# USEPA’s Regulatory Action

under the Energy Independence and Security

Act

March 2008 Bob Larson, Transportation and Climate Div

USEPA

# Recent Events

 

## Au **gust 2005**  **Energy A**  **ct**

**– requires**  **7.5 b gals renew able**  **fuel by**  **2 012** 

 

## January

**2 007**  **State of the**  **Union A ddress** 

**— 20**  **- in**  **- 10** 

**goal**
 

## March 2007 **Ad ministration**  **proposes Al**  **ternative Fuel Standard**  **legislation**

 

## Ap **ril 2007**  **Supreme Court Decision** 

 

## May **2 007**  **EPA a**  **dopts 7.5 b gal renew**  **able fuel regulations** 

 

## May **2 007**  **President’s An**  **nouncement and** 

**Executiv e**  **Order (35**  **billion gallons**  **renew able**  **and alternativ e**  **fuel)**

 

## December 2007 **Energy I**  **ndependence and Security**  **A ct**  **passed by**  **C ongress and signed by**  **P resident**  **Bush, including**  **a 36 billion gallon**  **renew able fuel**  **mandate**

# EISA has two major components related to GHG from transportation
 

# Improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency (reaching approximately 35MPG on avg by 2022)  

# Greatly increases the amount of renewable fuel compared to the 2005 energy act

# 4 Separate Standards

**Ye ar**  **Ad vanced**  **Biofuel To**  **tal Renew**  **able Fuel**  **Biomass**   ** Based Diesel** **Cellulosic**

**Biofuel To**  **tal**

**Ad vanced**  **Biofuel 2006**  **4.0 2007**  **4.7 2008**  **9.0 2009**  **0.5 0.6**  **11 .1**  **2010 0.65**  **0.1 0.95**  **12.95 201**  **1 0.80**  **0.25 1.35**  **13.95 2012**  **1.0 0.5**  **2.0 15.2**  **2013 1.0**  **1.0 2.75**  **16.55 2014**  **1.0 1.75**  **3.75 18.15**  **2015 1.0**  **3.0 5.5**  **20.5 2016**  **1.0 4.25**  **7.25 22.25**  **2017 1.0**  **5.5 9.0**  **24.0 2018**  **1.0 7.0**  **11 .0**  **26.0 2019**  **1.0 8.5**  **13.0 28.0** 

# The Standards are Nested

Shown with 2022 volumes

Renewable fuels - 36 bill gal

Mostly corn-ethanol

Also other fuels which meet GHG reduction threshold of 20%



## Adv anced biofuels - 21 bill gal 

### Cellulosic biofuel - 16 bill gal

Mostly cellulosic ethanol
All f uels m ust meet GHG reduction threshold of 60%

Mostly im ported ethanol Some renewable diesel
All fuels m ust m eet GHG reduction threshold of 50%Biomassbased diesel 1 bill gal

Biodiesel
All fuels m us t m eet GHG reduction threshold of 50%

# Energy Independence and Security Act Requires Lifecycle Assessment
 

# Lifecycle assessment required to determine which fuels meet mandated GHG performance thresholds compared to petroleum fuel replaced

 

# 20% reduction for new facility renewable fuel

 

# 50% reduction for biomass

- based diesel

 

# 60% reduction for cellulosic biofuel  

# Lifecycle assessment must include impacts on land use

# Fuel Life Cycle GHG Assessment

 

# Also called fuel cycle or well

- to

- wheel analysis, compilation of the GHG impacts of a fuel throughout its life cycle

 

# Production / extraction of feedstock

 

# Feedstock transportation

 

# Fuel production

 

# Fuel distribution

 

# Tailpipe emissions  

# Can be used to compare one or more fuels performing the same function (e.g., miles driven)

# Corn Ethanol Example

Can compare to producing an equivalent amount of petroleum gasoline Fertilizer N 2 O Fuel C om bustion CO 2 Land Use Change CO 2 Fuel Combustion CO 2 Fuel Combustion CO 2 Fuel Combustion CO 2

1 gal ethanol Corn Farming 0.37 bu Corn Trans Ethanol Production Ethanol Dist

GHG Emissions 6.5 lb DDGS * Redu ced GHG Emissions

= 0.16 bu corn (~9 lb) plus 0.4 lb soy bean meal Ag Chemical Prod

Natural Gas Natural Gas Diesel Fuel Natural Gas Diesel Fuel

LPG Coal Electricity Electricity Diesel Fuel Gasoline * Displacement allocation used, so for entire system n ew corn production = 0.21 bu and results in 0.4 less soy bean meal produced 

