In the News
July 15, 2014
By David Cullen
A new engine/powertrain combination developed by Cummins Inc. that’s fueled by E85 (an ethanol/gasoline blend) cuts carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50% to 80% vs. a baseline gasoline-powered medium-duty truck, according to the manufacturer.
Dubbed the ETHOS engine by Cummins, the 2.8L powerplant was designed specifically to run on E-85, which the engine maker describes as a “clean-burning blend” of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
Cummins said that “to take full advantage of the favorable combustion attributes and potential of E85, the engine operates at diesel-like cylinder pressures and incorporates advanced spark-ignition technology” to “deliver the power (up to 250 hp) and peak torque (up to 450 lb-ft) of gasoline and diesel engines nearly twice its 2.8L-displacement.”
The engine maker said that the over 1,000 miles and 1,500 hours accumulated on the ETHOS 2.8L over the past 2.5 years shows that “this technology is capable of far exceeding the 50% CO2 emissions reductions outlined in the project's goals.”
A final on-road validation testing phase has been underway in the Sacramento, CA, area since June and will continue into this month.
"The Cummins ETHOS engine, developed through a research partnership with the California Energy Commission (CEC), clearly demonstrates that by combining innovative engine design and combustion approaches with low-carbon alternative fuels, we can determine a path to significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," said Wayne Eckerle, vice president-- Research & Technology for Cummins. He noted that the engine maker is very appreciative of the CEC's funding participation in this important effort."
The ETHOS incorporates an integrated stop-start system to further reduce fuel consumption and emissions. In stop-start mode, the engine shuts down after the vehicle comes to a complete stop and the brake pedal remains depressed, Cummins explained. As the driver's foot is lifted from the brake, the system automatically starts the engine “to seamlessly allow acceleration from the stop.”
In addition, Cummins-integrated specific system controls, along with a robust starter, smart alternator and sensors, combine to handle the additional stop-start duty cycle and maintain reliable operation over the life of the engine, the company stated.
Cummins said it also worked closely with Allison Transmission to integrate that company’s 2000 Series transmission into the powertrain to ensure “smooth and efficient stop-start operation,” noting that the transmission is equipped with hydraulic circulation features “to ensure smooth operation and quick vehicle launch during stop-start driving.”
Additional partners in the project included Valvoline, which provided NextGen engine oils specifically designed for lower CO2 emissions, and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (FCCC), which provided a prototype MT45 Class 5 step-van vehicle.
Read the original story here : Cummins : E85-fueled Engine Cuts Medium-Duty CO2 Emissions by 50% to 80%
July 17, 2014
By Tom Buis
The greatest challenge the ethanol industry faces is making higher blends of our product available to consumers nationwide. Producing ethanol is not the problem, it’s getting the fuel into the marketplace.
The production efficiencies of ethanol continue to improve: less energy, less water, less greenhouse gas emissions and higher yields, which makes our industry the envy of the world. Meanwhile, all the new oil gains from fracking and tar sands are taking the nation in the wrong direction, higher costs, increased use of resources and greater risks to our environment and air.
Incredibly, despite overwhelming evidence about oil’s dangerous practices and impacts, the renewable fuels industry is blamed by Big Oil and special interests for damaging the environment. It is as if Big Oil is living in an alternate reality. The facts speak for themselves, tens of thousands of spills a year, earthquakes from fracking and who could forget the BP spill in Gulf of Mexico or the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska? The list goes on and on.
Our industry is often unfairly criticized for receiving federal tax subsidies when, in fact, we volunteered to give up the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit in 2011. However, oil tax subsidies began over 100 years ago and continue today. And, if that’s not enough, our industry is blamed for higher food prices. In reality, the World Bank found that the biggest driver of food price increases is the cost of oil. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse! In all my years in Washington, that is the biggest whopper I have ever heard.
Time and again, Big Oil damages our environment and actively propagates misinformation to keep the American consumer addicted to their product, and fearful of a cleaner, greener homegrown alternative to fossil fuels.
The real reason for all this misinformation is simple. It is a fight over market share. The ethanol industry already has captured 10 percent of the market because of all the benefits it offers to consumers and the oil industry knows we have the capability to secure even more. All of the misleading rhetoric and all of the fights over the renewable fuel standard (RFS) in Congress, along with all of the efforts to get U.S. EPA to roll back the RFS is for one reason: market share. They are spending millions, not for what’s best for America, or our environment, air, health or energy security, but to simply protect their monopoly on transportation fuels.
The key to success is simple, breaking down the barriers to give consumers a choice at the pump. We know ethanol is a better performing fuel, cleaner, less expensive, higher octane and renewable. And, we have seen consumers actively choose higher blends of ethanol when given the choice. That is why we need to continue to fight to expand infrastructure and availability of higher blends. The demand is there and now we must overcome the legal, regulatory and public relations hurdles Big Oil has put in place in attempts to block market access for our product.
Luckily, we have the facts on our side. In reality, the investment is not the burden, as consumer demand and competitive advantage will mitigate any short term spending with future growth in profit margins. Higher performance and lower fuel costs will keep customers coming back. The only hindrances are the misinformation Big Oil is spreading to mislead consumers about E15.
Independent retail chains are beginning to realize that E15 offers them a price advantage and better margin opportunity. Chains such as Mapco, Minnoco and Murphy USA and others have all committed to expanding E15 offerings. In fact, retailers who currently have E15 available to consumers have reported the sale of the blend accounts for nearly 30 percent of all sales while providing better profit margins for the retailer.
For anyone who is paying attention, E15 is the clear choice. Consumers can rest easy knowing that by using homegrown renewable fuels they are investing in American jobs and the American economy. By continuing to fight for our share of the market, spreading the word to our neighbors and increasing availability of higher blends throughout the country, we will win this fight. It is obvious higher blends of ethanol are what is best for America’s energy future.
Read the original story : Higher Blends Best For America's Energy Future
July 16, 2014
By Sens. Chuck Grassley and Amy Klobuchar
It’s vacation season across America. That means family road trips are underway and the traveling public is paying even closer attention when they pull up to the pump.
America’s road warriors have long cherished affordable gas prices. Today’s drivers also value clean-burning fuel choices that help the environment and boost America’s energy independence.
Look back four decades through the rearview mirror.
History shows how the 1973 oil embargo exposed the economic risks and geopolitical vulnerabilities associated with perilous dependence on foreign oil. While gas shortages roiled consumers, the embargo gripped the U.S. economy and foreign policy with steep consequences.
