Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 

12866 and EO 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EO 12866 Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft final

rule titled, “Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and 

Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017,” RIN 2060-AS22

1. BBD: The commenter would like EPA to consider whether the environmental safeguards 

written into the law can supersede some of the grandfathered palm oil biodiesel imports. For 

example, BBD falls into the advanced biofuels category and thus is expected to have a 50 

percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. With indirect land use change, it is almost 

certain that imported palm oil biodiesel does not qualify. If the safeguards cannot apply, this 

reviewer strongly suggests reducing the BBD requirement (and the subsequent requirements in 

higher nests). It is not helping the environment to push these levels and a reasonable read of 

the legislation suggests that it was not Congress’ intent to encourage palm oil biodiesel imports.

2. Conventional biofuels: The commenter is concerned about the increase in conventional biofuels 

implied by the 2016 levels. Given that there is very little environmental benefit from these, the 

only argument for them is to push the infrastructure development. Yet is very apparent that the 

incentives in this market are not leading to major additional infrastructure development in E85. 

There is clear evidence that the passthrough of RIN prices to retail E85 prices is minimal (e.g., 

see Knittel et al. 2015). Given this, the effect of the higher mandate for conventional biofuels 

will likely be to draw down on the RIN bank. These issues appear to be insufficiently discussed. 

Mandating fewer conventional biofuels (closer to the value in the NPRM) seems like a logical 

approach in light of the minimal passthrough (which implies a limited ability to push through 

the blendwall with E85). In a future rulemaking, changing the point of obligation may help with 

this issue, but that is likely too major of a change to make for this final rule.

--------------------

3. EPA has not provided a sufficient justification that there is adequate domestic supply for the 

waiver level of 3.8 billion gallons of advanced biofuel, and therefore the overall 18.1 billion 

gallons of renewable fuel. If the required volumes of advanced and total biofuel exceed 

adequate supply, it could potentially lead to significant volatility in the D5 and D4 RIN values in 

2016.

The revision in the advanced category (which is primarily accounting for biodiesel and 

renewable diesel fuel) from 3.4 billion gallons to 3.8 billion gallons would require sufficient 

production capacity and market and regulatory conditions sufficient to support these fuels. 

Such conditions existed from 2012 to 2013 and resulted in an increase on the same order as 

that proposed from 2015 to 2016. At the time, biodiesel was one of the only available market to 

transportation fuel blenders to readily meet their RFS obligation because of the E10 blendwall. 

Additionally, the biodiesel blenders tax credit was available providing additional incentive to 

produce and blend biodiesel. On the other hand, the RFS itself could drive improved regulatory 

conditions that would spur real world production from the estimated 2.8 billion gallons of 

existing biodiesel capacity and the expected 375 million gallons of capacity that appears to be 

planned or under construction. Further, the Senate is currently considering an extension of the 

biodiesel tax credit similar to what was available in the past.
EPA should either change the advanced biofuels volume and overall requirements in 2016 to be 

consistent with the current justification or update the justification with additional data or other 

resources to support the higher level and submit the updated justification for interagency 

review.

4. The commenter recommends strengthening the language to indicate EPA’s intention to 

continue to set aggressive standards that work towards the statutory targets to provide 

certainty despite a requirement for annual rulemaking. This serves two purposes. First this 

recognizes the long planning horizon needed for advanced and cellulosic biofuel deployment. In 

addition, it ensures that the market barriers currently used to justify use of the general waiver 

are expected to be overcome and will not serve as a permanent cap on the volume of biofuels in 

the market.

5. The commenter supports the notice of intended action to enable a robust bioprocessing 

industry with co-processing, in which production can occur at multiple facilities while still 

generating RINs. This action can enable companies to leverage, share, and co-fund existing and 

new infrastructure to reduce cost. With extensive experience in GHG LCA analysis, the 

commenting agency can support EPA in determining GHG implications of co-processed 

products to ensure accurate accounting while meeting the intent of the rule.

------------------------------

6. The draft final standard requires 380 million gallon more than the blendwall. The proposed 

standard from May appears to have only required 310 gallons more than the blendwall. The 

incremental 70 million gallons is more than what would correspond to the increase in actual 

gasoline demand (which is incorporated into blendwall calculations).

a. How did EPA arrive at the 380 million gallons difference? Why not more/less? How 

does this correspond to the accounting on page 112 which has a difference of 1.12 vs. 

