Industry in High Gear to Secure Critical Federal Policy Decision
Those who attended the National Biodiesel Board’s June membership meeting in Washington, D.C., know that our team has been working overtime to win a volume increase for biodiesel under the renewable fuel standard (RFS) next year. Based on our members’ input, we know that there is no issue more important to the industry than winning this fight, and we wanted to give you an overview of the efforts we have taken and strongly encourage you to stay engaged in this issue. Regardless of the final outcome this year, this is a battle our industry could be waging for years to come as the U.S. EPA establishes annual RFS volumes for biodiesel.
Starting this year, the RFS calls for a minimum of 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel (mostly biodiesel) to be used each year in the U.S. fuel supply until 2022. The law gives the EPA the discretion to raise that minimum requirement each year based on industry capacity, feedstock availability and other factors. For 2013, the EPA proposed increasing the volume requirement to 1.28 billion gallons. This proposal is consistent with our internal research on sustainable growth and we strongly support it.
A final decision, however, has been stalled as the Office of Management and Budget—an arm of the White House charged with scrutinizing regulation—has raised questions. NBB’s Washington office has been working closely for months with the EPA, OMB, USDA, Congress and other White House officials to explain the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of increasing biodiesel production and use.
We have held a series of meetings with OMB in which we particularly focused on the economic benefits of biodiesel, including potential savings to consumers. In addition, we have been communicating regularly with the EPA, White House officials and others to ensure that the right people understand the significance of this rule to our industry and the broader economy, and we have boosted our presence on Capitol Hill to bolster our support there.
Simultaneously, the biodiesel community has weighed in strongly with grassroots advocacy. In our initial grassroots campaign that started in January, we estimate that nearly 2,000 letters were sent to the administration on this issue. Along with strong participation from you, NBB dedicated additional resources to identifying supporters across the country and organizing letter-writing campaigns in a handful of key states.
More recently, as the administration moves closer to a decision, we have launched another outreach campaign that includes paid advertising in key states and another letter-writing campaign, and we need your participation. If you haven’t already, please visit the Fueling Action link at www.biodiesel.org website and send one of our advocacy letters.
While we don’t have a final ruling as of this writing, we know that even in a busy election season, your message is getting through and building awareness at the White House that this is a decision that affects thousands of people’s livelihoods.
In February, 60 members of Congress signed letters to the White House urging the administration to finalize the EPA’s proposal, and we are working with lawmakers on additional letters of support. At our June membership meeting, a handful of biodiesel producers participated in a meeting with key administration energy officials where we had the opportunity to state our case. The following day, White House energy adviser Dan Utech addressed our meeting and said the administration understands the rule’s importance and was reviewing it carefully. In addition, President Obama specifically mentioned the importance of biodiesel at a campaign event in California a few days later.
After months of delays, we believe we are nearing the finish line and that the administration is moving closer to a decision. If you haven’t already, we urge you to make your voice heard on this critical decision. Write the administration. Call your members of Congress. Ask your friends and family to do the same. With strong grassroots advocacy, we can continue to strengthen the RFS and grow the U.S. biodiesel industry into America’s leading advanced biofuel.
