Corn ethanol was given a reprieve today when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its proposed rule for implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standard or RFS2 that includes calculations of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for all fuels. The RFS was signed into law as part of the Energy and Independence Act of 2007 which limits the maximum amount of corn ethanol to 15 billion gallons of the required 36 billion gallons by 2022.

There was palpable concern among corn ethanol proponents leading up to the ruling due to the controversy surrounding Indirect Land Use as well as the passing of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) last week by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which was not favorable for corn ethanol.

Read more of this story »

The renewable fuel program was adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was recently expanded in the Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007. This program requires gasoline to contain a specified volume of renewable fuel. The Governor of the State of Texas requested a fifty percent waiver of the national volume requirements for the renewable fuel standard (RFS or RFS mandate) on April 25, 2008.

Administrator Johnson said:

“After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law. The RFS remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, in aggressive yet practical ways.”

Current law authorizes EPA to waive the national RFS if the agency determines that the mandated biofuel volumes would cause “severe harm” to the economy or the environment. The agency recognizes that high commodity prices are having economic impacts, but EPA’s extensive analysis of Texas’ request found no compelling evidence that the RFS mandate is causing severe economic harm during the time period specified by Texas.

Representatives from the food and grocery industry were disappointed with the EPAs decision as they have had to sharply increase the prices of their products which has resulted in a drop-off in sales.

“We are deeply disappointed that EPA has failed to recognize the very clear signs that the food-to-fuel policy is causing severe harm to the economy,” said George Watts, president of the National Chicken Council.

Other posts about biofuels and the EPA

• Opinion: Biofuels, Food Prices, and Global Warming Roundup
• EPA Drafts Rule for Carbon Sequestration
• Senators Call for EPA Chief Johnson to Step Down
• Why is the EPA Reaching Out?

Photo: swanksalot via flickr under a Creative Commons License

Congress and the president have spoken: ethanol is America’s new renewable fuel.

Yesterday, President Bush signed into law energy bill H.R.6, which establishes a new renewable fuel standard in the United States (see Max’s earlier post). But not everyone is applauding Capitol Hill. James B. Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics, has railed against ethanol in an op-ed to be published in the magazine’s February 2008 issue. As Meigs points out, Washington is looking for quick fixes, not long-term solutions:

It’s great that our politicians have discovered the need for new energy technologies. But it appears that Washington is determined to put its money—our money—on the wrong horse. Right now, researchers are studying a host of energy solutions, including hydrogen, high-mileage diesel, plug-in hybrids, radical reductions in vehicle weight and cellulosic ethanol (made from cornstalks, switchgrass or other nonfood crops). It is far too soon to say which of these holds the most promise. But, instead of promoting experimentation and competition to find the best solutions, politicians seem ready to declare ethanol the winner. As a result, our nation could wind up with the worst of both worlds: an “alternative” energy that is enormously expensive yet barely saves a gallon of oil.

Read more of this story »