0.84 in the draft? Is that a better measure of stringency in the final vs. the draft?

b. What is the purpose of this greater stringency given that EPA does not expect the 

standard to lead to significantly more E85 penetration in 2016, has alternative levers to 

increase biodiesel production and imports, and wants to maintain a RIN buffer at 

current levels?

c. Congress certainly intended the RFS to breech the blendwall, but does EPA have reason 

to believe Congress intended to do this with conventional biofuels? How about with 

imported conventional biofuels? If it is not clear, then does EPA support this goal and 

pushing up total volumes a climate-friendly and economically efficient way to 

accomplish this?
--------------------------

7. The commenter requests EPA to revise the language concerning the Brazilian estimates due to 

their importance as a trade partner for ethanol. US exports to Brazil surged in 2015. One of the 

concerns with the current language is that it implies Brazilian ethanol would be less desirable in 

its RIN category in terms of GHG emissions. 

---------------------------

8. Please provide the following memos to the docket: 

Footnote 68 (p. 59) Projection of annual renewable fuel supply in 2015

Footnote 77 (p. 73) analysis of historical errors in projections of gasoline and distillate demand 

from EIA

Footnote 87 (p. 77) estimating e85 consumption in 2013

Footnote 90 (p. 79) an assessment of the impact of RIN prices on the retail price of e85

Footnote 94 (p. 82) estimating e0 use in recreational marine engines

Better yet, you might consider asking Peter thought that these memos are good enough.

9. p. 93: Suggest deleting “as relative currency valuations” since firms hedge against currency 

fluctuations with financial instruments.

-----------------------------

10. Based on the discussion presented below, the commenter suggests increasing the conventional 

gap by 200 million gallons; i.e., setting the conventional gap to 14.5 billion gallons to address 

the blendwall issue. EPA may want to consider increasing the non-advanced total to 14.5 bgal 

in 2016 to further incentivize pushing beyond the blendwall and a larger increase in the 2017 

biodiesel level to provide an easier path to showing continued progress in growing the 

advanced pot in years beyond 2016. As formulated now, it is more likely that the D6 RIN price 

will not be sufficient to encourage additional and growing levels of sales of higher blends nor 

the investments in infrastructure to facilitate the growing levels of second generation biofuels 

that are required in future years. By increasing the conventional gap by 200 million gallons, 

there will be increased emphasis on meeting the total with higher levels of blended ethanol.

EPA’s expressed interest in showing strong growth in advanced biofuels in future years paired 

with their concerns over biodiesel capacity that led to only a 100 million increase in 2017 has 

the potential to significantly limit the ability of EPA to increase the advanced biofuel volumes 

for 2017 (not set by the proposed rule) without driving significant increases in the import of 

advanced sugar cane ethanol. Without additional incentives to push past the blend wall – say 

by increasing the conventional levels (say to 14.5 bgal in 2016) – the proposed final level by 

EPA’s own logic will lead to a higher level of D6 renewable diesel (palm) for 2017 and out years 

to meet the conventional standard and increase exports of domestically produced ethanol.

a. The volumes for 2014 and 2015 are set in such a way as to be RIN neutral in terms of 

carry-out stocks. This approach, particularly for 2014, is consistent with their earlier 
approach as is their approach toward defining ‘available supplies’ as including the 

ability to retail and consume such fuels. In defining it this way they can, and do, switch 

between physical availability and their perception of potential consumption to set the 

standards for 2016. 

b. In setting the total standard, in essence setting the amount of fuel that can be consumed 

beyond the advanced mandate, EPA focus’ on ethanol use. From this EPA asserts a limit 

on E10 consumption, proposes an E85 consumption level. This is in effect sets ‘supply’ 

as their perceived limits of ‘demand.’ However, when it comes to the other portions of 

achieving the conventional renewable fuel standard of 15.0 billion gallons, they switch 

to actual physical supplies as the limiting factor. 