Since then, policymakers have worked to bring greater stability to U.S. energy security, through the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and more domestic production, conservation (fuel economy standards) and diversification, including incentives for homegrown, clean-burning, renewable biofuels.
Most recently, Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), in 2005, to promote the development and use of domestic renewable biofuels. We also supported the law’s expansion in 2007 to bring 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels online annually by 2022.
The federal law has helped to displace oil imports, increase domestic energy security, create jobs in rural America, curb pollution with cleaner-burning fuel and lower prices at the pump for consumers. Pure and simple, the RFS is good for America’s energy, as well as its environmental and economic stability.
In recent years, Congress also has enacted provisions to promote the installation of blender pumps at gas stations nationwide, providing consumers with a greater choice of fuels.
Still, the nation’s energy policy is running into some bumps in the road. For starters, the Environmental Protection Agency last fall pitched a misguided proposal to greatly reduce the RFS for fiscal 2014. The proposed rule would lower the volume targets for advanced biofuels from 3.25 billion gallons to 2.2 billion gallons. This proposal is causing uncertainty that could scare off future investments in this promising, innovative industry.
Biofuels also are facing stiff resistance from Big Oil. This time, it’s not OPEC putting a stranglehold on the marketplace. It is instead the powerful oil industry that, reports show, is blocking the pipeline for biofuels to get to market.
Last fall, we asked the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate possible anticompetitive practices by the oil industry. We shared concerns we heard that oil companies allegedly are mandating retailers carry and sell premium gasoline, which prevents the retailer from selling renewable fuels without installing expensive infrastructure upgrades. By forcing a franchisee to carry premium gasoline as a condition of carrying regular gas, the oil company may be using its economic power to leverage unreasonable, discriminatory arrangements that are in violation of federal laws. The Department of Justice and the FTC responded with assurances that they are taking steps to identify, prevent and prosecute practices in the petroleum markets that violate anticompetitive or fraudulent business practices.
It’s a long-standing tactic for these big international oil companies. On the one hand, Big Oil argues that the RFS is broken because the industry says it can’t mix the higher blends. On the other hand, those same companies appear to be doing everything they can to prevent any widespread investment in infrastructure by their franchisees and smaller stations that are buying and selling their gasoline.
Big oil companies can cry crocodile tears, but it’s their self-inflicted actions that are standing in the way of meeting the requirements of the RFS, not ethanol producers. Big Oil can’t argue it should be repealed because it doesn’t work when Big Oil is the one responsible for ensuring that consumers don’t have the choice for higher ethanol blends.
That’s why we kindly suggest the decision-makers at the Justice department and the FTC take a close look at a recent investigative study conducted by the Renewable Fuels Association. Its fact-finding analysis shows how oil companies appear to be blocking the sale of greater volumes of renewable fuels through bullying business tactics. Big Oil likes to say it has no control over what’s offered at the pumps of retail gas stations and franchisees — but the facts say otherwise.
The report’s “Consumer Choice Report Card” shows less than 1 percent of branded stations offer E15 or E85. Specifically, of nearly 48,000 retail gas stations carrying a “Big Five” oil company brand, fewer than 300 offer E85 or E15. That flunks any reasonable standard of fairness in the marketplace. The report flushes out fuel supply contracts, franchise agreements and other documents that show how Big Oil flexes its authority to undermine the sale of E85 and E15 renewables.
Tellingly, according to the report, independent stations are four to six times more likely to offer E85 and 40 times more likely to offer E15 than stations selling a “Big Five” oil brand. It would be foolish to view these findings as a fluke. Facts are hard to fabricate.
America has mapped out a long-term strategy to pump up competition in the transportation fuels sector, secure innovative, cleaner renewable fuels to protect the environment and boost more domestic oil production to help immunize the economy and consumers from dependence on foreign oil.
Let’s not let Big Oil spoil the route to greater, cleaner energy independence. U.S. energy security is not for sale. It’s time to hand over the keys to consumers and let renewables and traditional fossil fuels compete side by side at the pump.
Minneapolis, July 17 - The Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA) is pleased to announce that Boulay has become our association's latest vendor member.
"We are pleased to expand our vendor member portfolio to include Boulay which is a renowned accounting firm with strong ties to the renewable fuels industry," said Tim Rudnicki, MBA's executive director.
Founded in 1934, the Eden Prairie-based firm has over 150 staff which includes 30 partners and 90 certified public accountants. For over 15 years, Boulay has served 50 private and public renewable energy clients representing approximately 2 billion gallons of potential capacity nationwide.
With over 20 professionals dedicated to serving the renewable fuels industry, Boulay's services include:
Audit, review and compilations
Employee benefit plan audits
Initial Public Offerings
RIN attestation
Litigation support and expert witness
IRS inquiries regarding tax return and payments
Industry legislative tax credit analysis
Projections and forecasts
Industry standards reporting
Cost segregation studies
R&D tax credits
XBRL services
Analysis of internal controls
Entity analysis
Federal & state tax compliance and planning
Debt and equity capital financing analysis
Strategic planning and facilitation
With Boulay on board, MBA now has 12 vendor members.
"In the months and years to come, we hope to add more valuable industry members to our portfolio. MBA continues to play a leading role in promoting and growing Minnesota's biofuel industry and will continue to do so with support from organizations like Boulay," Rudnicki said.
To learn more about Boulay, please click here
July 16, 2014
By Holly Jessen
When Charlie Good, mechanic and owner of Good & Quick in Nevada, Iowa, started preparing to add E15 to his product offerings at his independent gas retail store, he noticed his contract with ConocoPhillips said he couldn’t sell anything with an ethanol content higher than E10. He called his supplier and was told he’d have to either wait several months, until his contract was up, or pay $30,000 to get out of it. In the end, Good negotiated an agreement that he would put his own canopy up and just fly the ConocoPhillips flag for the remainder of the contract.
Good sees absolutely no downside in letting his ConocoPhillips contract run out and going with an unbranded fuel supplier. Still, he admits it was a difficult decision. “I’m not going to lie to you and tell you I wasn’t afraid of doing this,” he said. “… I know how the big boys can eat you up if they want to.”
Nationwide, there are 135,000 retail gas stations, with 84,000, or 63 percent, under single ownership, says Mike O’Brien, vice president of market development for Growth Energy. And, unbranded or independent retailers, some of which are under single ownership and some that are not, are starting to offer E15. Over time, this will give those companies a competitive advantage and, eventually, force major oil brands to start selling it, he adds.