Anne Steckel, Vice President of Federal Affairs, National Biodiesel Board
1 Responses
Rupin
2012-08-15
1an Amazon study conducted eaelirr this year, by the Soybean Work Group (GTS), “showed that of 630 samples of deforested areas since July 2006, only 12 had gone to soybeans and 200 to cattle. The remaining 418, or 70 percent, were unused indicating that the main reason for cutting down trees was for timber and land grabbing.”Hypothetically, if indirect land use change was actually happening, expansion of a sugar crop in India could have caused it. Expanding rice or cassava in China could have caused it. A new palm oil plantation in Indonesia could have caused it. A new jatropha grove in Africa may have caused it. A new cattle ranch in Argentina may have caused it. An apple orchard in New Zealand could have caused it, and so on.Deforestation is Not automatic proof that biofuels are the cause. Yet a lawyer, a lobbyist, an environmental activist, a biofuels critic, the mastermind of indirect land use change theory, has been allowed to steer EPA computer modeling to blame biofuels. That’s junk science.The EPA underestimates food byproducts that come out of biofuel crops. For example, when an acre of corn is processed to make ethanol, you also get over 20 gallons of corn oil and over 50 bushels of high protein livestock feed, used to produce food. Two thirds of that acre of corn, and the energy inputs to grow it and harvest it, goes to ethanol. The other third goes to food production. For biodiesel fuel, extracted from soybeans, 20% of the acre goes to the oil, and 80% goes to livestock feed that produces food. Only 1/5 of a soy acre is used for fuel. Because the EPA gets these relationships wrong, it falsely pro-rates the energy inputs between fuel and food and thereby overestimates the emissions of the fuel component.The EPA fails to accurately measure the carbon footprint of foreign oil shipped thousands of miles to the U.S. burning dirty bunker fuel and conventional diesel. And, in addition to that, 12 to 15% of the U.S. military budget is spent to protect our foreign oil supply (Rand Report). That entails keeping a military presence in the Middle East and burning huge quantities of jet fuel, dirty diesel, and more dirty bunker fuel to protect oil fields and pipelines and to escort oil tankers as needed. Long distance shipping needs to be factored into the carbon footprint of petroleum fuels made from foreign oil, and so does the fuel and the pollution involved in protecting it. Yet the EPA fails to do this, and it further distorts their false carbon score for petroleum.Embracing indirect land use change theory, before it was scientifically proven, is another display of corruption by the EPA. Fancy computer modeling and high tech satellite imagery are worthless, when the EPA uses false assumptions and inaccurate input data. The EPA also used an attorney-lobbyist, the author of the bogus land use theory, and his assistants, to peer review his own work. Other outspoken biofuels critics and political activists were also used. The EPA Did Not recommend the best candidates for peer review Department of Agriculture experts, who had years of experience in land use change, were not asked to participate.Then the EPA issued this false claim: We are pleased that this independent peer review has affirmed EPA's approach to be fair, credible and grounded in science. This was a fraudulent EPA statement, because their peer review process was Not fair, Not credible, and most of all, Not grounded in science. Numerous peer reviewers were biofuel critics and political activists with bias and conflicts of interest.Renewable Fuels Association President, Bob Dinneen responded: “EPA has asked the foxes to guard the hen house on this issue. By adding lawyers and advocates to a scientific review panel, EPA bureaucrats have made a mockery of the Administration’s commitment to sound science. These reviews absolutely cannot be viewed as objective or unbiased. Many of these reviewers have repeatedly and openly demonstrated unabashed and politically-motivated biases against biofuels in the past, which immediately casts a long shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of EPA’s peer review process. This is a perversion of what the peer review process is supposed to achieve.”Professor Wally Tyner of the Agricultural Economics Department, Purdue University said, the “sweeping conclusions” made by believers in indirect land use change theory are premature and unproven.Dr. Hao Tan and Professor John Mathews of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia agreed. After exhaustive analysis Mathews stated: Indirect land use change effects are too diffuse and subject to too many arbitrary assumptions to be useful for rule-making. 111 scientists stated jointly in a recent letter to CARB, that indirect land use change theory is immature and can not be validated. This was signed by (1) Blake A. Simmons, Ph.D., Vice President, Deconstruction Division, Joint BioEnergy Institute, Manager, Biomass Science and Conversion Technology, Sandia National Laboratories; (2) Harvey W. Blanch, Ph.D., Chief Science and Technology Officer, Joint BioEnergy Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Member, National Academy of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; and (3) Bruce E. Dale, Ph.D., Distinguished University Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State University.Replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels is an opportunity to recycle existing CO2, instead of bringing-up more and more new carbon from underground and spewing it into the air. This causes CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Substituting biofuels for fossil fuels can be a key factor in mitigating climate change.That is, if we get rid of the oil interests embedded in the EPA, and clean-up their illegitimate rulemaking.The Obama Administration appears to have a two faced, forked tongue policy toward biofuels. To their face, farmers and biofuel producers are being promised smiley government support. But on their backside, the EPA is giving them the shaft – Hitting them with rules and regulations that are Not grounded in science and Not based on accurate data.The EPA’s comparative analysis carbon score for biofuel vs petroleum fuel is grossly inaccurate. This casts a shadow of uncertainty on EPA's proposed rules. The numbers will need to be redone and done right.
Leave a Reply
Biodiesel Magazine encourages civil conversation and debate. However, comments containing personal attacks, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising will be deleted.
Comments are closed