Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule titled, “Modification to 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program and E15 Misfueling Mitigation Regulations,” RIN 2060-AR21. 

1) LCA Methodology: Toward the end of this long document, the text focuses down on EPA proposing 

a number of options for public comment regarding whether and how to include tradable RECs 

(and/or other renewable energy sources?) in determining the basic LCA eligibility for a pathway. In 

essence, it appears that a proponent could add some degree of REC commitment to reduce the LCA 

GHG analysis for a pathway from say, 51% to 49%, or whatever reduction is needed to have a 

pathway approved and to benefit from a de novo RFS category designation, a more advantageous 

category determination, or even a redesignation of an existing RFS category. Additional information 

is requested from EPA on a number of aspects:

a) LCA methodology: Is this consistent with routine LCA scientific methodology standards (e.g., 

ISO), which usually start with a fundamental definition of the system boundaries? Previously 

the RFS system boundaries included international GHG emissions from deforestation, but in this 

situation there remains a proximate link between the forest loss, biomass growth, biofuel 

production, and then shipping to the US. One could make a similar case for onsite renewable 

energy production, even for i) dedicated ii) newly constructed offsite renewable energy 

production (maybe?). But, purchasing tradable RECs seems ... remote? A suggestion here

would be to rephrase the text to specifically request public comment on the concept of new and 

dedicated construction as an option for offsite REC production, and add this as the proposed 

regulatory text.

b) “Sub-REC” market creation: A question to the economists: If we are considering allowing offsite 

“renewable energy” to contribute to the LCA, what is to methodologically prevent the 

proponent entering into a contract with an existing hydroelectric or biomass power plant (not 

otherwise eligible for tradable RECs) and asserting that this energy source must also be 

considered as renewable in the GHG LCA? Would this be creating a de facto “sub-REC” market?

c) Existing Pathways: Would modifications to the LCA methodology open up existing RFS pathway 

determinations to LCA GHG re-evaluation requests?

d) Non-option and methodological concern: It would be valuable to make the non-option and 

methodological concerns more apparent, and to place these up front in the discussion. It is 

likely that the current text and process changes to the LCA GHG will be controversial with from 

multiple stakeholders, and it would be valuable to be clear regarding any concern the Federal 

government has on this as a way forward.

2) RINs from MSWs: Question to economists: It is clear that there already exists sufficient MSW 

gas/electricity and biomass electricity capacity to provide all the contract links necessary from the 

generators to the existing and proposed electric vehicles and urban bus fleets, etc. Since this MSW 

gas production already exists, what is the distributional impact/wealth transfer predicted between: 

a) MSW operators who will now generate RINs, b) petroleum companies who will have to pay for 

the new RINs, c) electric vehicle manufacturers/cities who can enter into fleet contracts and 

leverage some of the RIN value, and d) electric vehicle owners/purchasers at the end of the chain? 

a) What this cumulative social benefit of this action? 

b) Will there be more gas production, more renewable energy, more impetus to cellulosic, or just 

more numeric RINs to satisfy the EISA requirements?