Good agrees, saying that offering alternative fuel blends is a way for independent retailers to survive and excel against oil majors by finding a niche. “I don’t believe you will see Casey’s or Kum & Go or any of these majors adapt to these fuels, until the public demands it,” he says, naming his two competitors in Nevada.
Since his central Iowa gas station switched to an unbranded fuel, there have been no problems with fuel quality and Good is so confident there won’t be, he 100 percent guarantees the fuel. So far, the only complaint Good has received is that that store no longer takes ConcoPhillips credit cards. Other than that, his customers couldn’t seem to care less that the canopy no longer displays the name of an oil major. “Brand loyalty means nothing now,” he says. “It’s all about what it’s going to cost me.”
In fact, the end of May, Good had sold nearly 7,000 more gallons of fuel as compared to the same time last year. “The big mistake that I made was, I only put one blender pump in,” he says, adding that although he spent half a million dollars updating his station he wishes he had found the extra money to make all three of his pumps blender pumps. In all, 15 to 20 percent of his fuel sales is ethanol.
There are other benefits. He’s spending 2 to 7.5 cents less a gallon on unbranded fuel stock and saving significantly on credit card fees. His new supplier charges him a 1.7 percent fee on credit card payments from customers, down from 3 percent, his previous rate, saving him about $3,000 in one recent month.
Detour Ahead
Good isn’t the only retailer encountering pushback from big-name petroleum distributors attempting to limit retailers’ options when it comes to selling ethanol blends, says Robert White, director of market development for the Renewable Fuels Association. That’s been true for E85 but it’s particularly been an issue with E15. “The majors, at least until they feel a pinch from competitors, are pretty much either requiring that they put in all new equipment, label it to the nines, which would basically scare off any reasonable person, or they can’t put it under their canopy at all.”
Darin Schlapia, the branch manager of Creston Farmer’s Co-op in Iowa, encountered difficulty when he attempted to negotiate a brand agreement with Cenex for a new Farmer’s Co-op location, which will be built in Mount Ayr, Iowa, this fall. Even though Cenex markets ethanol and distillers grains and recently acquired a 133 MMgy ethanol plant in Rochelle, Ill., its contract requires gas retailers offer at least two different grades of gas, E10 and straight gas with no ethanol content. In order to sell E15 and other higher blends, as the co-op planned, the gas station would have had to add additional equipment. Schlapia knew from sales numbers at the Farmer’s Co-op station in Afton, Iowa, that the cooperative would sell more gallons of fuel if it offered E15 and other ethanol blends instead of ethanol-free gas. “Afton sells regular 87 gasoline and we might sell 50 gallons a day at the most,” he says, adding, for comparison, that the store could sell about 600 gallons of E10 in the same day. “People are definitely choosing the higher ethanol blends. To spend that much money on equipment, just to have another grade of gasoline, was not economical.”
The Mount Ayr station will still purchase its fuel from Cenex but, because it’s not a Cenex branded station, it isn’t allowed to display that logo anywhere. Schlapia is disappointed in the Cenex stance on E15 and thinks it needs to be re-evaluated. And yet, he understands that the company is trying to make sure all Cenex branded stations have a consistent offering of the same fuels, he says.
In Kansas, Scott Zaremba says Phillips 66 created new rules designed to keep him from selling E15 after he’d already moved forward with becoming a registered E15 retailer. The oil company told him he had to sell E15 on a yellow E85 hose, which actually goes against U.S. EPA requirements for selling E15 to heritage vehicles. So he paid $380,000 to get out of his contract and changed the name of his seven gas stations from Zarco 66 to Zarco USA. “They told me if I used anything with 66 in my name they’d hang me out to dry,” he says.
The move was well worth it, in his opinion. “We have to be able to sell whatever products we want out of our retail facilities that we own and we operate,” he says. “… They were just trying to dictate what was going to happen at the facility and we weren’t going to let them.”
In Minnesota, the Minnesota Service Station & Convenience Store Association is working with independent retail stations to band together under one logo and the name Minnoco. So far, four retailers in the Minneapolis, St. Paul area have joined, says Lance Klatt, executive director of MSSA. Although selling alternative fuels isn’t a requirement for Minnoco retailers, most are doing just that. With the help of various funding sources, including Growth Energy, the Minnesota Corn Growers, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Lung Association, Minnoco retailers have received financial support to install equipment to sell E15 and other higher ethanol blends. That’s a big draw for retailers who might not be willing to take a chance on E15 otherwise, Klatt says.
Retailers have responded enthus-iastically, appreciating the opportunity to bring new fueling options to their customers and make their own decisions on how to run their business. Klatt expects there will be 25 Minnoco stations offering E15 and higher ethanol blends by November. “Right now we feel like it’s the most sought after image in the Minneapolis marketplace,” he says, adding that retailers like the look of the logo as well as the opportunity to manage their own brand.
Of those stations already signed up, 15 or 20 percent of their sales are E15, E30 and E85. That’s driving increased fuel sales to current and new customers. There’s also work being done in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Agriculture Department to possibly launch E15 statewide, labeling it as the new midgrade fuel, he says.
Read the original story here : E15 Retailers Get Creative
July 15, 2014
By Ron Lamberty
We work in an industry that is measured in some very large numbers. Sometimes numbers in the billions, millions, trillions or quadrillions just meld together as we hear them or read them so that it’s difficult to put them in perspective and compare them to something familiar. Carl Sagan, the “billions and billions” guy some of us remember, created one of the most famous solutions to this large-number challenge when he created a timeline that showed the history of planet earth as if it were one year. Most of what we know of human history happened in the final 60 seconds of Dec. 31, with Columbus discovering America one second before midnight.
I don’t have a chart like that to explain the state of the world’s energy. But there have been some large energy numbers reported in the last month and I found them, and the reaction to them, fascinating.
Last month, BP released its Statistical Review of World Energy, which is widely regarded as the oil industry’s definitive report on how much oil and gas is out there, who has it, and how long it will last. Most news reports about the oil side of the study touted the fact that BP’s estimate of proven reserves (Huh? Is it estimated or proven?) increased from 1.65 trillion barrels of oil to 1.67 trillion barrels.
That’s a lot. One trillion, 670 billion (rounded up) is a big number. The actual BP number looks like this: 1,669,000,000,000. If you convert that to gallons, it’s 70,980,000,000,000 gallons. That’s huge, right? BP’s report also increased United States’ proven reserves from 31 billion barrels to 35 billion barrels. That’s 35,000,000,000 barrels, 1,470,000,000,000 gallons or one and a half trillion gallons of oil.
