The battle over the Renewable Fuel Standard is heating up a little more than a month before the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to reduce the amount of biofuel required in gasoline and as an investigation begins into the agency’s handling of the law.
On Nov. 30, the EPA is expected to lower the Renewable Fuel Standard, the annual requirement for refiners to blend corn-based ethanol and other biofuels into gasoline and diesel, for 2014, 2015 and 2016 from what Congress initially required.
The final rule is being challenged. On Wednesday, California’s congressional contingent called for the EPA to reject its proposed rule and instead increase the amount of biofuels required to be put into gasoline.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2574118/
The next day, a study released by University of Tennessee researchers said the Renewable Fuel Standard’s promotion of corn-based ethanol has harmed the environment in the last 10 years, saying that standard gasoline releases fewer pollutants than ethanol-blended fuels. At the same time, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General announced Thursday it would investigate the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard and how the EPA has complied with the law authorizing the regulation.
Patrick Gilbride, director of science, research and management integrity evaluations in the EPA’s Office of Program Evaluation, said the investigation would see if the agency “complied with the reporting requirements of laws authorizing the Renewable Fuel Standard.”
The EPA decided in May to lower the standard after settling a lawsuit brought by oil industry groups. In its proposed rule, the EPA said it would set the standard to the levels that were produced in 2014 and increase from that level in 2015 and 2016.
The oil industry sued the EPA because it believed amount of biofuel required to be in gasoline would have harmed car engines. Instead of requiring biofuel made up a certain percentage of gasoline, the standard requires a certain volume of biofuel be used. If the percentage of biofuel in gasoline exceeds 9.7 percent, industry groups warn, it would harm car engines.
The retroactive amount for 2014 would be 15.93 billion gallons of biofuel. The standard for 2015 would be 16.3 billion gallons and 17.4 billion gallons in 2016. Those amounts are below the targets specified by Congress in the Clean Air Act.
“The volume targets specified by Congress in the Clean Air Act for 2014, 2015 and 2016 cannot be achieved,” the EPA stated in a fact sheet released in May.
That news was not welcomed by members of California’s congressional contingent.
California Reps. Eric Swalwell, Julia Brownley, Susan Davis, Sam Farr, Scott Peters, Loretta Sanchez and Jackie Speier all signed the letter sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and called on her to increase the amount.
The lawmakers said the Renewable Fuel Standard was responsible for 850,000 U.S. jobs and $185 billion to the economy. In their home state, the standard is responsible for 60,000 jobs, they said.
“Increasing our use of biofuels further allows us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower the price consumers pay for gas and reduce emissions,” the letter stated.
The California contingent is far from the only group protesting the decision. Other members of Congress from corn-producing states, the biofuel industry and farm groups have spoken out against the EPA’s decision.
They also contended that lowering the Renewable Fuel Standard would end up defeating its purpose.
The law allows the EPA to rewrite the requirements under the Clean Air Act at permanently lower levels if it sets the biofuel standard at much lower levels in consecutive years, which it has done in the proposed rule.
The lawmakers say that if the EPA doesn’t require oil companies to adjust to higher biofuel standards, then the entire biofuel industry could stall.
“This removes the incentive for the oil industry, which controls the distribution infrastructure, from investing in additional means to bring this cleaner, renewable fuel to consumers,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, there are questions being raised about corn-based ethanol’s environmental impact.
Daniel De La Torre Ugarte and Burton English, researchers at the University of Tennessee, reported in a study that corn ethanol’s environmental record isn’t great. For pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, fine particles, sulfur dioxide and ammonia, emissions are actually higher from corn ethanol than from plain gasoline, according to the study.
The American Council for Capital Formation, a conservative think tank associated with pro-fossil fuel policies, commissioned the study.
According to the study, the Renewable Fuel Standard is overly reliant on corn ethanol, to the tune of $50 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the corn ethanol industry since 2005. The study contends the corn ethanol industry would not survive without those taxpayer subsidies.
“Due to the RFS’s inherent and structural limitations, we remain too reliant on corn ethanol,” English said. “As our research demonstrates, corn ethanol along with decreased demand of transportation fuels has restricted the growth and maturation of the advanced biofuel industry, resulting in fewer environmental and economic benefits.”
According to the study, overreliance on corn ethanol is suffocating the growth of advanced biofuels that could burn much cleaner. Advanced biofuels need to be promoted to realize the promised benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard, the researchers argued.
“After 10 years of missed objectives, it’s time to rethink the structure and practical implementation of the RFS and examine other policy designs aimed at promoting the production and consumption of advanced biofuels,” English said.
