On November 8, 2013, Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) sent a letter to President Obama stating that he is "angered and frustrated" that EPA is considering reducing renewable volume obligations (RVO) as part of its current rulemaking process to set the 2014 RVOs under the federal RFS. He further urges President Obama and his Administration to reconsider such reductions and points out that reductions like those contained in a recently leaked draft of the 2014 RFS proposed rule would harm economies throughout the Midwest and would damage the country's biofuel infrastructure. The sentiments in the letter are similar to ones expressed recently by many representing the biofuels industry.
The oil industry generally has urged EPA to make the kind of reductions to the 2014 RVOs as contained in the leaked draft proposed rule.
On October 30, 2013, Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Peter Welch (R-VT), and Steve Womack (R-AR) sent a letter signed by 169 Members of Congress to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy urging EPA to use its authority to reduce the 2014 statutory renewable volume obligations (RVO) for all types of biofuels, including conventional corn starch ethanol under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). A copy of the letter is available online.
The arguments made in the letter echo those put forth by the oil and gas industry and assert that the 2014 RVO reductions are needed to protect against corn price volatility and the E10 ethanol blend wall.
The letter comes at a crucial time in RFS advocacy. The oil and gas industry is leading the effort to repeal or weaken the RFS through regulatory, legal, and legislative channels, while the biofuels industry is fighting to maintain the policy, arguing that it is the fundamental driver of investment in the industry and that it provides EPA sufficient regulatory flexibility to make all necessary adjustments in its implementation. Further, the biofuels industry notes that no reductions in the conventional RVOs are needed as the RFS has minimal impact on corn prices and there are sufficient mechanisms for 2014 compliance. In addition, many in the biofuels industry argue that the concerns about the E10 blend wall are misplaced, as it exists because the oil and gas industry has refused to make or encourage the necessary investments to enable additional ethanol to be blended into the fuel supply.
A copy of Growth Energy's press release and the Renewable Fuels Association's (RFA) statement on the letter are available online and online.
On November 1, 2013, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Growth Energy, and RFA filed a motion to intervene on behalf of EPA in the current lawsuit by Monroe Energy, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) challenging EPA's final rule establishing the 2013 RVOs under the federal RFS. The filing was made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the case is pending. Copies of press releases issued by BIO, Growth Energy, and RFA are available online.
As stakeholders eagerly await the impending official release of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) rule, strong advocacy from all sides continues on the issue in Washington. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been reviewing the proposed rule since August 30, 2013. Recently, a draft of it was leaked (the leaked draft proposal). In the leaked draft proposal, for the first time, EPA would lower the RFS target volumes not only for cellulosic biofuels, but for conventional ethanol and advanced biofuels as well.
On October 23, 2014, biofuels advocates, including representatives from the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC), DuPont, Novozymes, and Abengoa, met with officials from OMB and the White House. Reportedly, they urged the Administration to reconsider the leaked draft proposal. They argued that the oil and gas industry's concerns about the blendwall -- the point at which no additional E10 may be blended into the fuel supply -- are unfounded and result not from the inability to blend greater amounts of ethanol into the fuel supply, but instead from the industry's refusal to do so. On October 29, 2013, BIO and AEC sent a letter signed by over 30 biofuels companies to President Obama again urging the Administration to reconsider the leaked draft proposal and stressing the importance of consistent RFS implementation to promoting investment in biofuels, including next generation biofuels.
This week, AAA and Sportsmen have come out in support of the oil and gas industry's position that EPA should lower the RFS volume requirements for ethanol to no more than 9.7 percent of the U.S. fuel supply. AAA echoes the industry's argument that such reduction is needed due to the E10 blend wall and concern that E15 could damage car engines. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation held a briefing this week during which it suggested that the ethanol volume requirements under the RFS have caused hunting and fishing areas to be converted to cropland, and have degraded water quality in the Mississippi River watershed, among other changes.
Citing concerns over livestock in their states, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) have announced plans to introduce legislation to eliminate the corn ethanol volume requirements under the federal RFS. The bill would leave the advanced biofuels requirements in place. Certain stakeholders in the biofuels industry have already come out against the bill. For instance, it is reported that Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen has stressed the importance of maintaining the conventional biofuel volume requirements to the continued development of the advanced biofuels industry. Dinneen argues that the growth of the conventional biofuels industry has built up the infrastructure necessary to support advanced biofuels.
On October 30, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia approved the request by Monroe Energy to expedite review of the current RFS litigation challenging EPA's final rule setting the 2013 renewable volume obligations under the federal RFS (the 2013 RFS rule). In October 2013, Monroe, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) filed individual cases before the court challenging the 2013 RFS rule. These cases have been consolidated.
In response to Monroe's petition for expedited review, the court issued an order encouraging all parties to work together and propose a mutually agreed upon expedited schedule. The parties, including EPA, submitted a proposed expedited briefing schedule on October 24 and the court approved it on October 30. Under the schedule, all briefs will be submitted by the end of February 2014.
