emissions.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
In 2015, additional new actions were taken and successfully implemented to further pave the way for greater availability and access to clean, renewable biofuels such as ethanol. These actions are important because for Minnesotans, it means greater energy independence, a stronger rural economy by using locally-grown renewable ingredients produced and processed in Minnesota, consumer savings at the fuel pump, and further reductions in climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions. Looking ahead at the biofuels industry in Minnesota can be placed in these three categories.
Where and How Biofuels Are Produced
Lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ethanol are up to 57 percent less than gasoline. But on top of that, Minnesota's 21st century biofuel producers have continued to make significant strides in further reducing the amount of energy and water used to make a gallon of ethanol. For example, producers are now using more energy efficient processing equipment and reusing stormwater and municipal wastewater.
In fact, another one of our plants recently announced a major modernization and expansion plan to build on the succeses of the past and maximize the best available technology for today and the future. We can expect to see more our producers undertake more innovative measures to improve efficiency in 2016 to responsibily produce a clean, low carbon fuel for Minnesota drivers.
Greater Availability of Biofuels for Consumers & Fleet Operators
In the past 18 months, we have reached out and directly engaged with 2,500 fuel retailers in the state as well as fuel retail networks in the region, which comprise some 2,700 fueling stations. Based on our findings, most fuel retailers are seeking to diversify their product offerings by replacing typical midgrade fuels with E15 - a fuel that can be used by almost all cars on the road and will be required by the next generation of fuel efficient, high-compression engines.
In 2016, we will see a significant increase in the availability of E15. Independent research has shown that 85 percent of fuel retailers already have fuel storage and dispensing components that are compantible with E15. And thanks to the vision and leadership of Gov. Mark Dayton and the Minnesota Legislature, funds were made availble to assist a few hundred fuel retailers to make minor modifications to dispense E15. This funding has now been augmented by a $8 million grant from the USDA under its Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program. In total, this funding will enable up to 165 stations to offer blends like E15 and E85 to consumers.
Increasing the availability of E15 in the market as the new regular fuel are far reaching. We can replace millions of gallons of carbon-intensive, finite fossil fuel (including dirty tar sands oil). All vehicles 2001 and newer will immediately benefit from the higher octane and produce fewer GHG emissions.
According to Dr Steffen Mueller from the University of Illinois at Chicago, CO2 reduction in Minnesota from making E15 the new regular (on top of the amount of CO2 already eliminated from E10) would be 1.07 million metric tons annually. This, according to the EPA's greenhouse gas equivalenceis calculator, is the same as removing emissions from 225,895 vehicles from Minnesota's roads annually.
Just as consumers are asking for a cleaner fuel, so too are state fleet vehicle managers and other leaders in local government. In cooperation with these fleet managers and the Minnesota Department of Administration, for 2016, we can expect to see E15 usage increase in state fleet vehicles which will meet their GHG reduction goals.
The Future Is Today
In the last few days, I read news that a major vehicle manufacturer has produced a non-flex fuel vehicle that is approved to use up to E25. We plan to further investigate details of this vehicle and its engine and will report our findings back to you soon. But on its fact, this news is very promising as it confirms what we've heard for years : new fuel efficient, high-compression and low emission engines perfom the best with fuels with higher ethanol content.
To sum up, the Minnesota biofuels industry is delivering on many fronts - energy security, economic, consumer and environmental benefits - and is positioned to do more in 2016. This broad scope of benefits will grow and expand to further serve all Minnesotans as more biofuels will displace a greater amount of fossil fuels and reduce even more GHG emissions. For the vast majority of people who continue to rely on vehicles with an internal combustion engine, ethanol will continue to be the biggest factor in reducing harmful emissions.
Thank you for your support in 2015 and we look forward to your continued involvement in 2016.
Happy New Year!
By Timothy J.Rudnicki, Esq
Just as individuals have multiple issues of interest to them, so too do candidates for political office represent multiple issues and interests. For voters who have a keen interest in biofuel issues, such as the future of ethanol, it's important they ask candidates for office where they stand on their support for biofuels. More importantly, voters need to ask pointed questions to get beyond the sound bites and, after the election, voters will need to hold their elected officials accountable for their claims while running for office.
All too often candidates claim they support biofuels by reading a script which contains some magic words such as : the RFS, the blend wall and regulations. For those Minnesotans who support the ethanol industry and the renewable fuel it produces to boost the economy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, save consumers money at the fuel dispenser and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, you can put your probing questions skills to work at candidate forums leading up to the Minnesota caucuses on March 1.