Even if you take that oil and figure out how much gas you could make for cars, it’s a big number. Utilizing 700 billion gallons of gas in the U.S., 32.5 trillion gallons of gas could be produced from the worldwide proven oil reserves.
Now, when you divide the 1.67 trillion barrels of oil among the 7 billion (7,180,000,000) inhabitants of the planet, you come up with 232 barrels of oil per person. You could make that into 4,500 gallons of gas and more than 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel. And those numbers are probably low, because a lot of the people on the planet use no fossil oil at all. But think about how much gas you use. How many years would it take you to burn up 4,500 gallons?
Most responses to the article, and especially the comments below, fell into the category of “See, they’re lying. We have PLENTY of oil out there, and they’re probably underestimating that.” Ironically, the brave, “so what” comments came from Americans, who may not have realized that the 35 billion barrels we have, is roughly what we would use in five years. A commenter on one online story about the report said that there were probably 75 billion more barrels in the U.S. that we could recover. He didn’t mention cost, but I suspect those additional gallons would require the same kind of shift in recovery cost that moved us from $20 a barrel to $120 in the past 15 years. And if it’s there, it would bring the U.S. up to a total of 15 years of oil reserves.
But then there one other number in the report that got most of my attention: 53. The report says we have enough oil left on planet Earth to last 53.3 years. That number stood out because I just celebrated my 53rd birthday. If my dad and the rest of the world had seen a report like this BP report on the day I was born, and did nothing, we would be out of oil by now.
Fifty-three years does not feel like a long time to me. I plan to use my next 53 years to help all of you render that oil number irrelevant.
Ron Lamberty is the senior vice president of the American Coalition For Ethanol.
Read the orginal story here : What's 1.67 trillion Divided By 53?
July 9, 2014
By Ayesha Rascoe
Two U.S. farm-state Senators on Wednesday urged federal regulators to investigate allegations raised by a biofuel trade group that the oil industry uses "strong arm tactics" to prevent widespread use of higher blends of ethanol in gasoline.
A report from the Renewable Fuels Association this week said major oil companies have discouraged the sale of ethanol at levels of 15 percent per gallon (E15) and 85 percent per gallon (E85) at retail stations, by using distribution contracts that make it expensive or nearly impossible for franchises to offer the blends. (RFA report: bit.ly/1mIvQi9)
Senators Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said on Wednesday that the report bolstered the case for the Federal Trade Commission to evaluate whether the oil industry has engaged in anti-competitive practices.
"This new report underscores the need for the FTC to look into these allegations, and I will continue pushing to ensure that consumers have access to the cheaper, cleaner fuels they deserve," Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's antirust panel, said in a statement.
The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of ethanol and biodiesel to be blended into U.S. fuel supplies through 2022.
Higher blends of ethanol at the pump are needed to avoid the so called "blend wall," the point when federal law will require the use of more ethanol than can be absorbed at the 10 percent per gallon level that dominates U.S. gasoline stations.
Oil companies, who have long called for repeal of the biofuel mandate, say retailers have been reluctant to sell E15 due to concerns that it could harm engines in older vehicles, and that consumer do not want to buy the product.
Without infrastructure to accommodate the widespread sale of E15, refiners have said they would be forced to sell less gasoline or export more refined products to meet the law's requirements.
Klobuchar and Grassley have pressed the FTC for almost a year to probe whether oil industry practices regarding ethanol violate antitrust laws. It is unclear if the agency has taken action on the matter.
The RFA report found that independent, or unbranded, retail gas stations were four to six times more likely to offer E85 and 40 times more likely to carry E15 gasoline than stations associated with major oil company brands.
“Big oil interests can’t argue for repeal of the RFS because it doesn’t work when they’re the ones responsible for ensuring that consumers don’t have the choice for higher ethanol blends," Grassley said.
He also blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for a draft plan that would slash 2014 biofuel use targets in light of the looming blend wall, saying the agency had "fallen for Big Oil's rhetoric."
Read the original story here : U.S. Senators Press Probe Of Report That Oil Companies Blocked Ethanol
See also:
RFA Scores Retailers For E85, E15 Offerings ; Big Oil Gets An 'F'
RFA Report Details Big Oil's Tactics In Preventing E85, E15 Sales
By Susanne Retka Schill
July 8, 2014
The five Big Oil brands got an “F” in the Renewable Fuels Association’s score card for their poor performance in offering E15 or E85. A new report released July 8, shows that out of the nearly 48,000 retail gas stations carrying the brand of ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil, fewer than 300 offer E15 or E85, or less than 1 percent.
Among the 34,000 stations carrying other refiner-affiliated brands, only Speedway/SuperAmerica and Cenex received high marks. About 13 percent of Speedway/SuperAmerica branded stations offering higher blends for an A-, and 6 percent of Cenex stations for a B grade. The other oil-refiner branded stations had percentages at 1 percent or less.
The 74,000 independent, unbranded stations are four to six times more likely to offer E85, the report says. According to U.S. DOE data on E85 and RFA data on E15, 1,700 stations (2.3 percent) sell the higher blends. A separate data set pegs the number higher at 2,570 stations offering renewable fuels.
On the scorecard, RFA gave A+ to several independent/unbranded chains for offering higher blends at more than 25 percent of their stations, including Meijer, Thorntons, Kum & Go, Break Time and Kwik Trip. Meijer Gas took the top honors with 58 percent of its branded stations offering E85 or E15.
The scorecard accompanies RFA’s latest report outlining the strong arm tactics used to prevent or discourage the sale of renewable fuels at Big Oil-branded stations. “Big Oil companies are rigging the market to take away consumer choice and prevent many retailers from offering these clean, homegrown fuels,” RFA president and CEO Bob Dinneen said in releasing the report. “When Big oil companies are doing everything they can to keep a lower cost, high performance fuel from the American public, we’ve got to do more.”
A favorite argument of oil companies is that they don’t own many stations and thus don’t have any control over stations offering E15 or E85, said Geoff Cooper, senior vice president. “If you step back, you quickly see the major oil companies still exert tremendous control. There’s a variety of methods used to shut out competition from renewable fuels.”
Among those Cooper listed were fuel contracts that require supplier exclusivity or minimum sales volumes of branded fuels. Contracts often require multiple grades of branded gasoline to be sold at all times or require intimidating warning labels on E85 or E15 dispensers. Branding agreements can discourage or prohibit retailers from promoting or advertising the availability of E85 and contracts can include substantial penalties for violating the terms.