Table II.B.6-2

Meeting a 15.0 Billion Gallon Allowance for Conventional Renewable Fuel

with Both E85 and Biodiesel (million gallons)

E10 138,916a

E85 400b

Total ethanol 14,188

Non-ethanol (ethanol-equivalent) 812

Non-ethanol (biodiesel-equivalent) 540

Total renewable fuel 15,000

a This level is less than the amount of ethanol that can be 

used as E10 in all 2016 gasoline, because some of that 

gasoline is used in this scenario to make E85.

b Assumed to contain 74% denatured ethanol.

c. This approach to building up to the conventional volume seems to limit physical 

availability to US production with more limited import response in the case of D4 

imports and an explicit preference not to fill a higher conventional fuel allowance 

through D6 biodiesel, all of which is imported, despite EPA assertions the fuel origin is 

irrelevant and instead they appear to seek to limit D6 imports due to lower GHG scores 

of the fuel. So while it may be ‘obtainable’ they chose to shift these volumes into the 

advanced category while also citing physical availability of the fuel (before blending) as 

the constraint on setting mandates at a higher level. So despite those D6 fuels being 

available1, this fuel appears not to be allowed to contribute to a higher mandate despite 

physical availability. One could argue that the availability of this fuel to the market place 

should be incorporated into the setting of the total (and therefore conventional gap) of 

the mandate. 

d. When it comes to estimated potential consumption of ethanol in 2016 the error 

correction for 2014, which identified ethanol consumption being nearly 350 million 

gallons higher than EPA initially estimated, has no effect on EPA’s perception of 

potential consumption. That is to say, in this instance, estimated future consumption 

doesn’t seem to be guided by observations of how compliance and consumption are 

 

1 We know this fuel is available for import, if incentives are right, because it is being produced overseas, generates RINs 

which are only then available domestically when the fuel is imported. The creation of the RINs validates the fuels 

physical existence. 
today. For example, in the figure below, expectations for years beyond 2014 are not 

influenced by the fact that they had to make a significant (0.2%) increase in their 2014 

number from the proposed rule. 

Figure II.E.2-1

Ethanol Concentration of Gasoline

Source: EIA's Short Term Energy Outlook

e. In terms of E85 consumption, the EPA uses ‘demand’ as supply, but here the agency

examines actual E85 consumption at a national level and asserts that RIN prices are not 

passed through to consumers and therefore the mechanism which would incentivize 

additional E85 consumption through RIN prices is ineffective. This discussion which 

starts on page 74 differs from the proposed rule in that an examination of data from 

Minnesota2, perhaps the most complete E85 consumption data, was abandoned in the 

text of the final rule. The Minnesota data suggests that at the station level, high RIN 

prices did lead to discounting E85 to consumers and a significant increase in the volume 

of sales. As the RIN prices quickly returned to lower levels, the incentives disappeared 

and sales fell. This suggests that in fact the mechanism of pass through and consumer 

response does act as economic theory would suggest despite EPA assertions.3 The 

period over which conditions were sufficient to induce additional E85 consumption was 

as short as a few months and indeed not all stations lowered prices. At a national level 

and over a longer period of time, such actions are likely masked in the data. The EPA 

seems aware that such response takes time:

 

2 https://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/2015-09Sept-E85.pdf

3 EPA states on page 75: EPA examined available data in an attempt to determine whether or not higher RIN prices 

resulted in lower E85 prices at retail, and whether lower E85 retail prices lead to substantial increases in E85 sales, as 

economic theory would suggest would be the case when FFV owners receive better value for purchasing E85 rather than 

E10. 

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

E10 blendwall
 

(Pg 30). “...In the longer term, sustained ambitious volume requirements are necessary to 

provide the certainty of a guaranteed future market that is needed by investors; the 

development of new technology won't occur unless there is clear profit potential, and it 

requires multiple years to build new production, distribution, and consumption capacity...”

f. Such adjustments in the E85 market appear to be judged on a different scale. Further 

the annualized approach to E85 ‘supply’ (consumption) ignores the significant 

seasonality in E85 use. If ‘supply’ is evaluated as the ability to consume, then such an 

ability to consume should be judged on a shorter time frame. E85 consumption in 2013, 

a year with significant volatility in RIN prices, was three times higher in August (near 

the highs of RIN prices) than it was in January of the same year. To judge the ability of 

the market to consume E85 on the average of those 12 months vs the reality of the 

markets ability to consume E85 at peak demand, further skews the analysis to favor 

lower estimated E85 ‘supply’.4 EPA backs away from using E85 to expand renewable 

fuel use but asserts there is no specific support for it. 

