Representatives of the ethanol industry submitted comments to the U.S. EPA on July 5 criticizing the agency’s proposed emission standards for model year (MY) 2027 and later light- and medium-duty vehicles for neglecting the potential of biofuels and serving as a de facto mandate for electric vehicles (EVs).

The EPA on April 12 released a proposed rule that aims to set new, more stringent standards for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles that would phase in over MY 2027 through 2032. The rulemaking also proposes GHG program revisions in several areas, including off-cycle and air conditioning credits, the treatment of upstream emissions associated with zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in compliance calculations, medium-duty vehicle inventive multipliers, and vehicle certification and compliance. In addition, the proposed rule includes new standards to control refueling emissions from incomplete medium-duty vehicles, and battery durability and warranty requirements for light- and medium-duty plug-in vehicles.

According to information released by the EPA, the agency predicts the proposed MY 2032 light-duty standards would result in a 56 percent reduction in projected fleet average GHG emission target levels when compared to the existing MY 2026 standards, while the proposed MY 2032 medium-duty vehicle standards would result in a 44 percent reduction when compared to MY 2026 standards. Depending on the compliance pathways manufactures select to meet the standards, the agency projects that electric vehicles (EVs) could account for 67 percent of new light-duty vehicles and 46 percent of new medium-duty vehicle sales in MY 2032.

The public comment period on the proposed rule closed July 5. As of the end of the day July 4, nearly 121,000 comments had already been filed on the proposed rule. The Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy are among the groups to weigh in on the EPA’s proposal.

The RFA is calling on the EPA to abandon its proposal to create a de facto EV mandate and instead adopt a market-oriented, technology-neutral approach to transportation decarbonization. “Unfortunately, EPA’s proposal would effectively force automakers to produce more battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and strongly discourage them from pursuing other technologies that could achieve the same—or even better—environmental performance at a lower cost to American consumers,” wrote Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA. “EPA’s proposed approach ignores the significant upstream emissions related to electricity generation, as well as the substantial emissions involved in battery mineral extraction and processing.”

In its extensive comments, RFA encouraged EPA to use a full lifecycle analysis approach to assessing the true GHG impacts of various transportation options. RFA noted that multiple studies show ethanol significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is on the way to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. EPA’s proposed regulation favors BEVs by treating them as “zero emissions vehicles” and ignoring the upstream emissions related to electricity production, as well as mining and processing of critical battery minerals. In the end, RFA argued, emissions regulations should not dictate certain vehicle technologies, and should instead adopt technology-neutral approaches that embrace a broad portfolio of low-carbon fuel and vehicle options.

“If our nation is to reach its goal of net-zero GHG emissions by mid-century, we’ll need cleaner, more efficient cars and cleaner, more efficient fuels,” Cooper wrote. “And, we’ll need to account for their emissions honestly using a full lifecycle approach. Focusing only on emissions from the vehicle—while ignoring emissions related to the extraction and production of the fuel used to power the vehicle—will almost certainly result in falling far short of the administration’s overall climate goals.”

 In its comments, Growth Energy challenged the EPA’s justification to issue the rule and highlighted the inconsistencies in EPA’s approach to evaluating GHG emissions over the lifecycles of EVs versus internal combustion engine vehicles. The comments also call on EPA to update its final standards to include biofuels as a necessary solution to reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector.

“This proposal is unnecessarily narrow, presenting a false choice between only two paths forward – fossil-fuel-only vehicles or mass adoption of EVs. Neither outcome reflects reality, and EPA’s framework ignores the proven, available, and American-made solution of emissions-reducing biofuel,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy.

“Internal combustion engine vehicles will be on the road for decades to come,” she added. “We will need liquid fuels to power them, and the more oil we displace in those fuels with bio-based alternatives, the greater the environmental benefit.

“Instead of placing its thumb on the scale for a single technology, EPA’s final standards must reflect the entire lifecycle analysis of all technologies. Doing anything less undermines American ingenuity and innovation, and leaves carbon emissions reductions on the table,” Skor continued.

The American Coalition for Ethanol is urging the EPA to develop a technology-neutral approach when finalizing vehicle emissions standards. Brian Jennings, CEO of ACE, submitted comments to the agency discussing the practical, technical and legal problems associated with arbitrarily regulating battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as the only solution to reduce GHGs from the transportation sector. He also addressed how EPA can fix its proposal to develop a practical and achievable technology-neutral final rule.

Jennings referenced automakers’ skepticism over the feasibility of EPA’s proposed BEV transition and the dozens of factors the proposal relies on that are outside of the direct control of automakers and their suppliers, citing that “EPA itself lacks the jurisdiction to regulate or control complimentary polices needed to solve for many of these needs, such as securing foreign supplies of raw materials and minerals to make batteries, access to home and public charging infrastructure, state and local building codes, grid capacity and reliability, and perhaps most importantly, consumer preferences and fears associated with such a monumentally fast transition to BEVs.”

What’s more, EPA’s reliance upon non-binding company commitments and projections about BEV production does not make the proposal feasible. “Indeed, recently in setting final 2023 through 2025 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for advanced biofuel, EPA specifically chose not to rely on the non-binding production capacity forecasts and commitments of prospective advanced biofuel producers,” Jennings said. “As a result, the final advanced biofuel RVOs are lower than desired by many of these prospective biofuel producers, but achievable in EPA’s view. Why would the Agency abandon that logic for this rulemaking and put all its faith in similarly non-binding commitments from BEV enthusiasts when proposing these ambitious tailpipe standards for vehicles?”