The report also outlines a combination of policy and market-based solutions including:
- A federal investigation into anticompetitive practices
- Enforcement of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and Gasohol Competition Act
- Enforcement of the statutory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requirements
- Investment in infrastructure
- Consumer education about the economic and environmental benefits of biofuels
- Incentivize the continued production of FFVs
The single most important thing, Dinneen stressed in the press call accompanying the release, is “we have to enforce the renewable fuels standard. The RFS was the mechanism to break the monopolistic hold the Big Oil companies have.”
Read the original story here : RFA Scores Retailers For E85, E15 Offerings ; Big Oil Gets An 'F'
Download the RFA report, "Protecting The Monopoly : How Big Oil Covertly Blocks The Sale Of Renewable Fuels," here
More...
July 7, 2014
By Christopher Doering
The ethanol industry Monday urged a federal regulator overseeing the nation's railroads to provide relief for shippers of the renewable fuel who have faced delays.
Growth Energy, which represents ethanol manufacturers, told the Surface Transportation Board that producers of the renewable fuel should be given the same relief that the agency provided to grain shippers in June.
Last month, the STB ordered Canadian Pacific Railway and BNSF Railway to provide the agency an update on their plans to reduce the backlog of grain cars across their networks -- a step welcomed by agricultural groups concerned that farmers could struggle to get their crops to market this fall.
In a letter sent Monday to the STB, Tom Buis, chief executive with Growth Energy, said with more than 61 percent of all ethanol delivered by rail, it is "imperative that these issues be directly addressed and given the same priority as grain shipments."
Buis said immediate action was necessary to "ensure that railroads improve their service." Ethanol supplies were squeezed and prices soared earlier this year, he noted, because of the inability to get rail cars to ship their product. Many ethanol producers were forced to reduce production because they had no place to store the fuel.
Dennis Watson, a spokesman with the STB, said the agency had received the letter but had no comment on it. The agency, he said, is constantly reviewing all commodities shipped by train and the service the rail companies are providing.
In recent months, BNSF and Canadian Pacific have come under fire from shippers, Washington lawmakers and the STB itself for shortages and delays in delivering rail cars to farmers, ethanol plants and grain elevator operators. The rail system in much of the western Corn Belt has been slowed by a plentiful 2013 harvest, higher coal and oil volumes, and the extraordinarily long, cold winter that reduced the size and speed of trains that operated.
Ethanol cannot be shipped through gasoline pipelines because of its corrosive properties, leaving movement of the flammable liquid to trains and trucks, often through densely populated residential areas. As ethanol production has grown, more of it must be shipped outside of the Midwest where much of it is produced, forcing makers of the renewable fuel to depend more heavily on railroads.
The corn-based fuel is a small but growing commodity for railroads, with ethanol shipments commanding just over 1 percent of total carloads moved by train annually, according to the STB. In 2011, 32 percent of U.S. ethanol shipments originated from Iowa, the country's biggest producer of the corn-based fuel.
Read the original story here : Ethanol Industry Asks For Relief From Rail Delays
On July 2, 2014, the Star Tribune ran a story titled, "Marine Engines Balk At Ethanol." Below is our response to that story.
With regards to E15 and its use in marine engines, we would like to inform you that E15 is currently only available in seven stations in Minnesota and all E15 pumps carry a disclaimer that specifically states that it is only intended for passenger cars 2001 and newer or flex fuel vehicles and not for other vehicles, boats or gasoline-powered equipment. As such, there shouldn’t be any confusion for marine engine owners.
As for E10, we would like to point out to you that both Mercury Marine and Yamaha (which were both cited in your story) state that E10 can be used in their engines. Mercury Marine states on its website, “The fuel-system components of Mercury engines will withstand up to 10 percent ethanol in gasoline” while Yamaha says on its website, “All current models as well as most engines built since the late 1980s have been designed with fuel components that are tolerant to fresh fuel containing ethanol up to 10% (E10).” Owners should always consult with their owner’s manual or with their manufacturer on the proper fuel requirements for their boats.
By Geoff Cooper
June 27, 2014
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests that full compliance with RFS requirements “poses significant challenges” and could increase fuel prices. The CBO’s conclusions are largely based on a careless analysis that relies on unsupported assumptions. Further, the report blatantly acknowledges that the economic impact of substituting biofuels for gasoline and diesel (i.e., downward pressure on crude oil prices) has been purposely omitted. Finally, the CBO results contradict the findings of more credible research from independent university economists. Key flaws in the report are detailed below.
1. The report’s main scenario contains a number of erroneous assumptions and fundamental errors that render the conclusions meaningless in the context of the ongoing debate over RFS implementation.
The exaggerated economic impacts discussed in the CBO report result primarily from the “EISA Volume Scenario,” in which the EISA statutory volumes of advanced biofuel (9 bg) and conventional renewable fuel (15 bg) are consumed in 2017. This scenario is based on the faulty assumptions below (among others):
-
Most important, CBO improperly assumes EPA will require waivered cellulosic biofuel volumes to be entirely offset by other advanced biofuels. EPA has the statutory authority to waive the advanced biofuel standard and total RFS by the same, or lesser, amount as the waiver of the cellulosic biofuel standard. Thus, for example, if only 300 mg of cellulosic biofuel are available in 2017, EPA could (and likely would) reduce the cellulosic biofuel standard from 5.5 bg to 300 mg, reduce the advanced biofuel standard from 9.0 bg to 3.8 bg, and reduce the total RFS from 24 bg to 18.8 bg. Biodiesel and renewable diesel could very likely account for most of the 3.8 bg advanced biofuel requirement, while primarily ethanol would be used to fulfill the statutory 15.0 bg requirement for renewable fuel. In this example, which entirely comports with EPA’s statutory authority, required renewable fuel blending would be 5.2 bg lower (-22%) than the extreme scenario used by CBO.
-
CBO somehow arrives at a total renewable fuel blend percentage of 14.5% in the 2017 “EISA Volume Scenario” (Table 1 of the report). However, EIA projects gasoline and diesel consumption of 191.7 bg in 2017, meaning the blend percentage from the “EISA Volume Scenario” would actually be 12.5%. But, as described above, CBO mistakenly assumes EPA will not exercise its authority to lower the advanced biofuel standard and total RFS by the same amount of the cellulosic waiver. If EPA were to use this discretion, as in the example above (i.e., total RFS of 18.8 bg), the total blend percentage for 2017 would be 9.8%.