(Pg 49) “...However, this general responsibility does not require obligated parties to take 

actions specific to E15 and/or E85 infrastructure, as the RFS program does not require 

ethanol specifically...”

g. The period of analysis for statements by EPA such as “Although 150 million gallons is 

about twice as high as the estimate provided by EIA, it still does not indicate an overall 

preference among FFV owners for E85 when E85 has been available. Indeed, based on 

other comments received it is clear that the experience at retail has been mixed,“ are at 

too aggregated a level and over to aggregated period of time to fully explore what is a 

fairly new market dynamic, much of the total and conventional mandate levels are built 

on this assumption by EPA. EPA also comments on a primary constraint being E85 

station availability, here they seem open to further expansion, noting USDA involvement 

in infrastructure investment5. The concern is of course the circularity of the argument 

as RFS levels which are insufficient to drive E85 consumption result in low levels of E85 

consumption which then lead to lower mandate levels. A closer examination of the 

economic incentives at a more micro scale may suggest greater consumer response and 

justify a more aggressive approach. Again the Minnesota data analysis in the proposed 

rule was dropped in the final. The commenter suggests that EPA incorporate the 

distinction about national level and regional level consumption patterns in the final text 

to allow for the notion that E85 sales can be responsive to RIN prices as evidenced by 

the MN experience. Note also that EIA projects E85 sales in the AEO to be in excess of 

300 mgal (or 270+ million gallons of ethanol content).

 

4 EPA states on page 77: All stakeholders agreed that actual sales of E85 in the past have been low. A number of parties 

referenced certain E85 estimates from EIA of about 77 million gallons in 2014. 

5 EPA states on page 78: A number of stakeholders cited a recent grant program sponsored by USDA that is designed to 

provide a total of $100 million for updated and expanded infrastructure at retail for higher level ethanol blends.5 This is 

an important program that not only demonstrates the U.S. commitment to expanding the use of renewable fuels, but 

helps to boost private investment in infrastructure by providing matching funds. It will undoubtedly increase the 

number of retail stations offering E85, but it is unclear how many new E85 stations would result from it in 2016. 
h. The availability of biodiesel and renewable diesel from grandfathered plants overseas 

seems to factor in the allocation of volumes to mandates (shifting it from conventional 

to advanced classifications) instead of being additive to the mandates. That is their 

availability (as determined by RIN generation, not necessarily shipments to the US) is 

ignored and not additive to the mandate but instead this fuel availability is now 

determined by overseas policies, exchange rates and economic incentives to ship to the 

US. 

Figure II.E.3.iii-1

Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Imports and Exports (2011-2015)

“...Nevertheless, as evidenced in 2015 we have clearly been experiencing some upward growth 

in imports of biodiesel and renewable diesel. Much of the increase in biodiesel imports in 2015 

has been from grandfathered facilities that are exempt from the 20% lifecycle GHG reduction 

requirement. Fuel from these facilities qualifies for D6 RINs that can be used to satisfy the 

total renewable fuel standard...” 

On biodiesel imports from Argentina (text below) one has to understand that the data 

shown represent import data, that is the monthly data are for when the product arrived at 

US ports. One could expect a significant lag from the announcement of a new policy and the 

arrival of significant volumes. 
Figure II.E.3.iii-1

Imports of Biodiesel from Argentina

Source: Energy Information Administration

“...Additionally, the annualized volume of imported Argentinean biodiesel for 2015, based on 

data collected through July, is 94 million gallons. This level is far less that the potential 

volumes projected by the National Biodiesel Board and several others. Brazil has also just 

recently proposed increasing its biodiesel mandate from 7% to 8% in 2016, which may provide 

another attractive destination for exports of Argentinean biodiesel.6 Finally, Argentina has 

changed the applicable tax on exported biodiesel several times since the beginning of 2015, 

highlighting the uncertainty associated with projecting potential future imports into the U.S.7 

Based on these facts, we believe that the volume of biodiesel and renewable diesel imported 

from Argentina in 2016 is likely to be far less than the several hundred million gallons 

suggested by some commenters...”