Further, “BEVs are not zero emission vehicles,” Jennings added. “They are zero tailpipe emission vehicles. EPA’s proposal conveniently ignores this reality by failing to account for the entirety of lifecycle GHG emissions associated with BEVs and the minerals/materials necessary to produce and power them.”

Instead, ACE implored EPA to rework its proposal to develop a more practical technology-neutral approach, giving much more consideration to replacing the fossil fuel-based gasoline powering internal combustion engines with a lower carbon and higher-octane alternative, such as ethanol.

The comments state that EPA must address fuel quality and establish new certification fuel pathways to account for the tremendous benefits of high ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, as well as conduct a full lifecycle GHG emissions analysis based on the latest version of the GREET model, among other recommendations.

ACE’s comments also outline how ethanol and agriculture are part of the solution“Understanding the potential for climate-smart agriculture to help dramatically reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of corn ethanol, ACE is proactively working to document the benefits climate smart practices have on the carbon intensity of corn ethanol in a scientifically irrefutable manner,” Jennings said. “The best way to unlock decarbonization opportunities from climate-smart agriculture is through clean fuel policy which stands up markets to help offset farmer cost of adoption.”

The RFA and Growth Energy also on July 5 partnered with the National Association of Convenience Stores, National Corn Growers Association, NATSO, National Farmers Union and SIGMA to send a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan urging fairness in tailpipe emissions standards.

The American Coalition for Ethanol is urging the EPA to develop a technology-neutral approach when finalizing vehicle emissions standards. Brian Jennings, CEO of ACE, submitted comments to the agency discussing the practical, technical and legal problems associated with arbitrarily regulating battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as the only solution to reduce GHGs from the transportation sector. He also addressed how EPA can fix its proposal to develop a practical and achievable technology-neutral final rule.

Jennings referenced automakers’ skepticism over the feasibility of EPA’s proposed BEV transition and the dozens of factors the proposal relies on that are outside of the direct control of automakers and their suppliers, citing that “EPA itself lacks the jurisdiction to regulate or control complimentary polices needed to solve for many of these needs, such as securing foreign supplies of raw materials and minerals to make batteries, access to home and public charging infrastructure, state and local building codes, grid capacity and reliability, and perhaps most importantly, consumer preferences and fears associated with such a monumentally fast transition to BEVs.”

What’s more, EPA’s reliance upon non-binding company commitments and projections about BEV production does not make the proposal feasible. “Indeed, recently in setting final 2023 through 2025 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for advanced biofuel, EPA specifically chose not to rely on the non-binding production capacity forecasts and commitments of prospective advanced biofuel producers,” Jennings said. “As a result, the final advanced biofuel RVOs are lower than desired by many of these prospective biofuel producers, but achievable in EPA’s view. Why would the Agency abandon that logic for this rulemaking and put all its faith in similarly non-binding commitments from BEV enthusiasts when proposing these ambitious tailpipe standards for vehicles?”

Further, “BEVs are not zero emission vehicles,” Jennings added. “They are zero tailpipe emission vehicles. EPA’s proposal conveniently ignores this reality by failing to account for the entirety of lifecycle GHG emissions associated with BEVs and the minerals/materials necessary to produce and power them.”

Instead, ACE implored EPA to rework its proposal to develop a more practical technology-neutral approach, giving much more consideration to replacing the fossil fuel-based gasoline powering internal combustion engines with a lower carbon and higher-octane alternative, such as ethanol.

The comments state that EPA must address fuel quality and establish new certification fuel pathways to account for the tremendous benefits of high ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, as well as conduct a full lifecycle GHG emissions analysis based on the latest version of the GREET model, among other recommendations.

ACE’s comments also outline how ethanol and agriculture are part of the solution“Understanding the potential for climate-smart agriculture to help dramatically reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of corn ethanol, ACE is proactively working to document the benefits climate smart practices have on the carbon intensity of corn ethanol in a scientifically irrefutable manner,” Jennings said. “The best way to unlock decarbonization opportunities from climate-smart agriculture is through clean fuel policy which stands up markets to help offset farmer cost of adoption.”

In the letter, the groups say the proposed rule favors electric vehicles while failing to consider the decarbonization potential of existing biofuels that can improve the emissions profile of the vast majority of cars on the road today. The organizations recommend that EPA account for all emissions relating to different fuel and engine technologies and equitably incentivize emissions reductions from all of those technologies.

“EPA should use the best available science to accurately account for the full lifecycle carbon intensity associated with particular fuels and technologies, but its proposed approach ignores the significant upstream emissions from electricity generation associated with electric vehicles,” the groups said. “Incentives for alternative fuel technologies should be tied to those technologies’ full lifecycle environmental attributes rather than a single cherry-picked step in the lifecycle (i.e., tailpipe emissions).”

The associations support the agency’s goal of reducing over-the-road transportation emissions but are concerned that the agency’s proposed standards “artificially tilts the scale towards electric vehicles” while ignoring other available fuel and vehicle options that can help decarbonize the transportation sector more rapidly and at a lower cost. The groups also noted that “the proposed rule exceeds the scope of the Agency’s statutory authority, which does not include authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards that effectively mandate EVs.”