-
CBO assumes only 1.5 bg of biodiesel (2.0 billion RINs) will be used toward the advanced biofuel standard in 2017. EPA data show that 1.57 bg of biodiesel was produced in 2013, generating 2.36 billion RINs. In addition, 386 million gallons of renewable diesel were produced, generating another 657 million RINs. Thus, biodiesel and renewable diesel generated more than 3 billion RINs in 2013—50% more than CBO assumes will occur in 2017.
-
CBO assumes ONLY corn ethanol is used to meet the statutory requirement for 15.0 bg of renewable fuel in 2017. EPA data shows this to be an erroneous assumption. More than 250 million (2% of the total) renewable fuel (“D6”) RINs generated in 2013 came from non-ethanol biofuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, and butanol. The share of non-ethanol fuels generating renewable fuel RINs is expected to grow slightly—particularly if EPA limits the advanced biofuel standard.
Because the CBO “EISA Volume Scenario” is based on these fatal flaws, the report’s discussion on RIN price impacts and transportation fuel price effects should be rejected out of hand. CBO should re-evaluate the “EISA Volume Scenario” and consider a case where EPA uses its statutory authority to lower the advanced biofuel standard and total RFS by the same amount as the cellulosic biofuel waiver.
2. The analysis adopts the oil industry’s “blend wall” argument and grossly underestimates the ability of E15 and E85 to aid in compliance with future RFS requirements.
CBO has apparently fallen victim to the same unclear thinking displayed by the oil industry with regard to the so-called “blend wall.” The report effectively dismisses E15 outright as a potential RFS compliance option moving forward, citing the same myths and misinformation propagated by the oil industry. Further, the report’s discussion of E85 ignores real-world evidence from 2013 showing that higher RIN prices drove dramatically increased consumption of E85. Data from the state governments of Minnesota and Iowa showed a tripling and doubling, respectively, in E85 consumption over the period in which RIN prices increased. Meanwhile, retail gasoline (E10) prices were unaffected by the rise in RIN prices.
3. CBO’s outlandish predictions regarding the impact of the RFS and RINs on gasoline prices contradict the observed real-world experience.
The report adopts yet another of the oil industry’s talking points—that the RFS, through higher RIN prices, will cause retail gasoline prices to increase. Such an assertion not only misunderstands how RINs are transferred and traded, but it also runs contrary to the observed experience of 2013. Retail gasoline prices were not correlated in any way with changes in RIN prices in 2013, and there is absolutely no evidence that pump prices were affected by RINs.
4. Unbelievably, CBO completely ignores the aggregate effect that using more renewable fuels would have on crude oil demand and prices.
In its haste to pin higher gasoline and diesel prices on the RFS, CBO admittedly makes a grave omission. According to the report, “Because renewable fuels substitute for gasoline and diesel, they reduce consumptions of those fuels…which could lower the world price of crude oil and thus the price that fuel suppliers pay for petroleum-based fuels. CBO did not account for that effect in this analysis…” The authors attempt to justify this omission by speculating that the effects would be small. However, renowned energy economists believe otherwise. According to recent analysis by energy economist Philip K. Verleger, a former energy advisor to Presidents Ford and Carter, “…the U.S. renewable fuels program has cut annual consumer expenditures in 2013 between $700 billion and $2.6 trillion. This translates to consumers paying between $0.50 and $1.50 per gallon less for gasoline.”[1] Economic analyses from Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin, Louisiana State University, Duke University, Merrill Lynch, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and others have also concluded that increased substitution of ethanol for gasoline substantially reduces retail gas prices.[2]
5. CBO’s findings on potential economic impacts of RFS implementation contradict results from University of Missouri and Iowa State University.
The report’s doomsday findings about the potential economic effects of the RFS are contrary to the conclusions from respected economists who have conducted more detailed and comprehensive analysis. A recent analysis by FAPRI at the University of Missouri, for instance, analyzed a case in which EPA would reduce the advanced biofuel standard and total RFS by the same amount of cellulosic biofuel waivers (as noted above, CBO failed to examine such a case). In this case, gas prices were 0-2% higher than in the case where EPA froze the RFS at 2014 proposed levels (similar to CBO’s “2014 Volumes Scenario”). Ethanol prices in this case are just 53-60% the price of retail gasoline, which would encourage wider usage. Similarly, extensive analysis by Iowa State University has convincingly demonstrated that near-term statutory RFS requirements can in fact be satisfied without meaningfully affecting retail gas prices for consumers.[3] CBO failed to discuss the other literature in this area and neglected to include reviewers from MO-FAPRI and ISU.
6. On the bright side, the CBO report gets two things right: 1) changes to the RFS would not have any effect on food prices, and 2) EPA’s recent management of the RFS program has significantly discouraged investment in next generation biofuels and retail infrastructure to dispense higher volumes of renewable fuels.
CBO recognizes that “…differences in food prices and spending under the agency’s three scenarios for the RFS would probably be small.” The report suggests that strong demand for ethanol even in the absence of RFS requirements means the program itself “will have no effect on food prices.” In addition, CBO rightly acknowledges that EPA’s recent proposals regarding implementation of the RFS “…reduces incentives for companies to invest in production capacity for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels and to expand the availability of high-ethanol blends.” This statement precisely underscores the importance of maintaining meaningful RFS requirements that are consistent with Congress’ intent and EPA’s statutory authority.
Read the original story here : Response to CBO Study - the Renewable Fuel Standard: Issues for 2014 and Beyond
By Christopher Doering
June 27, 2014
WASHINGTON – Nearly six full months into 2014, the amount of ethanol that is supposed to be blended into the gasoline supply this year still has not been announced — and is not expected to be for several more weeks.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required by law to finalize the blending requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard for the following year by Nov. 30, a deadline an oil trade group said the agency hasn't met since 2011. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in May the agency was reviewing more than 200,000 comments on its November proposal for 2014 that would cut the mandate from the level set out in a 2007 law, and was expecting to issue the final rule in "late spring or early summer."
But the EPA has yet to send the proposed 2014 blending requirements to the Office of Management and Budget, the agency tasked with vetting proposed regulations. An EPA spokesperson said that submission should occur "soon."
In November, the EPA proposed reducing ethanol produced from corn in 2014 to 13.01 billion gallons from 14.4 billion gallons initially required by Congress in the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, a law that requires refiners to buy alternative fuels made from corn, soybeans and other products to reduce the country's dependence on foreign energy.
McCarthy told farm broadcasters last month that the EPA believes Congress gave it the authority to make changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard in certain cases, such as the looming blend wall — a level where refiners must include more ethanol into the country's fuel mix than can be blended in at a 10 percent threshold accepted in all cars and trucks. "I get how important our proposal is — and the longevity of the RFS program itself," McCarthy said.