 

6 "Brazil Proposes Raising Biodiesel Mandate To B10," docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.

7 "Argentina changes biodiesel export tax - Biofuels Digest," docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
i. A comparison of the following tables suggests that the EPA expects imports of 300 

million gallons (2,500-2,200) of D6 biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016 (or as much 

as 450 million D6 RIN equivalents). 

11. Table II.E.5-1

Volumes Used To Determine Total Renewable Fuel Supply in 2016

Volume (million gallons) Million RINs

Ethanol 14,051 14,051

Biodiesel and renewable diesel 2,500 3,750

Biogas 210 210

Other non-ethanol renewable fuels 100 100

Total 16,861 18,100a

a We believe it is reasonable to round the sum of 18.11 to 18.10 bill gal.

Table II.F-1

Volumes Used To Determine Advanced Biofuel Supply in 2016

Volume (million gallons) Million RINs

Cellulosic biofuel 230 230

Biodiesel and renewable diesel 2,200 3,300

Imported sugarcane ethanol 200 200

Other non-ethanol 100 100

Total 2,630 3,800a

a We believe it is reasonable to round the sum of 3.83 to 3.80 bill gal.

Those levels suggest that meeting the D6 obligation of approximately 14.3 billion gallons, would 

come from essentially ethanol in E10 that is not advanced, or about 13.85 million gallons, and 

about 450 million gallons of D6 biodiesel and renewable diesel. Imported sugarcane ethanol 

would effectively (at 200 million gallons) meet the E85 assumed sales in 2016 --- a lower level 

than projected by EIA. 

11. (Pg 31) The commenter also suggested deleting the entirety of or the last part of the following 

text: 

“...Constraints on the availability of biodiesel to U.S. consumers could include competing uses for 

feedstocks, international competition for biodiesel, the inconsistent nature of the biodiesel subsidy, 

limited investments to ensure quantity and quality of biodiesel product, limited infrastructure to 

distribute and blend biodiesel, and the limited ability of the market to consume biodiesel...”

12. (Pg 46) Provide additional justification of this statement from the literature. The underlined 

text seems very particularly speculative as written:

“... Just as importantly, biodiesel volumes on the order of 5.5 billion physical gallons in 2016 are far 

in excess of what could actually be consumed in this short timeframe. This volume of BBD would 

constitute about 10% of the diesel pool in 2016.[1] Although most medium and heavy-duty engine 

manufacturers warrant the use of blends up to B20 in their more recent models, some light-duty 

engine manufacturers do not, and many highway and nonroad diesel engines that were produced 

in the past but are still in use today are warranted for no more than 5% biodiesel.[2] Also, as 

pointed out by CountryMark Cooperative Holding Corporation, biodiesel concentrations in the 

winter months are sometimes kept to lower levels by engine owners due to cold weather 
operability and storage concerns, and some parties avoid selling biodiesel at all during winter 

months. Constraints on the use of biodiesel at concentrations above 5% due to engine warranty 

limitations, plus resistance on the part of some parties to using biodiesel in winter months, means 

that a nationwide average of 10% biodiesel in the diesel pool, for an entire calendar year, is not 

reasonably achievable in 2016. We acknowledge that the National Biodiesel Board has extensive 

efforts underway working with the vehicle and engine manufacturers to continue to expand 

product offerings capable of operating on B20, working with their membership to improve fuel 

quality, expanding infrastructure to address cold temperature issues, and working with dealers 

and technicians to clear away obstacles standing in the way of expanding biodiesel acceptance in 

the marketplace.[3] There are also efforts to increase the use of biodiesel in heating oil. These will 

continue to bear fruit, allowing the biodiesel volume to continue to rise over time, but not to the 

levels that would be needed in 2016 if 5.5 billion gallons of biodiesel were to be required... “

13. (Pg 48) Same as above. Provide additional justification of these statements:

“...Even if some portion of the increase were supplied from imports, the total volume of biodiesel 

supplied to diesel engines would more than double in comparison to that supplied in 2014, 

requiring that distribution, blending, storage, and dispensing routes would need to be expanded in 

an extremely short period. We do not believe that this is possible in 2016. As a result, we do not 

believe that the statutory target for advanced biofuel can be met in 2016...”

