In the News
Dec 12, 2014
By Joanna Schroder
The Minnesota ethanol industry is evolving even in the face of growth challenges including continued uncertainty around the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Since 2007 the industry has improved by leaps and bounds in terms of technological advancements, energy efficiency and sustainability.
“Minnesota ethanol producers are continually evolving with respect to the use of technology and processes to decrease the inputs of energy and water while increasing their output of ethanol and co-products such as DDGs and corn oil,” explains Tim Rudnicki, executive director of the Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association.
According to a 2011 report from the Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol producers have cut water use in half within a 10-year period. In fact, Rudnicki notes that some producers are using less than two gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. When comparing water use with the production of oil, depending on where the oil is extracted, oil production can require more than seven times that much water to produce one gallon of gas. Other ways ethanol producers are infusing sustainability within water use is by using storm water and treated municipal wastewater.
Specifically, the Al-Corn Clean Fuel ethanol plant has completely eliminated any process water discharge. Randall Doyal CEO of the Claremont, Minnesota-based plant says, “This cut our water consumption down to just over two gallons per gallon of ethanol. The water that is used is for cooling and is evaporated, so it returns to the atmosphere to recycle back as rain. We continually recover water in the process to reuse again and again.”
In other terms of sustainability, biofuels also offer a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). When using Argonne’s Wells to Wheels methodology, total lifecycle GHG reductions for corn-based ethanol equates to a 57 percent reduction in GHS emissions when compared to petroleum.
“Biofuel producers are decreasing their inputs, increasing the outputs and providing consumers with a lower carbon renewable fuel that helps to reduce GHG emissions,” says Rudnicki.
Energy efficiency is also an area that has seen great improvements over the past few years. Doyal highlights the ingenuity of the ethanol industry when developing solutions to improve aspects of production.
“The ethanol industry has always been made up of people who constantly challenge the norm and try to find better ways to do things,” Doyal explains. This is very evident in how much we have seen energy consumption drop over the years. Our plant in Claremont was constructed in 1996 and over our history we have reduced both our natural gas and electricity consumption by over a third. Our results are fairly consistent with the industry as a whole. We have added thermal oxidation to reduce emissions from our feed drying process, and have integrated that into our operations to gain greater efficiency.”
Doyal says his plant, like many others have added distillers’ corn oil recovery, adding a new and valuable product line to their list of co-products. His team continually reviews new technologies to determine if they can further enhance efficiencies or add a new co-product.
His plant makes use of the advances in enzyme technologies and his team is always trying to push their yield of ethanol per bushel. “All of these adaptations provide our industry with greater sustainability,” stresses Doyal. “Couple this with the vast improvements in corn farming technologies and you can see how great the gains actually are. Farmers in our area are accustomed to achieving 200 bushels per acre or more, with lower inputs and chemicals while using more sustainable farming techniques. The impact of farm equipment technology in reducing fuel consumption while also reducing seed, chemical and fertilizer inputs pushes the efficiency even higher.”
On Monday we’ll hear from Doyal and Rudnicki on the what the next five years might bring for renewable fuels in Minnesota.
Read the original story here : The Evolution Of Minnesota's Ethanol Industry
The United Nations climate change conference in Lima, Peru (COP 2014) should adopt policies to increase the use of biofuels like ethanol to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, said the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA).
It said in a statement Dec 9 that biofuels are one of the most commerically viable solutions to reducing GHG emissions in the transport sector.
GRFA said 25 percent to 30 percent of all global GHG emissions come from the transportation sector. As such, it said the ongoing COP 2014 conference in Lima should adopt policies that include the increased use of biofuels.
GRFA is an international federation that represents 60 percent of the world's renewable fuels production from 30 different countries.
"Nearly a third of global GHGs comes from the transportation sector, those GHGs need to be a priority if we are going to make a significant contribution to combating climate change. Biofuels must be an integral part of that fight," said Bliss Baker, spokesperson for GRFA.
The GRFA said biofuels like ethanol have been proven to reduce GHG emissions from 40 percent to 90 percent in comparison to fossil fuels.
GRFA said it had forecast global ethanol production in 2014 to reach 90.38 billion liters (23.87 billion gallons) and its use would reduce global GHG emissions by over 106 million metric tons. This in turn, it said, was the equivalent of removing over 21 million cars from the road annually.
"106 million (metric tons) is a substantial GHG savings, it's the same as removing the annual emissions from 14 average-size coal-fired power plants. However, as the IEA (International Energy Agency) has prescribed recently, more biofuels are needed to further reduce the emissions from the global transport sector," said Baker.
GRFA said the IEA's "Technology Roadmap : Biofuels for Transport" report states "by 2050, biofuels could provide 27 percent of total transport fuel" and the use of biofuels would provide one fifth of emission reductions in the transport sector.