### DDGS = Distiller Dried Grains, substitute animal feed

# Example: Gasoline vs. Corn Ethanol Lifecycle

Comparison From RFS 1

**Ga sol**  **in e Li**  **fecy cl**  **e G HG**  **Emi ssi**  **ons**

Lif ecy cl e GHG Emission s 99, 300

0 20, 000 40, 000 60, 000 80, 000 100, 000 120, 000

Cr ud e

Ex tracti on Cr ud e Tra ns Re fi ni ng Gasoli ne T& D Ta il pipe**g C** **O 2** **- e** **q .** **/ m** **m B** **t u**  Fos sil CO2 N2 O CH 4 Cum ulative GH G

**Corn Ethanol Li**  **fe cy**  **cl e GH**  **G Emi ssi**  **ons**

Lif ecy cl e GHG Emission s 73, 300

-1 00, 000 -8 0, 000 -6 0, 000 -4 0, 000 -2 0, 000 0 20, 000 40, 000 60, 000 80, 000 100, 000

Co rn

Farmi ng Co rn Tra ns Et ha no l Pr od Et ha no l

T& D Ta il pipe**g C** **O 2** **- e** **q .** **/ m** **m B** **t u**  Fossil CO2 N2 O CH 4 Bio ma ss CO2 Co -P rod C O2 Credit Co -P rod C H4 Credit Co -P rod N 2O Credit Cu mu lative GH G 26% reduction in GHG emissions Comparing energy equiv alent amounts of fuel

Assumptions: 7.5 Bgal scenario used in the Renewable Fuel Standard Rulemaking, corn ethanol dry milling using natural gas

# Example Lifecycle Analysis

 

# Prior Renewable Fuel Standard analysis assessed first order impacts

 

# GHG impacts of corn and soybean acres in US  

# New analysis more complete assessment of domestic impacts and added international

 

# Corn and soybeans plus other crops

 

# Land use changes

 

# International impact of decreased US exports

• Increased crop production in other countries adds GHG

• Land use impacts critical

# Domestic Impact Discussion

 

# Looking at domestic impacts only of increased ethanol production results in a net decrease in total GHG emissions

 

# Shift in crop production results in little net crop acreage increase in US

 

# Decrease in rice acres and livestock production (due to increased feed prices) results in GHG emission reductions

 

# 40% of corn used for ethanol comes from reductions in exports (highlighting need to include international impacts) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Co tt on Co rn Soyb eans Wheat

Sorghum Ri

ce Oa ts Bar le y Si la ge Ha y Ne t Chang e**M i** **l l** **i o** **n A** **c r** **e s** 

# Land Use Change

**Assumptions**

 

# Need to consider carbon per acre for different land types  

# What type of land is converted in different countries, for example:

 

# Argentina (Savanna)

 

# Brazil Case 1 (Pasture)

 

# Brazil Case 2 (Savanna)

 

# Brazil Case 3 (Pasture + Tropical Forest)

 

# Indonesia (Tropical Forest)

**On e**  **Ti me**  **R el**  **ease**

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pa stu re Sa va nna Tr opi ca l Fo res t**M e** **t r** **i c** **T o** **n C** **O 2** **/ A** **c r** **e**

# Impact of Land Use Change Assumptions **(Dry M**  **ill, Natural Gas, Dry**  **a nd Pelletized DDGS)** 

**NET + 28%**

**NET - 11% NET**  **- 17%**

-40,000 -20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000

Gasoline Ethanol (Brazil Pasture) Ethanol (Brazil

Savanna) Ethanol (Brazil

Forest + Pasture)**g C** **O 2** **- e** **q .** **/ m** **m B** **t u** 

-140%

-120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%**P e** **r c** **e n** **t C** **h a** **n g** **e f** **r o** **m G** **a s** **o l** **i n** **e** 

### International Rice

Methane International Livestock Decreases International Land Use Change International Farm Inputs and Fert N2O Domestic Rice Methane Domestic Livestock Decreases Domestic Soil Carbon Change Domestic Farm Inputs and Fert N2O Other (fuel and feedstock transport) Fuel Prod - Dry Mill NG Total Net GHG Emissions

# Further Work on Life Cycle

**Modeling**

 

# Specific **areas of improvement that we**  **a re**  **wo rking**  **on include:**

 

# Building a consistent modeling framework that captures both domestic and international agricultural sector changes and GHG impacts

 

# Working with experts to improve understanding of agricultural N2O emissions

 

# Developing country specific GHG emissions factors associated with land use change and agricultural practices

 

# Updating petroleum baseline  

# Updating other **biofuel life cy**  **cle GHG factors**  **wi th**  **this approach** 

 

# Biodiesel

 

# Imported ethanol

 

# Cellulosic ethanol  

# We continue **to have discussions wi**  **th**

 

# Industry groups

 

# Academics and other experts