14. (Pg 97) This language seems to contradict – how can infrastructure be constraining if EPA is 

simultaneously pointing out examples where the infrastructure is clearly not the problem? For 

example, the background data is not supporting the statement that “suggest that increasing the 

number of refueling stations offering biodiesel blends could be a significant constraining factor to 

the supply of biodiesel in 2016.”

“...There is some indication that the number of refueling stations willing or able to market 

biodiesel may become a factor that constrains the growth of biodiesel supply in the United States, 

either in 2016 or in future years. A number of retail locations that market diesel fuel are only 

offering biodiesel blends that exceed 5% (B5), which is the maximum amount of biodiesel for 

which many diesel vehicles are warranted. For example, the LOVES truck stop chain is a major 

retailers of biodiesel. A recent review of their website indicated that 221 of their 354 stations were 

selling B15. This is despite the fact that many of the newer, and especially the older heavy-duty 

diesel truck engines were only designed and warranted for biodiesel blends up to B5. Similarly, in 

the state of Illinois nearly all sales of biodiesel blends are reported to be at B11 in order to benefit 

from the state tax subsidy, despite the fact that not all vehicles and engines have been designed 

and warranted for its use. This may suggest that increasing the number of refueling stations 

offering biodiesel blends could be a significant constraining factor to the supply of biodiesel in 

2016. Were more retail outlets willing and able to dispense biodiesel, then, existing volumes of 

biodiesel could be distributed at concentrations B5 or less without raising any warranty 

concerns...”

15. The GHG benefits of advanced biofuels relative to conventional biofuels are likely overstated. 

EPA has not updated the analysis of the GHG benefits of conventional biofuels since the RFS was 

put into place. There have been significant improvements in technology and initial concerns of 

GHG from indirect-land use change have not materialized. 

More generally, the EPA assumption that corn ethanol has lower GHG benefits than advanced 

biofuels is based on the conclusion of the life cycle analysis (LCA) that it conducted on corn 
ethanol in as part of the 2010 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the RFS2. This LCA was done in 

2010 and so it reflects a projection of the direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with a 

state-of-the-art natural gas powered ethanol refinery in 2022. The LCA projected 2022 

emissions for the following 11 components of corn ethanol production. 

1. Domestic farm inputs and fertilizer N2O

2. Domestic land-use change

3. Domestic rice methane

4. Domestic livestock

5. International land-use change

6. International farm inputs and fertilizer N2O

7. International rice methane

8. International livestock

9. Fuel and feedstock transport

10. Fuel production

11. Tailpipe

Since 2010,the commenter has new data, improved model capabilities, and empirical studies 

that strongly support the position that corn ethanol is currently on an emissions pathway that is 

much more positive, and will result in a much improved GHG profile in 2022 than was 

determined in EPA’s RIA. For example, with respect to component 5, new data shows that 

between 2003 and 2010 deforestation in the Amazon fell four-fold while U.S. corn ethanol 

production increased four-fold (deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon was the largest component of 

indirect land-use change emissions in the LCA). Similarly, with respect to components 1,6,7,9 

and 10, emissions are estimated using coefficients and other inputs from the Argonne National 

Laboratory’s GREET model. The GREET model has been significantly revised and updated since 

2010. Finally, with respect to components 2 and 5, recent work by Babcock and Iqbal (see: 

(www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/14sr109.pdf ) conclude the primary land-use 

adjustment made by farmers both within the U.S. and internationally to the increased U.S. and 

global demands for (non-palm oil) biofuels was to use existing cropland more intensively 

(including increased double cropping and farm chemical use. Intensification of existing 

cropland was not considered in the EPA 2010 LCA. 

USDA suggests EPA provide some caveats indicating that the lifecycle analyses of petroleum 

fuels and biofuels have likely changed since the 2010 rulemaking and that additional review 

and study is warranted in the near future to assess changes to key parameters used in the 2010 

assessment.