"It's clear that today, biofuels like ethanol, are helping combat climate change but to reach their full potential requires enhanced biofuels-friendly policies. The outcome of COP 2014 must be the adoption of policies that increase biofuels use and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels," Baker added.
Dec 8, 2014
By Erin Voegele
On Dec. 8, the Chicago City Council Committee on Finance passed an ordinance that would require filling stations within the city to supply E15. The measure now moves to the full city council for a hearing on Dec. 10.
“I’m very pleased this ordinance has such strong support within the Council and across Chicago,” said cosponsor Alderman Anthony Beale in a statement. “I look forward to the full council vote, and to giving Chicagoans a cleaner, less expensive option.”
Supporters of the bill delivered a petition with 7,673 signatures to the Dec. 8 meeting. If passed by the full city council, the ordinance would build on Chicago’s history of passing environmentally friendly proposals.
“Chicago has time and again led the country in taking action to clean the air. The City banned leaded gasoline in 1984, and we banned a variety of toxic gasoline additives in 2000,” said Beale. “This ordinance continues that tradition of environmental leadership and stewardship.”
Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis has commended the finance committee for its action, calling the vote a win for consumers and the environment.
“Once again, Chicago displayed its leadership qualities and took an important step in helping clean up the air in Chicago by breaking up the near monopoly that oil companies have on the liquid fuels market. By advancing this ordinance, the Finance Committee has demonstrated that they are serious when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and toxic carcinogens in the air,” Buis said. “Furthermore, they have displayed their resolve to ensure that Chicago motorists and other consumers have market access to a sustainable, cleaner burning, less expensive homegrown fuel that supports 73,156 Illinois jobs and generates $4.7 billion for the state’s economy. By moving to E15, Chicago can help create an additional 12,000 Illinois jobs that can’t be outsourced.”
Ron Lamberty, senior vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol also spoke out to applaud the finance committee vote. “The city of Chicago has always been a leader when it comes to fuel. It was the first city in the United States to ban lead in gasoline, the first to choose ethanol over MTBE in reformulated gas, and this ordinance would make Chicago the first major city to guarantee drivers the choice of a lower cost, higher octane, clean E15 fuel. It’s important to note that regular gas will still be available, drivers will simply gain the additional choice of E15,” he said. “We appreciate that the ordinance also includes reasonable exemptions for station owners. Only stations that are already equipped to handle E15 will be required to offer E15, meaning no added expense for the station and no added markup at the pump.”
Prior to the vote, Lamberty send a letter to members of the finance committee expressing his support for the ordinance. A full copy of that letter can be downloaded from the ACE website.
For additional information on the Chicago Clean with E15 Ordinance, see “Chicagoan Sets Her Sights on Clean Air,” in the December issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine.
Read the original story here : Chicago Finance Committee Passes E15 Ordinance
Dec 3, 2014
By Susanne Retka Schill
Novozymes has launched a new enzyme, trademarked Eversa, for the conversion of lower-grade oils, such as waste cooking oil or corn oil, into biodiesel meeting the same trade specifications as biodiesel created through traditional chemical processing.
“The flexibility of the enzymatic biodiesel process creates new opportunities for ethanol producers to optimize revenues from extracted corn oil by making biodiesel on site while also accepting waste greases from their local community,” said Frederik Mejby, Novozymes marketing director, grain processing. “The process can be easily bolted onto the back end of their existing facility with minimal additional CAPEX.”
Traditional chemical processing of biodiesel has been most suited for oils from soybeans, palm or rapeseed that typically contain less than 0.5 percent free fatty acids (FFA). Many existing biodiesel process designs have difficulty handling oils with higher FFA levels, even though those feedstocks are generally far more economical. “A small number of plants have been producing biodiesel from waste oils using existing technologies,” Mejby explained. “But this has not been cost-efficient until now, broadly speaking, as the waste oils have had to be refined before being processed using chemicals. We hope that our technology can unleash more of the potential in these lower-grade feedstocks.”
“The idea of enzymatic biodiesel is not new, but the costs involved have been too high for commercial viability,” Mejlby added. “Eversa changes this and enables biodiesel producers to finally work with waste oils and enjoy feedstock flexibility to avoid the pinch of volatile pricing.” Eversa works with a broad range of fatty materials as feedstock, but the initial focus has been on used cooking oil, DDGS corn oil and fatty acid distillates.
Other advantages for the enzymatic process include a lower energy requirement and the elimination of the chemical catalyst, sodium methoxide, one of the most hazardous chemicals in traditional biodiesel plants. “Switching to Eversa can lead to a safer working environment for plant operators. The enzymatic process does not use high pressure or high temperature,” Mejlby said. “And when it comes to the actual enzymes, their organic nature and mild process conditions do not generate toxic components as in some chemical biodiesel processes.”
