## 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 focuse s 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 coul d 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 determina tion, 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 f undamental 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 econo mists: 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 proces s 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 contra cts 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?