Sugarcane Ethanol Producers Aren’t Alone Opposing Unnecessary EPA Policy Change
Last week we weighed in with formal comments opposing a proposed rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that could effectively end U.S. imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, a clean renewable fuel key to meeting the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
But this week, debate on the future of biofuels in America will reach a new level when Congress considers the issue. The House Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold hearings on potential RFS changes tomorrow and Wednesday, with testimony from industry groups and environmental organizations.
Our position is clear – language in EPA’s proposed rulemaking is unnecessary and threatens American access to one of the few advanced biofuels on the market today that reduces greenhouse gases by more than 60 percent compared to gasoline.
But don’t take our word for it. Many important economic and environmental causes for concern were echoed in other formal comments submitted to EPA by biofuel proponents and stakeholders. We’ve parsed these filings and highlighted a few below to reveal exactly what’s at stake.
1- Expensive changes for both producers and consumers – Adecoagro, one of South America’s leading renewable energy companies and a foreign producer of undenatured sugarcane ethanol who has exported to the U.S. since 2011, said EPA’s proposed rules would boost costs for advanced biofuel producers and consumers:
“All exported ethanol from Brazil to U.S. will have to be segregated by producer…meaning increased costs and operational difficulties. According to ship operators, one ship is loaded with product coming from five different producers on average. In our case, we will not be able to mix product produced by our two registered mills, even being under the same company. To make the transport economically and operationally feasible, either will (sic) be excluded from business or there will be need for smaller cargos or incurrence of losses in dead freight, both of which will increase costs and prices for sugarcane ethanol…consequently increasing prices for final consumers in the U.S.
2 – Redundant requirements could price out supplies with no benefit – Chevron, a major refiner and marketer of petroleum products in the U.S., and an obligated party under the RFS, reported redundant bureaucratic reporting would hike ethanol prices with no net benefits:
“Chevron does not agree with EPA’s proposal to require both foreign ethanol producers and importers to meet the requirements…we believe this blurs the line that had previously been established between foreign producers who generate RINs and domestic producers and importers who already have compliance requirements under the program.”
“Requiring foreign ethanol producers and importers to meet the requirements…will result in duplicate reporting of the same information by both parties. This will increase the cost of supplying ethanol from foreign locations and will complicate enforcement by having multiple sets of records for the same transactions.”
“The requirement to segregate shipments of ethanol from the foreign producers will also increase the cost of supply and may not be possible in certain circumstances… The net effect of this proposal will increase the cost of supply of renewable fuels under the RFS. Under certain circumstance, it may also reduce the supply of renewable fuels from overseas providers.”
3 – Unnecessary Oversight Could Harm Future Biofuel Supplies – the Advanced Biofuel Association, representing over 40 member companies who produce advanced biofuels and biofuels feedstocks, mentioned EPA’s unnecessary regulations could limit the future of biofuel supplies in the U.S.:
“The proposed amendment…would significantly impact not just advanced ethanol producers (mainly in Brazil, where no denaturant is added to sugarcane ethanol) but also other cellulosic biofuel producers currently building plants around the world. By requiring complete segregation of the biofuel until it reaches the port of entry, the proposed amendments unnecessarily increase compliance costs particularly for ethanol. While the goal of reducing potential RIN fraud is laudable, we are unaware of any alleged fraud related to RINs associated with imported advanced biofuels.”
“In addition, and of greater concern to the nascent advanced biofuel industry, the required bonds are unreasonably and prohibitively high… Such expenditures would most likely make the export of advanced biofuels to the United States infeasible from a commercial standpoint, particularly for startup companies.”
“Based on our analysis of the negative impact to advanced biofuels trade, the ABFA recommends that EPA withdraw these proposed provisions from the final rule in order to consult with industry on a better approach to ensure the robustness of the RFS is maintained without increasing cost and emissions. We are also greatly concerned about the trade implications of these provisions as well as the ramifications with our relationship which we have been fostering over the last 5 years in the area of biofuels with Brazil.”
As Congress and EPA consider the future of the RFS, we hope they’ll hear the chorus of voices from across the biofuels community urging common sense for America’s renewable fuel policy, and ensure a continued supply of reliable and renewable sugarcane ethanol flowing into U.S. vehicles.