Also on October 24, 2013, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) filed a petition with the court to intervene in the case on behalf of EPA. NBB asserts that its member companies would be harmed if the 2013 RFS rule were to be changed or weakened.
Biofuels supporters and opponents remain heavily engaged in RFS policy issues. Last week, we reported on a news report that one advanced biofuels trade association, the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA), may be working with the American Petroleum Institute (API) on potential legislative language that would provide additional RIN credit for advanced biofuels under the federal RFS program. Since then, ABFA and API have both denied the accuracy of the story. In addition, DuPont announced that it has relinquished its membership in the ABFA and reaffirmed its commitment to advocating that the RFS is working as intended to promote the investment in and development of biofuels and should not be altered in any way through legislation at this point in time.
James C. Greenwood, current President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and former Member of Congress, sent a letter to the leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asserting that the broad consensus among the biofuels industry, including the advanced biofuels industry, is that now is not the time to legislate on the RFS.
API has continued its opposition to the RFS by announcing that it plans to sue EPA if it fails to issue the final rule setting the 2014 RFS renewable volume obligations (RVO) by November 30, 2013. While the law mandates that EPA issue in final the following year's RVOs by November 30, EPA has consistently missed that deadline. This is the first time API has threatened to sue the Agency if it does not meet the November 30 deadline.
Obligated parties and the organizations that represent them continue efforts to challenge and weaken the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Several lawsuits have been filed recently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) challenging the final rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) setting the 2013 RFS requirements. Monroe Energy, a subsidiary of Delta Airlines, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) have each filed challenges to the EPA's final 2013 RFS rule and its renewable and cellulosic volume requirements.
On October 10, 2013, Monroe Energy filed an emergency motion for expedited consideration of its case challenging EPA's final 2013 RFS rule. The company argues that expedited review is necessary given the June 2014 deadline for compliance with the rule that would require Monroe to spend millions on the purchase of Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN).
On Friday, October 11, 2013, API petitioned EPA to reconsider the renewable volume obligations (RVO) set in the final 2013 RFS rule. Under the RFS, EPA is directed to set the following year's RVOs by November 30. EPA did not finalize the 2013 RVOs until August 2013, nine months after the deadline. API argues that EPA improperly used updated Energy Information Administration (EIA) production estimates and that the cellulosic RVO is too high.
Last week, part of EPA's much anticipated 2014 proposed RFS rule, or at least a draft of the rule, was leaked and widely disseminated. If the text of the leaked proposed rule is representative of the actual proposed rule, the oil and gas industry would likely view it more favorably than would the biofuels industry. In the leaked version of the proposal, EPA would use its authority under the RFS to adjust downward the cellulosic, advanced, and overall renewable fuel volume requirements for 2014. It would require obligated parties to blend or use 15.21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2014, as opposed to the 18.15 which is required under the 2007 statute.
In the past few months, AFPM and API filed a joint petition, and Valero Energy Corporation filed a petition, requesting that EPA grant a partial waiver of the 2014 statutory RFS requirements. Generally, AFPM and API argued that because the 2014 RFS requirements would require obligated parties to blend more E10 than they are permitted to under the law, they would necessarily restrict the U.S. fuel supply, which would harm consumers. To avoid this harm, AFPM and API requested that EPA waive the 2014 RFS requirements to no more than 9.7 percent of the U.S. fuel supply. Valero's letter pointed out that due to the blend wall, RIN prices are higher than they should be, which reportedly is causing economic harm to affected parties, including consumers.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) sent separate letters to EPA urging EPA to deny the AFPM and API joint petition. They both assert that there are several options obligated parties have to meet their 2014 RFS requirements, including the greater use of E85, E15, and drop-in fuels.
Both U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy have issued statements denouncing the leak and reiterating that the final version of the 2014 RFS proposed rule is still being deliberated.
It is being reported that API and the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA) are working together on potential legislative language to increase the value of RINs associated with advanced biofuels and to allow them to help make up conventional RINs due to blend wall constraints under the federal RFS. According to news reports, the two groups are working to present this potential language to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who are working on developing legislation to modify the RFS.
Several of API's largest members, including Shell and BP, are working on projects to produce advanced biofuels. Reportedly, API and ABFA contend that increasing the value of advanced biofuel RINs and allowing them to help make up conventional RINs due to blend wall constraints would help spur investment in and development of advanced biofuels to help meet the RFS. All other major biofuels trade associations are advocating against any legislative change to the RFS. They argue that, however well-intentioned, opening the RFS up to amendment would make the law vulnerable to repeal, for which the oil industry is heavily lobbying.
In addition, several biofuels groups argue that there are sufficient RFS compliance options and solutions to the blend wall, which they say has been intentionally created by the oil industry that has chosen not to take steps to address it. For instance, these groups argue the oil industry could encourage greater investment in E85 and its distribution. While API is still advocating for RFS repeal, it is reported that the group recognizes that outcome is unlikely in this Congress. Reportedly, this is the reason the group is working with ABFA on the advanced RINs amendment.