Ethanol. Right. Now.

Sound science and a fair playing field

The American Coalition for Ethanol recently submitted official comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the proposed rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard.  This "RFS2" has been a point of concern, specifically the EPA's inclusion of the controversial "international land use change" (ILUC) theory in the proposed rule.  It's also concerning that EPA appointed Tim Searchinger, the lawyer who is the very architect of the ILUC theory, a seat on the peer-review panel.  These so-called "indirect effects" are new, untested, unreliable, and controversial computer-generated predictions that are, at this time, being selectively applied only to corn ethanol. 

In our comments, ACE asked that EPA insist on greater scientific consensus and real-world data before moving forward to apply these penalties to biofuels in the final rule.  And if EPA insists on applying indirect effects, these effects should be applied to all fuels – not just ethanol.  This includes undertaking a complete lifecycle assessment of the indirect emissions association with petroleum.  Sound science and fair playing field is all we’re asking. 

Experts debate methods for calculating international land use change

At the American Coalition for Ethanol's national conference last week in Milwaukee, experts in the field of studying international land use change debated the different methods behind the calculations.  Wally Tyner, professor and energy economist in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, and Tom Darlington, President of Air Improvement Resource (AIR) Inc. addressed the conference's general session on "Theory vs. Science: The Role of Biofuels in Low Carbon Policies and Calculating Direct and Indirect Emissions."

Tyner noted that prior to 2007, the general consensus was that corn ethanol had a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but then in the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 came the requirement that indirect land use change be considered in estimating total GHG impacts.  He stated that there are a number of issues involved in developing a lifecycle model to quantify these international changes, including how to define the boundaries, deciding what to include and not include, and working with uncertain numbers. "How uncertain are these numbers?  And they are uncertain, believe me," Tyner said.

He also mentioned the E10 blend wall, calling it "the biggest issue" facing the ethanol industry.  "It's a total block to cellulosic ethanol," Tyner said. "Cellulosic ethanol will never appear without getting over the blend wall."

Tyner believes that, based on Purdue's "GTAP" model, the range today for corn ethanol is minus 9 to minus 23 in terms of lower lifecycle emissions than gasoline.

Tom Darlington has studied the international land use change (ILUC) issue and sees what California has done with its low carbon fuels standard as potentially problematic.  Other states are looking to take up the banner on a low carbon fuels standard after California, he noted, saying "I still believe how we do a low carbon fuels standard or RFS2 is a pretty big issue."

"At this point I believe the numbers are not as high as the GTAP model and some of the other models are saying, and I'm not in one camp or the other," Darlington said.  He studied the ILUC issue about a year ago for the Renewable Fuels Association and determined that land use change could indeed be zero.

Darlington believes a higher credit should be given for the ethanol co-product distillers grain, which goes back into the livestock feed market.  He said that other models traditionally believe distillers grain replaces corn on a pound for pound basis, but a new study shows that especially in dairy cattle, swine, and poultry, distillers may replace some soy, too.  One pound of distillers grain replaces nearly 1.3 pounds of corn.  Properly accounting for that soy offset should have a land use change credit, Darlington said. 

When the models are tweaked according to Darlington's recommendations, the outcome is much more favorable for corn ethanol than under the California model, for example.

"Land use modeling is in its infancy," Darlington said.  "Regulations requiring these to be estimated are still far ahead of the models.  We believe there is great risk in making bad decisions, and they may be irreversible."

During the Q&A with the audience, Tyner said he has a couple of issues with Darlington's model, but "we have made tremendous progress in the science.  We're all working to improve all of this stuff."

The California low carbon fuels standard is another question, Tyner said, stating that "it's really tough to create a policy that puts millions of dollars on every percentage point on every different type of fuel."  Measurement becomes absolutely critical, he said, adding that "I don't think we're going to get there," to a point where we can be absolutely certain of each percentage point.

 

Rice University study misses some facts on ethanol

A new Rice University study misses some facts on ethanol, and more specifically corn-based ethanol production.  The report ("The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?") says that "to meet the mandated increased production of biofuels, increased agricultural activity such as tilling more land and higher agrichemical application is inevitable."  This statement misses a couple of important facts.

First, the Renewable Fuels Standard in the 2007 energy bill was written in such a way to recognize the role of biofuels produced from different sources, and to balance those sources according to their potential size.  The RFS calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuel use by 2022, with corn-based ethanol being capped at 15 billion gallon of that total by 2015.  The balance will come from cellulosic sources.  There is a limit to how much corn can and should be used for ethanol production, and the RFS schedule respects that.  This amount of corn-based ethanol can be made available in a sustainable way, keeping an ample supply of corn for feed and food purposes.

Also, the production of corn has changed dramatically, with farmers achieving higher yields with fewer inupts.  Farmers are growing five times as much corn as they did in the 1930s on 20 percent less land.  Irrigation, soil loss, emissions, and net energy inputs per bushel of corn are all down double-digits in the last 20 years.  The ethanol production process itself has dropped its water consumption per gallon of biofuel by more than 26 percent since 2001.  There are lots of new efficiencies both in farming and in ethanol production that need to be recognized.

And please note: the Rice University study comes via funding from Shell Oil's "Center for Sustainability."

EPA needs to schedule some time in the Heartland

A recent Congressional hearing shed some light on the many unknowns surrounding how the Environmental Protection Agency's biofuels regulations will affect American farmers and ethanol producers. 

A May 21st hearing held by the House Small Business Committee, "The Impacts of Outstanding Regulatory Policy on Small Biofuels Producers and Family Farmers," included testimony by Margo Oge, the Director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Ms. Oge was asked by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) how much time during her 29-year career with EPA she'd spent on farms in the United States seeing first-hand the impact of the agency's rule-making.  Her answer: "I have not spent any time on farms in the United States."  View a video clip here.

Since the hearing, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has invited EPA employees including Ms. Oge to visit his family's farm in Iowa to see first-hand the impressive things farmers are doing to produce food, feed, and fuel.  The American Coalition for Ethanol seconds this request and urges EPA officials to schedule a visit soon to some of America's family farmers and ethanol plants.