While those who follow the ethanol debate expect the EPA will increase the Renewable Fuel Standard blending level from the November estimate, it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to please ethanol industry officials. They have warned a cut could slow growth, especially in the nascent cellulosic industry that uses crop residue, grasses or wood chips to produce ethanol.
Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, acknowledged that whatever the EPA announces is "going to be heavily scrutinized" and likely be fought in court by the oil or ethanol industry depending on the outcome.
"Once it goes to OMB you're still probably weeks away from a final announcement," Shaw said. "There's no use holding your breath right now because we're not even close."
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents 550 oil and natural gas companies, said the EPA's delay in finalizing the 2014 levels has increased uncertainty for those who must comply with the controversial requirement. In a letter to the EPA's McCarthy sent last week, Bob Greco, API's downstream director, said the delays in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard "are unacceptable, fundamentally unfair" and show a disregard for a deadline put in place by Congress.
Earlier this month, the EPA extended the deadline for complying with the 2013 blending level requirements through Sept. 30. The agency said the extra time was necessary because of the delay in finalizing the 2014 figures. The change was widely seen by those who follow the Renewable Fuel Standard as further evidence that the EPA wasn't close to announcing figures for this year.
Read the original story here : EPA's Ethanol Mandate For 2014 Behind Schedule
June 23, 2014
By Erin Voegele
The U.S. EPA has published renewable identification number (RIN) data for May. While overall RIN generation reached nearly 1.48 billion for month, up from nearly 1.45 billion in April, May marked the first month of 2014 during which no cellulosic RINs were generated.
According to the EPA, more than 27.4 million D5 advanced biofuel RINs were generated during the month, bringing the total for the first five months of the year to 79.93 million D5 RINs. The majority, 52.73 million, were generated for ethanol. More than 11.95 million D5 RINs were generated for biogas, along with 6.93 million for naptha. In addition, 5.4 million D5 RINs were generated for non-ester renewable diesel. Approximately 34.83 million D5 RINs have been generated by domestic producers, with nearly 42.18 million generated by importers.
More than 1.22 billion D6 renewable fuel RINs were generated in May, bringing the year-to-date total to more than 5.81 billion. Approximately 5.69 billion D6 RINs have been generated for ethanol this year, with 5.41 million generated for biodiesel. In addition, 120.22 million D6 RINs have been generated for non-ester renewable diesel. Most, 5.69 billion, have been generated by domestic producers, with 4.57 million generated by importers. More than 120.22 million D6 RINs were generated by foreign entities.
Nearly 230.46 million D4 biomass-based diesel RINs were generated in May, bringing the total for the first five months of the year to 970.06 million. Approximately 689.42 million D4 RINs have been generated for biodiesel this year, with an estimated 282.43 million generated for non-ester renewable diesel. The majority, 753.99 million D4 RINs, have been generated by domestic producers. Approximately 53.74 million and 164.12 million were generated by importers and foreign entities, respectively.
While no cellulosic RINs were generated in May, a total of 72,754 D3 cellulosic RINs were generated during the first five months of the year, along with 11,213 D7 cellulosic diesel RINs. All D3 RINs were generated by domestic producers. According in the EPA, 2,563 D7 RINs were generated by importers, with the remaining 8,859 generated by domestic producers.
As of the close of May, the EPA estimates nearly 6.87 billion RINs have been generated this year. Approximately 177.6 million have been retired. Nearly 271.68 million are locked and available, along with nearly 6.42 billion unlocked and available.
Read the original story here : May Rin Data Shows Increased Biofuel Production
June 18, 2014
By Michael Hirtzer
U.S. ethanol production increased for the sixth week in a row to a record high, government data showed on Wednesday, as rising gasoline prices helped boost demand for the grain-based biofuel.
Ethanol production surged 28,000 barrels per day, or about 3 percent, to an average of 972,000 bpd in the week ending June 13, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Production surpassed the previous record of 963,000 bpd reached in the last week of 2011.
Despite the higher output, strong demand squeezed stocks of ethanol, which fell 572,000 barrels to 17.85 million barrels, a three-week low.
Makers of the biofuel are earning near-record profits as prices for corn, the main feedstock used in ethanol production, hovered near a four-month low. Meanwhile, gasoline futures have maintained roughly a $1-per-gallon premium over ethanol futures throughout June, making ethanol attractive for fuel blenders during the early days of the summer driving season.
Read the original story here : U.S. Ethanol Output Surges To Record High As Gasoline Costs Rise
By Geoff Cooper
June 12, 2014
Lifecycle analysis experts and economists from Argonne National Laboratory and three leading universities blasted a recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) report that made audacious claims and arrived at “erroneous conclusions” about corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas impacts.
The experts issued a scathing 13-page response today to EWG’s May report titled “Ethanol’s Broken Promise.” EWG “confused parameters” and “misunderstood” previous modeling results, according to experts from Argonne, North Carolina State University, Purdue University and University of Illinois-Chicago. “…based on an analysis of the methodology EWG used and a comparison of their results to those in the literature, from models, and from other data sets, EWG appears to have overestimated the amount of land converted for corn farming between 2008 and 2012. Second, EWG used emission factors that appear too high.”
More specifically, the experts found the following problems—among many others—with EWG’s report:
- “EWG confused parameters in GREET with those in an economic model, the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP).”
- “EWG misunderstood EPA’s GHG emissions for years 2012 and 2017.”
- “In their report, EWG picked the EPA 2012 GHG emissions for corn ethanol and applied them to the EPA-proposed reduced volume for corn ethanol in 2014 to make the erroneous conclusion that the proposal resulted in 3 million tonnes of CO2 reduction in 2014.”
- “…the emission factors they applied are high compared to those in other reports and studies that take into account important variations in initial and final land states.”
- The satellite data set used by EWG is “…explicitly not designed to be used for pixel-by-pixel or localized analyses.”
- The land use change data used by EWG is “…based on data that is decades old, reflecting wetland conversion over a much longer time horizon.”
- The report “…overestimated wetland conversion, especially for the conversion of wetlands to corn farms.” Wetlands and grasslands conversion estimates are “…too high when compared with estimates in other studies and data sources.”
Finally, the authors point out that EWG is stuck in the past when it comes to lifecycle analysis. They write, “Since 2009, when EPA conducted corn ethanol LUC GHG modeling…, significant efforts have been made to improve economic models and soil carbon models to better estimate biofuel LUC GHG emissions. EPA and other federal agencies should consider updating RFS LUC modeling so that up-to-date LUC results can be used for biofuel policy making.”