First, you should have a few facts at your fingertips. You should know that the RFS is working in Minnesota. Thanks to the RFS and its counterpart law in Minnesota, the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association has the new and fresh opportunity to engage with thousands of fuel retailers and to work with them to make E15 and higher blends of ethanol available to their customers.
The RFS and its Minnesota counterpart have also helped to boost the economy. In 2014, for example, the ethanol industry contributed more than $2.34 billion to the economy while supporting over 18,000 jobs. Meanwhile, E15 is selling for approximately 10 cents less per gallon compared to regular unleaded. In addition to the economic boost and savings provided for consumers, ethanol is helping to lower GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Equally important is the fact these benefits have room to grow under the RFS. Replacing regular fuel with E15 can reduce the annual carbon emissions in Minnesota by an estimated 1.07 million metric tons (equal to taking 225,895 vehicles off Minnesota highways for a year).
As for the blend wall issue, thanks to the RFS and its Minnesota counterpart, in 2014, Minnesota was using 12.2 percent ethanol in its transportation fuel. The mythical 10 percent blend wall is just that - a myth. Remember, the RFS calls for using "at least the applicable volume of renewable fuel" set forth in the law.
Finally, when it comes to regulations, let's be smart. It's too easy for political candidates to lodge some general complaint about regulations in the hopes of getting our attention. We need to be clear with candidates about which regulations act as artificial barriers to biofuels and focus on repairing them. A vibrant industry is being built upon our system of statutes and rules. We need to be strategic in industry efforts to improve those laws which have helped to make Minnesota and the Nation more energy independent, save consumers money at the fuel dispenser, boost the economy and improve environmental quality.
Second, once we have some facts in hand, we need to use them to have meaningful and constructive discussions with candidates running for office. Generally, does the candidate actually understand the good benefits that have been produced for communities in Minnesota, consumers and the environment based on some of the facts noted above? Test their knowledge about the tangible benefits of the RFS and how it has helped Minnesotans.
After you ask the candidate where they stand on the RFS, take your probing questions to the next level. When a candidate says she or he supports the RFS, dig deeper to get them to tell you what it means to support the RFS. For instance, would the candidate, as the President or a Member of Congress, work to aggressively support the RFS as written? Will Congressional candidates, if elected, fight for the RFS in Committees and on the House floor (note: no US Senators from Minnesota are up for election this year)? Will the presidential candidate veto any bill which attempts to modify the RFS?
You might also test the candidates' knowledge, or educate them, with some follow-up questions. For example, if they support the RFS, what do they see as the future for biofuels beyond 2022? Find out what they know about the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program. Would they expand it or do they have some ideas for making E15 and higher blends available across Minnesota and the Nation? Are they familiar with the E15 Dispenser Law in Minnesota and how funding will be used to help fuel retailers make the minor upgrades necessary so they can offer E15 as the new regular fuel?
The facts and questions offered here are merely the starting point. You probably already have a set of probing questions ready to go when you meet with the candidates. What do you plan to ask the candidates about biofuels? We'd like to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. from you.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Last week, on behalf of Minnesota biofuel producers, I spent a few days in Washington, D.C., meeting with members of Congress. My goal was to “tell the renewable biofuel story” for the purpose of creating or bolstering support for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the ethanol produced in Minnesota. But I also made it my goal to listen to what policymakers, legislative aids and others had to say about those issues that matter to biofuel producers. My take away from many hours of meetings is a mix of support and new challenges.
Many policymakers understand the economic, energy independence, consumer and environmental benefits associated with renewable biofuel. And that’s why they support the RFS, the United States Department of Agriculture initiated the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership program and some discussions are underway to explore how to address the Reid Vapor Pressure issue.
The message we brought to Washington was built upon the facts reflected in the number of producers in Minnesota, the growing number of fuel retailers who offer E15 and higher blends of ethanol, businesses associated with the biofuel industry and the metrics from a new ABF Study on the contribution of the ethanol industry in Minnesota (this study will be released soon).
Among supporters of the RFS and biofuels generally, our message was well received. We “refreshed” the numbers and gave a human face to otherwise two-dimensional reports. We must continue to bolster those who support the RFS and all it represents for today and the future of biofuels.