For existing biodiesel producers, making the change from a chemical catalyst to the enzymatic process will require retrofitting. Novozymes’ engineering partners estimate that the resulting improved process economy indicates a payback time of three years or less, depending on the plant setup and feedstock savings potential in that region.
Marc Kellens, group technical director at biodiesel technology provider Desmet Ballestra said the enzymatic processing will likely prove popular with biodiesel producers. “The enzymatic process is simple and does not need much pretreatment. It is the best alternative for modifying existing plants to enable them to incorporate difficult-to-convert oils.”
Read the original story here : Novozymes Launches Enzyme For Biodiesel From Corn, Waste Oils
Dec 2, 2014
By Susanne Retka Schill
A new approach to driving down the carbon intensity of corn ethanol has received approval from the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. Three pathways from Trestle Energy LLC were given approved carbon intensities of 29.10, 29.68 and 35.66 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2e/MJ). That compares with an average rating of 55 CO2e/MJ for the 15 Midwestern ethanol producers who have received carbon intensity ratings under British Columbia’s Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation. And, it favorably compares with the 33.31 CO2e/MJ carbon intensity rating given to Peruvian sugarcane-ethanol producer, Maple Biocombustibles.
“We think of ourselves as a bolt on option for virtually any ethanol plant in North America,” Trestle Energy president Jamie Rhodes told Ethanol Producer Magazine. “The approval from British Columbia is great because it validates the proposal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the agriculture sector that’s supplying feedstock.”
Rhodes explained that Trestle Energy has worked on the approach for several years, and demonstrated it in a partnership with a Midwestern ethanol plant. “We worked upstream in their supply chain and demonstrated our ability to drive down emissions and the interest in the agricultural sector to participate in that. It was very successful across the board,” he said.
The British Columbia approval clears the way for Trestle to begin selling its low-emissions biofuel in the province, and the company will now begin partnering with existing ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota and across the Midwest to ramp up production of its low-carbon biofuels.
Rhodes, who is based in California, declined to give details on the approach at this time, but did give a high-level overview. “We looked at lifecycle analysis for biofuels and it seemed liked there was a lot of leverage to be had in the agricultural sector. That’s where we focused our efforts in the last few years. How do we demonstrably drive down emissions there to affect the lifecycle? We developed a number of strategies that can be used in the agricultural sector and those emissions benefits flow down through the ethanol plants and to the ethanol product.”
The company has a pathway petition pending with the U.S. EPA and has applied with the California Air Resources Board for a carbon intensity rating under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Rhodes added that how Trestle Energy proceeds with commercialization may be affected by those regulatory decisions.
Read the original story here : Trestle Energy Gets Low Carbon Intensity Rating For Ethanol In BC
Nov 25, 2014
By Renewable Fuels America
The Feed Food Fairness Campaign, backed by members of the livestock and fast food industries, recently ran a one-sided advertisement in the popular Beltway publication “Politico” inaccurately blaming the renewable fuel standard (RFS) for rising food prices. Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, fired back with the following statement:
“Never before in the history of misleading advertising has so much bull been slung in defense of chickens, hamburgers, and even potatoes. The ad is replete with misinformation. One would have to be awfully creative, for example, to draw any connection between biofuels and potatoes!
“Apparently, the Feed Food Fairness campaign is not big on facts or transparency. Their ad conveniently leaves out the key fact that their numbers come from a 2012 study on commodity costs during the worst drought in 50 years.
“Simply put, the information is outdated and misleading. We are now well into 2014 and that drought has long since subsided. Farmers are harvesting the largest corn crop in history. Corn prices have plummeted with this record crop and yet as a recent RFA study demonstrates, food prices continue to rise. They should take an ad out to explain that!
“Numerous independent analyses have concluded the RFS does not drive food prices—energy does. As noted by the World Bank, ‘most of the food price increases are accounted for by crude oil prices.’
“The market has drastically changed since the drought in 2012 and yet the livestock and fast food industries’ talking points have remained the same. The Feed Food Fairness campaign advertisement does a disservice to consumers everywhere.”
Read the original story here : RFA : Feed Food Fairness Campaign Not Big On Transparency
Nov 24, 2014
By Nicholas Bergin
The biofuels industry is gearing up for a fight, a national industry spokesman said Monday.
Doug Durante, executive director of Bethesda, Maryland-based Clean Fuels Development Coalition, predicted lawsuits over the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of quotas for renewable fuels and a hostile post-election U.S. Congress.
“The outgoing chair, Barbara Boxer, says global warming is the biggest threat facing mankind," Durante said of the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "The incoming chairman (James Inhofe, R-Okla.) says it is the greatest hoax that was perpetrated on mankind.”