12. What does EPA plan for resetting the mandates in the future? Future investment and growth in 

biofuels capacity and demand will depend on the signals sent by EPA regarding how the 

statutory levels will be reset sometime in the relatively near future. Section I. D. is missing 

discussion of waiver requirements and resetting of the statutory standards.

13. In discussing the reasons why biofuels have not reached the levels mandated in the RFS2, there 

is no mention of the large drop in the price of petroleum since 2010 (when EISA was passed) or 

the increased domestic and Canadian production of natural gas and petroleum. For example, 

Table II.E.1-1 does not mention petroleum prices. Please provide a discussion of the impact of 

petroleum prices and compliance with the mandate and sales of higher level blends.
14. With respect to Pg 24, please confirm that USDA has provided EPA the values they plan to insert 

for the XXX’s in the following: 

“...Based on data provided by the USDA, we have estimated that U.S. agricultural land reached 

XXX million acres in 2014, and thus did not exceed the 2007 baseline acreage...” (the 2007 

baseline acreage was given as 402 million acres on page 23). 

“...The total agricultural land in Canada in 2014 is estimated at XXX million acres. The total 

acreage estimate of XXX million acres does not exceed the trigger point for further 

investigation...” (should also add a footnote clarifying this “trigger point”) 

15. The commenter recently provided the EPA data on land use on Agricultural Cropland (FSA 

sourced), acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP and FSA sourced), the 

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and the Agriculture 

Conservation Easement Program for Wetlands Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE) and 

Agriculture Land Easements (ACEP-ALE). The commenter would like to see the estimates of 

agriculture land based on the data provided for 2014 and 2015.

Further, the 2014 Farm Bill terminated the WRP and GRP as of 2013 and initiated the 

Agriculture Conservation Easement Program with “Wetlands Reserve” and “Agriculture Land” 

easements. As a consequence the ACEP-WRE and ACEP-ALE represent a continuation in basic 

objectives and goals of the original WRP and GRP and acreage enrolled in the easement 

programs would represent a good/fair proxy of WRP and GRP acreage. Text should reflect this 

modification in methodology.

16. (Pg 31) EPA writes that “...Constraints on the availability of biodiesel to U.S. consumers could 

include competing uses for feedstocks, international competition for biodiesel, the inconsistent 

nature of the biodiesel subsidy, limited investments to ensure quantity and quality of biodiesel 

product, limited infrastructure to distribute and blend biodiesel, and the limited ability of the 

market to consume biodiesel...” We assume that the biodiesel subsidy referenced here is the 

Federal excise tax credit for biodiesel blending. The D4, D5, and/or D6 RIN values can function 

in place of the blending tax credit, but only if the volume obligations are set to require high 

utilization of existing capacity.

17. (Pg45) The scenarios presented in Tables II.B-5-1 and II.B.5-2 do not consider the potential for 

additional renewable diesel to meet the statutory targets for total renewable fuel and advanced 

biofuel. Renewable diesel uses the same raw materials as biodiesel but does not have any coldweather operability issues and can be used at much higher blend levels (as much as 100%) in 

existing diesel engines than can use biodiesel. As of September 2015, there are 1.3 billion 

gallons of renewable diesel capacity worldwide. See 

http://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/flightpaths_biojetffuel.pdf, p. 15.

18. (Pg 130) EPA writes that “...Total domestic production of BBD was 1.45 billion gallons (2.19 

billion RINs), while imports resulted in an additional 0.34 billion gallons (0.55 billion RINs)...” The 

volume is EIA’s reported total Biomass-based Diesel imports for 2013. The resulting number of 

RINs is calculated incorrectly. 0.34 billion gallons of biodiesel * 1.5 RINs per gallon = 0.51 

billion RINs. Furthermore, EIA uses slightly different names for diesel fuel substitutes than 

EPA; imports of Biomass-based Diesel consist only of FAME biodiesel. Diesel fuel from 

renewable sources other than FAME such as hydrotreated vegetable oil are reported by EIA as 

Other Renewable Diesel. To get at EPA’s definition of Biomass-based Diesel, EIA’s imports of 
Other Renewable Diesel needs to be considered as well. EIA reports that imports of renewable 

diesel, which generated both D4 and D6 RINs, were 207 million gallons in 2013.