But we can’t ignore the challenges that remain. While I was in Washington, some policymakers ramped up their attacks on the RFS. Some have suggested the RFS be eviscerated because it simply is not needed or is a subsidy or that we will never get to producing cellulosic biofuels or because carbon emissions don’t matter. The list goes on.
One of the more bizarre statements I heard from a group of independent petroleum producers speaks volumes about the delusional state in which some function in our nation's capital. The science is very clear on the fact that petroleum is a finite carbon source, which emits carbon and other pollutants. It is not renewable on a human timeline as are biofuels. In the face of these facts and common sense, these petroleum representatives made a rather startling remark : anyone who puts fuel in their vehicle or uses a petroleum-based product is responsible for carbon emissions and other pollution. Not surprisingly, they left out the part that consumers don't have much a choice in the matter and that consumers would be able to reduce their carbon footprint if there were more renewable options and alternatives to carbon-intensive finite fossil fuels.
I was still in my listening mode and here is what they offered next: "We, the petroleum industry, have let others define us, and we need to change that."
This time, they conveniently omited scientific fact: no matter how much you try to redefine yourselves - carbon intensive finite fossil fuels, when burned, will always emit carbon and other pollutants. And fossil fuels, as their name implies, will not be regenerating anytime soon.
None of this would matter if this were some silly word game with PR spin doctors nor if some form of reason were prevalent in Washington. But here we have peddlers of propaganda twisting reality to sustain the fossil fuel status quo. More importantly, some policymakers either have, or are considering, adopting positions which could prop up petroleum while throwing a damaging blow to biofuels.
We will continue to call out the outright fictions where we need to do so to ensure policymakers build upon the success of the RFS. And the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association will continue to build upon the facts and science and make the case to bolster our allies and win over new supporters. We will continue to do that by using a three dimensional approach which highlight biofuels, such as ethanol, and their concomitant economic, consumer, energy independence and environmental benefits. Further, we will continue to remind policymakers that it is the RFS which provides those immediate benefits while holding promise for an even more sustainable and renewable future with biofuels.
Later this week, we will be releasing a report on the ethanol industry's economic contribution in Minnesota in 2015. You can also check out national economic reports and other studies here. As always, you can forward your questions to me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Lately, some environmental groups have stepped up their attacks on biofuels. Some attacks are blatant while others are a bit more subtle like ignoring the legal definition of renewable biofuels and instead creating some fictional definition to serve the purpose of a photo opportunity. Some environmental groups seem more intent on subterfuge rather than building upon biofuels' success in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Here is some context for why I think it's important for all of us to be working together and using the tools we already have to reduce GHG emissions. According to NASA, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.."
The NASA climate change website contains many measurements showing a rise in sea levels, decreases in land ice, decreases in the arctic's sea ice in the summer and an increase in global temperature. Based on some extensive measurements, CO2 levels are now at their highest level in 650,000 years. Even a non-scientist can draw some informed conclusions from NASA's data.
As such, if we collectively want to cut GHG emissions, we need to face reality and have an honest conversation about the pragmatic issues that confront us.
Consider, for example, that approximately a third of annual GHG emissions emanate from the transportation sector which still relies heavily on carbon-intensive petroleum. Last year, some 17.5 million new vehicles were sold in the United States and well over 99.5 percent of those vehicles are equipped with internal combustion engines.
Given the service life of those vehicles, they will probably be on the road for at least another 12 to 15 years. Closer to home, 4.6 million vehicles are registered in Minnesota and all but about 3,500 use gasoline.
While walking, biking or using mass transit may be an option for some, the vast majority still need to drive their gasoline-powered vehicles to get to their destinations. So how do we help those millions of people reduce their GHG emissions?
One simple option is to displace more gasoline with renewable biofuels, which have lower lifecycle GHG emissions, because nearly 90 percent of the vehicles on the road can use E15.
E15 has higher octane than regular unleaded, generally costs 10 cents less per gallon and, on average, each gallon of ethanol has 44 percent fewer lifecycle GHG emissions.
Additionally, according to the University of Illinois at Chicago, switching to E15 in Minnesota would cut GHG emissions by an additional 358,000 metric tons annually (based on data analysis conducted in 2015). Those emission reductions are the equivalent of removing 75,368 passenger vehicles off the road for a year.
