×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 727

Media

t rudnicki

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..

t rudnicki

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.

t rudnicki

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.

 


t rudnicki

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.


t rudnicki

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.

t rudnicki

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.

t rudnicki

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.

Tim

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.