Rep. Eric Swalwell and five other California House members urged the EPA to put the Renewable Fuel Standard program “back on track by finalizing blending targets that are in line with Congress’ original intent.” In a letter to the EPA, the lawmakers said the tepid rise in the RFS announced earlier this year falls short of the statutory volumes set by Congress and “sends a chilling signal to biofuels investors.”
In May the EPA proposed a small increase in the biofuel share of the gasoline market for 2017. The overall target for biofuel would rise to 18.8 billion gallons, up 700 million gallons from this year, with corn ethanol earmarked for 14.8 billion gallons, a 300-million-gallon rise. Ethanol makers criticized the agency for being too timid when, by statute, it could have set the RFS at higher levels — the same complaint made by the California delegation Monday. Environmental groups have said that biofuels did not deserve support at all. While the American Petroleum Institute said the biofuel mandate should be even lower than EPA proposed, and called on Congress to repeal the RFS or modify it significantly.
The California delegation said EPA’s methodology, as it currently stands, will decrease the commercial availability of higher-biofuel blends, such as E15 — which is barely on the market compared with E10. The lawmakers pointed out that there are dozens of companies in the state’s biofuels industry, accounting for 60,000 jobs. They said the industry is essential to addressing climate change, a claim that critics contest.
Meanwhile, a biofuels critic asserted that corn-ethanol producers are now benefiting from a “loophole” in subsidies specifically designed for the cellulosic ethanol industry, as a result of a redefinition of cellulosic ethanol by the EPA. “Subsidies intended for next-generation cellulosic ethanol production are to be applied to a trivial improvement to corn ethanol refining technologies. Since cellulosic ethanol qualifies for much higher subsidies, this will significantly increase corn refinery profits and boost the demand for corn but will do nothing to combat climate change or promote energy independence,” wrote Almuth Ernsting at Independent Science News.