Some environmental groups might accept the science surrounding biofuels and GHG lifecycle analysis, but we know they still take issue with how biofuels are produced without having even studied or toured a modern ethanol plant. They miss, for example, the fact that Minnesota ethanol producers recycle their water (no discharge), recapture Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from air emissions and use stormwater runnoff or treated municipal sewage for some of their process water. Today's 21st century ethanol plant operates even more efficiently compared to those operating just a few years ago. Read here for more details.
Another issue some environmental groups challenge is the renewable ingredients used by ethanol plants. While MBA does not represent farmers, we did our homework. I have personally met with and interviewed some farmers who produce renewable ingredients for ethanol plants. I learned, for example, these farmers care about making a living today and the future wellbeing of generations of new farmers and all of us who depend upon the farmer and the land for food, feed, fiber and fuel. These farmers use, for instance, GPS and other modern equipment to minimize inputs and control runoff and they were doing so before Minnesota passed the buffer strip law.
Finally, I want to emphasize that some Minnesota environmental groups are engaging with us to have constructive conversations about GHG emissions and the role of biofuels in reducing those emissions. Let's keep those conversations going. For all those other groups who purport to have an interest in reducing GHG emissions now rather than in the distant future, I invite you to engage with us as others have done so we can explore the scope of issues and how we can address them.
Energy security, consumer, economic and environmental benefits are already being derived from ethanol produced in Minnesota. Ethanol can play an even bigger role in reducing GHG emissions in Minnesota's transportation sector right here, right now. The challenge is for all of us to find a way to work together so we can maximize every GHG reducing solution.
By Timothy J. Rudnicki, Esq
Whether Governor Mark Dayton will call a special legislative session, at the time this column is written, remains open to speculation. But, we do know that 1,652 bills were introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives and 1,414 bills were introduced in the Minnesota Senate in the recently concluded legislative session. And it may surprise some but some of those bills if passed would have either directly or indirectly lowered or raised market barriers to ethanol and renewable chemicals.
We were, once again, active on two fronts as we (1) worked to advance legislation aimed at strengthening the biofuel and renewable chemical industry in Minnesota and (2) played offense by tracking, monitoring and “fixing” or opposing bills which could be detrimental to the biofuel industry in Minnesota.
To determine a bill’s relevance, MBA uses a two-prong approach. First, we look for bills that explicitly reference ethanol and biofuels generally. Then we assess whether the bills are helpful, act as a barrier or are neutral and take metered action.
The second prong consists of a deeper dive into the bill's language. For example, we assess various bill provisions and whether they could impact, either in a positive, negative or neutral manner, legal definitions, renewable ingredients and other production inputs, business-related issues and rail transportation issues, to name a few. Our assessment informed the engagement process. Based on our assessment, at least 24 bills introduced during the 2016 Legislative Session had some touch point with biofuels and biochemcials or their production and distribution in Minnesota and other markets.
Let’s briefly examine two of those 24 bills and what happened behind the scenes.
Changing a state or federal definition of biofuels has profound implications for biofuel and biochemical producers, the supply chain and consumers. In other words, the implications, especially when the definition is embedded in many other statutes, stretch far and wide. One such bill involved the definition of biobutanol.
The purpose of the bill provision at issue, according to its proponents and the Senate sponsor, was to secure producer payments for renewable biochemicals. In its first iteration, the bill changed the legal definition to make the end product fit the producer payment criteria. Given the implications of such a change, following discussions and a review of the existing law, stakeholders found an agreeable, transparent solution: rather than changing the legal definition, simply make biobutanol eligible for the payments.
That change is embodied in a much larger set of appropriation provisions found in Chapter 189 which was presented to Gov. Dayton on May 24. As of this writing, the Governor has not signed nor vetoed the bill.
Another example of our two-prong approach involves catching an energy security bill spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The bill, in its initial form, essentially called for an inventory of Minnesota’s energy sources. It noted the role of petroleum and biofuels but in the fuels inventory provisions, the bill included petroleum gasoline but excluded biofuels. Given this bill’s history, although it did not pass out of the 2016 legislature, we can expect to see it in 2017. We can work with the department to improve the bill by, for example, explicitly including E15 and E85 in the inventory and perhaps defining the greater role E85 and E15 can play in further diversifying Minnesota’s transportation fuel.
This behind the scene look at the Minnesota Legislature provides just a few examples of how the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association continually strives to help strengthen the biofuel industry in Minnesota and give consumers more choice at the fuel dispenser.
As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.