Speaking at a Nebraska Ethanol Board meeting, Durante said several members of Congress are looking for a fight, including bills that would dismantle the United State’s renewable fuel standards.
“Our best bet is to pray for what Congress does best, which is nothing,” he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s struggle to set rules for mandating how much ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels get mixed into the nation's fuel supply only stoked the flames of discontent, he said.
Oil company lobbyists, who generally oppose the law that mandates replacing petroleum products with biofuels, are pressing Congress to dump the standards entirely, saying the EPA has bungled management of the program.
Already almost a year late in issuing rules, the EPA announced last week it would not finalize the 2014 mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard this year. Instead it will set the final volume standards in 2015, and hopes at that time to get back on schedule to propose blending volumes for 2015 and 2016. Federal law requires the agency to finish up the requirements by Nov. 30 for the following year.
Nebraska is the No. 2 ethanol producing state in the nation, with 24 plants churning out 2 billion gallons a year. Nebraska Ethanol Board Administrator Todd Sneller has repeatedly called for the EPA to uphold strong renewable fuel volume requirements.
He said the proposed reductions in biofuel use impedes expansion of domestically produced renewable fuels that mitigate the harmful effects of petroleum on public health, the environment and the economy.
"Consumers deserve a wider variety of transportation fuel choices, including E15 and E85," Sneller said in a recent news release. "The RFS was intended to ensure choices are available to consumers. Oil companies have an obligation to meet these fuel standards.”
Nearly a year ago, the EPA proposed lowering the amount of advanced biofuels and renewable fuels, like corn ethanol and biodiesel, required to be mixed into the nation’s fuel supply for 2014 from just more than 18 billion gallons to about 15 billion gallons.
Durante said the biofuels industry needs to fight back against efforts to reduce mandates with lawsuits, if necessary.
Read the original story here : Ethanol Proponents Anticipating A Fight
Nov 21, 2014
By Dave Shaffer
U.S. ethanol makers won a temporary victory Friday in the long battle between the biofuel and oil industries over how much renewable fuel should be blended into the nation’s fuel supply.
The Environmental Protection Agency said it would further delay and reconsider its proposal to scale back mandated levels of renewable motor fuels for 2014. The agency, which must set ethanol blend levels annually, said it would issue 2014 targets next year as it sets 2015 numbers.
Ethanol companies working to produce cellulosic biofuel from corn cobs, stalks other nonfood plants have been particularly critical of EPA’s proposal to lower the blending mandate. They say it would stifle investment.
In a nod to that concern, Janet McCabe, an acting EPA assistant commissioner, said in the announcement Friday that the agency “has been evaluating these issues in light of the purpose of the statute and the administration’s commitment … to increase the use of renewable fuels, particularly cellulosic biofuels.”
“We are pleased the administration did not finalize the flawed proposed rule,” said Jeff Lautt, CEO of ethanol producer Poet Inc., which operates corn-ethanol plants in Minnesota and other states and recently opened a cellulosic ethanol plant in Iowa.
But Lautt said in a statement that it’s unclear what the EPA’s final policy will be.
The delay leaves fuel suppliers uncertain whether they complied with the law in 2014. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President Charles Drevna said further delay is “a gross dereliction of responsibility that leaves fuel refiners and the biofuels industry alike to navigate a course of ambiguity.”
Unlike state ethanol-blending laws, like Minnesota’s 10 percent-at-the-pump requirement, the 2007 federal law sets annual national targets in gallons affecting every fuel blender, which typically are refiners and fuel marketers. The EPA was supposed to set 2014’s blend level last November. Instead, it proposed a lower target that the two industries have fought over for a year.
Ashwin Raman of the Minnesota Biofuels Association said a likely practical outcome is that 2014’s target will be declared satisfied at the level of biofuel sold this year. The EPA declined to answer questions about the matter.
The big question, Raman said, is what target gets set for 2015. The law envisioned blending 15 billion gallons of traditional ethanol next year. That would exceed the projected 13.9 billion gallons produced this year, based on data through September, he added.
The ambitious growth targets for biofuels were based partly on projections that overall fuel demand would increase faster than is happening. The law also envisioned expanded sales of higher-ethanol blends like E-15 and E-85, but that happens only if retailers invest in pumps to dispense the fuel.
“The law is there as a guide and push for us to achieve this,” said Raman, the association’s director of communication and education.
The American Petroleum Institute, another oil industry trade group, called for repeal of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. “The only real solution is for Congress to scrap the program and let consumers, not the federal government, choose the best fuel to put in their tanks,” CEO Jack Gerard said in a statement.
Read the original story here : EPA Delays Decision On Biofuel Blending Mandate
More...
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
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
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.dpufWASHINGTON — 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.dpufWASHINGTON — 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.dpufNational 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
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
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
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?
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