Read the original story here : Government and University Experts Blast EWG Corn Ethanol Report
Download the response from Argonne National Laboratory here.
Lifecycle analysis experts and economists from Argonne National Laboratory and three leading universities blasted a recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) report that made audacious claims and arrived at “erroneous conclusions” about corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas impacts.
The experts issued a scathing 13-page response today to EWG’s May report titled “Ethanol’s Broken Promise.” EWG “confused parameters” and “misunderstood” previous modeling results, according to experts from Argonne, North Carolina State University, Purdue University and University of Illinois-Chicago. “…based on an analysis of the methodology EWG used and a comparison of their results to those in the literature, from models, and from other data sets, EWG appears to have overestimated the amount of land converted for corn farming between 2008 and 2012. Second, EWG used emission factors that appear too high.”
More specifically, the experts found the following problems—among many others—with EWG’s report:
- “EWG confused parameters in GREET with those in an economic model, the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP).”
- “EWG misunderstood EPA’s GHG emissions for years 2012 and 2017.”
- “In their report, EWG picked the EPA 2012 GHG emissions for corn ethanol and applied them to the EPA-proposed reduced volume for corn ethanol in 2014 to make the erroneous conclusion that the proposal resulted in 3 million tonnes of CO2 reduction in 2014.”
- “…the emission factors they applied are high compared to those in other reports and studies that take into account important variations in initial and final land states.”
- The satellite data set used by EWG is “…explicitly not designed to be used for pixel-by-pixel or localized analyses.”
- The land use change data used by EWG is “…based on data that is decades old, reflecting wetland conversion over a much longer time horizon.”
- The report “…overestimated wetland conversion, especially for the conversion of wetlands to corn farms.” Wetlands and grasslands conversion estimates are “…too high when compared with estimates in other studies and data sources.”
Finally, the authors point out that EWG is stuck in the past when it comes to lifecycle analysis. They write, “Since 2009, when EPA conducted corn ethanol LUC GHG modeling…, significant efforts have been made to improve economic models and soil carbon models to better estimate biofuel LUC GHG emissions. EPA and other federal agencies should consider updating RFS LUC modeling so that up-to-date LUC results can be used for biofuel policy making.”
- See more at: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/government-and-university-experts-blast-ewg-corn-ethanol-report/#sthash.ncL2zyhW.dpufJune 2, 2014
By Geoff Cooper
If the Environmental Working Group’s PR hacks are truly interested in combating global climate change, they ought to start by curbing their own noxious emissions of hot air. Last week, EWG released a sham “study” claiming that corn ethanol is somehow worse for the climate than gasoline, despite the fact that a number of recent peer-reviewed studies by government, academia, and private analysts clearly show first-generation ethanol significantly reduces GHG emissions relative to gasoline.
EWG apparently doesn’t debate the fact that corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions when compared directly to gasoline. Indeed, it’s only when hypothetical, unverifiable indirect emissions are added into the equation that EWG suggests corn ethanol is no better than gasoline. In an attempt to make their case, EWG cherry picks questionable data points from EPA’s flawed and outdated “indirect land use change” analysis from five years ago. And where EPA data doesn’t exist to support their bias, EWG simply makes things up (e.g., there is no support for the claim that 8 million acres of “native” grassland and wetlands were converted to corn production between 2008 and 2011).
EWG’s bogus study is at odds with a growing body of science. Numerous analyses conducted since EPA published the RFS2 final rule in 2010 show that corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 30–40% compared to the gasoline it is replacing—even when speculative land use change emissions are included. These peer-reviewed and published studies have been conducted by the likes of Purdue University, Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of Illinois, Michigan State University, the International Food Policy Research Institute, Life Cycle Associates and others. Even the California Air Resources Board (CARB) disagrees with EWG—CARB says more than two-thirds of the GHG reductions achieved under Low Carbon Fuel Standard to date have come from conventional ethanol (despite the fact that CARB’s current framework significantly underestimates corn ethanol’s GHG benefits).
Not only does EWG’s report contradict the state of the art in lifecycle analysis, but it also contradicts data from the real world. Imagine that…EWG being out of touch with reality. Beyond the seemingly endless debate about economic models, hypothetical scenarios, and input assumptions lies an indisputable set of facts and real-world data that shows the utter fallacy of the indirect land use change hypothesis.
USDA’s newly published 2012 Agriculture Census, which is based on collection of empirical data and surveys of real farmers (not mysterious and uncertain satellite images), reveals the truth about how land is being used in the U.S. It demonstrates—quite compellingly—that long-term land use trends have not been interrupted in any meaningful way since the emergence of biofuels and passage of the RFS.
• The amount of land in farms declined 0.8% from 922.1 million acres in 2007 to 914.5 million acres in 2012. Land in farms in the 2002 Ag Census was 938.3 million acres.
• Total cropland fell 4.1% from 406.4 million acres in 2007 to 389.7 million acres in 2012. Total cropland in 2012 was a whopping 44.5 million acres lower (10% less) than the 434.2 million acres of cropland in 2002. If the RFS is causing cropland expansion and land use change, as EWG ridiculously claims, why does USDA data continue to show fewer acres dedicated to crops?
• Idle cropland and summer fallow both decreased slightly from 2007 to 2012, indicating that any “new” land coming into cultivation likely came from lands that were previously cropped—not from “pristine prairie” and “native grasslands.” Meanwhile, permanent pasture and rangeland increased 1.6% from 408.8 million acres in 2007 to 415.3 million acres in 2012.
• Contrary to EWG’s doomsday rhetoric that “forests are being chopped down” as a result of the RFS, total woodland increased 2.5% from 75.1 million acres in 2007 to 77 million acres in 2012.
• Another favorite fib some of the environmental NGOs like to tell is that corn ethanol growth has driven expansion of irrigated acres. Once again, the Ag Census shows otherwise. Irrigated acres fell 1.4% from 56.6 million to 55.8 million between 2007 and 2012, according to USDA. (Incidentally, government data also show steadily declining deforestation rates in the Amazon and a shrinking hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico since the RFS2 was enacted—so we can toss those canards out too while we’re cleaning house).
As EPA and the White House prepare to release the final 2014 RFS requirements, let’s hope they are looking at the recent Ag Census data and the most current lifecycle analyses from reputable sources—not the latest spew from EWG.
Read the original story here : Ag Census Data Shows EWG Is Full of Hot Air